Ministry of Justice areas of research interest 2025

Question 1

Foreword

Accepted Answer

When we published our previous Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Areas of Research Interest (ARI) in late 2020, our ambition was to set the precedent across government with our approach to academic engagement. We wanted to demonstrate what could be achieved when you work transparently and collaboratively beyond government boundaries.

To maximise the impact of evidence for robust decision-making, it is imperative we don’t work in silo from the wealth of expertise and knowledge beyond our four walls. Only by drawing on the latest national and international evidence and engaging with academic experts, can we ensure that the most powerful analytical insights shape our work.

This is why we established the MOJ’s first Evidence and Partnerships Hub. The Hub reflects MOJ’s commitment to working in partnership with academics, research networks and funders to enhance our decision-making. It was set up to support colleagues across MOJ to maximise the use of evidence that already exists, to identify where our evidence was lacking, and to work in partnership with external networks to develop the evidence base where it could have most impact for policy and practice.

I am proud to say, a few years on, we are successfully delivering against our original vision. The ARI has been the foundation of our wider partnerships approach. Since publication, the Hub has facilitated new collaboration opportunities, including knowledge exchange and fellowships, generated powerful new evidence against our priorities, and embedded innovative ways of working.

Some of our successful initiatives have included:

Implementing a range of research fellowships and secondments, from three-month PhD student placements to 18-month embedded policy fellowships. Embedding academics within MOJ teams means research is relevant, timely, shaped by specialist expertise and findings can directly reach decision-makers. It also means academic researchers are given the opportunity to work in a policy-facing environment. Our academic partners have generated new and impactful evidence across departmental priorities including the effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring in reducing reoffending and the use of in-cell technology.
Establishing a diverse Academic Network, with over 400 experts across justice and methodological disciplines, enabling us to use specialist insights to tackle evidence-based policy or operational challenges. The Network has enabled MOJ to draw on diverse expertise – from early career to more established academic researchers, from a breadth of institutions across England, Wales and internationally – making sure our work is shaped by a range of well-rounded perspectives.
Running a monthly ARI seminar series, for academic partners to present their latest research and discuss implications for policy and practice with colleagues across MOJ. These highly popular seminars demonstrate the appetite for academic knowledge across the department and often lead to further collaborations.
Facilitating critical new partnerships with research funders and councils, to generate interest in justice research, support exciting new external research agendas and build capability within the research community. We have been fortunate enough to work alongside a range of partners, including UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Nuffield Foundation, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), the Evaluation Taskforce, Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) and the Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN).
Our flagship data-linkage programme, Data First, funded by Administrative Data Research UK (ADR UK) has gone from strength to strength, enabling academic researchers to access justice data to explore novel and complex research questions that have not been possible before. We have now shared nine datasets, linking people and cases from across the civil, family and criminal courts, prisons and probation services, as well as a datashare with the Department for Education. We have facilitated over 60 academic research projects using this data – leading to robust new insights across priority areas, such as ethnic disparities in the justice system and the intersection of care and criminal justice proceedings. Our exceptional collaboration with partners through Data First was recognised in an Analysis in Government Award in 2024.

We have strived for our partnership approaches to be delivered in innovative, creative and inclusive ways. New evidence and collaborations generated via the Hub have been shared in podcasts and blogs; via roundtable events with academic experts, policymakers, analysts and Ministers; and at external events alongside people with lived experience.

The Hub’s meaningful partnerships have meant reaching out and incorporating academic knowledge is becoming an integral and embedded way of working across the department. Of course, we want and need to go further. MOJ has a complex policy remit and a challenging operational landscape. Whilst we have made great progress in developing the evidence in critical areas, and unblocking barriers to research and data access, some of the research gaps and challenges we outlined in 2020 remain. There are also new priorities as we play a key role in supporting the Government’s Missions (Safer Streets and Opportunities, in particular).

This leads me, finally, to say thank you to the academic researchers, knowledge brokers, research councils and funders who we have collaborated with over the last five years. We really appreciate your invaluable time, expertise and appetite to engage with us, and look forward to continuing to work together as we enhance the way data and evidence are used to improve justice outcomes.

Alexy Buck

Chief Social Researcher, Ministry of Justice

Question 2

Introduction

Accepted Answer

The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Areas of Research Interest (ARI) summarises the most important research questions facing the department over the next three to five years. The ARI provides a foundation for engagement and collaborations with academic experts and research networks to drive forward new research that can have the most impact for policy and operational decision-making.

High-level evidence priorities have been structured around the department’s strategic objectives for the justice system:

1. Rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system by:

a. Protecting the public and reducing reoffending with a sustainable and effective prisons and probation service
b. Ensuring timely, just outcomes for victims and defendants through a modern and efficient criminal courts system

2. Uphold the rule of law at home and abroad and promote our world-leading legal services that contribute to economic growth

3. Deliver accessible and timely civil, family, and administrative justice.

The themes and research questions underpinning each strategic outcome were developed via a comprehensive assessment of the evidence landscape across the department’s policy remit. The ARI sets out important cross-cutting themes and system-wide challenges where MOJ welcomes new research and evidence synthesis. Whilst some areas of interest remain similar to the 2020 MOJ ARI, new themes have also emerged.

The scope of MOJ research interests spans a broad range of policy and operational areas. This document provides an intentionally high-level statement of evidence priorities and is not intended to be an exhaustive or definitive list. The evidence base and departmental evidence requirements are continuously evolving so ongoing engagement between the department and external research community is vital.

STEM, Digital, and Sustainability

Since the publication of the 2020 ARI, the MOJ has set up a central Science Office function and capability, with a focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research areas. STEM research contributes to many of the departmental priorities, including a broad range of research disciplines across the natural and physical sciences. These include emerging technology, illicit substance detection, digital and traditional forensic science, behavioural sciences, biosecurity, climate change adaptation, and environmental monitoring.

The MOJ also has a significant focus on digital transformation and service delivery, including the use of emerging technology, digitisation, and artificial intelligence (AI). Research in these areas has substantial potential to drive efficiency and deliver improved public services. The MOJ Digital 2025 strategy was published in 2022 and sets out strategic themes and outcomes in this space^{[footnote 1]}.

The MOJ has the second largest estate in government. In 2022 MOJ and its agencies represented over 20% of government’s carbon emissions, water consumption and waste footprint. Departmental work to address sustainability and climate change is guided by five strategies published in 2023^{[footnote 2]}. Research here remains a significant interest for the department.

STEM research questions are embedded within the relevant thematic areas in this document, rather than drawn out into a separate standalone section, as questions frequently cut across STEM and social research areas.

Question 3

Protect the public and reduce reoffending with a sustainable and effective prison and probation service

Accepted Answer

The objective for MOJ is to develop a sustainable and effective prison and probation service that protects the public, delivers interventions that break the cycle of reoffending and rebuilds confidence in the criminal justice system. We want to divert adults, children and young people away from crime. Our evidence interests span a range of areas through all stages of the justice system, with a particular focus on improving holistic systems-wide understanding of what works to improve outcomes. Key areas of interest include:

Implementation and impact of recommendations taken forward in response to the Independent Sentencing Review.
Effectiveness of electronic monitoring; and probation services, including enablers and barriers to delivery and the scope to harness new digital tools.
Impact of prison design and regime on prisoner and staff outcomes, including environmental factors and role of technology.
What works to reduce reoffending, including specific interventions, holistic support and optimum sequencing and targeting.

For each area of research, we are interested in understanding experiences and outcomes for different population cohorts and characteristics, for example age, gender, sexuality, mental and physical health, neurodiversity and cultural background, as well as prisoner status, such as those on remand or recall. We have included a distinct section on the youth justice system to reflect specific priorities here.

Out of Court Resolutions, remand and sentencing

How do legislative changes affect sentencing behaviour? How might legislative changes have unintended consequences?
Do legislative changes to sentencing, such as to minimum or maximum sentences, have a deterrent effect on crime?
Which factors affect the likelihood of different groups receiving Out of Court Resolutions (OOCR), court bail or remand, different non-custodial sentences, or different custodial sentence lengths?
What factors, such as local availability of probation services or complexity of needs, impact the likelihood of different groups receiving different community sentence lengths and/or requirements?
What are the enablers and barriers to effective OOCR, court bail and Community Order and Suspended Sentence Order sentences?
What is the impact of time on remand on sentence progression for those remaining in custody following sentencing, for example engagement in purposeful activity?
What are the financial and reoffending impacts of a fine, as a standalone disposal or combined with other disposals?
When, why and how can Community Orders and Suspended Sentence Orders be most effective at reducing reoffending?
What is the impact of residential community provision on reoffending and wider outcomes such as health, education, employment, wellbeing and outcomes for affected children?
What sentences are most effective at supporting desistance and reducing reoffending by prolific offenders?
What are the effects of indeterminate and long determinate custodial sentences on deterrence from crime? What are the effects of long custodial sentences on the offender, outcomes on release and public protection?
What is effective in improving public awareness, knowledge of, and confidence in criminal sentencing practice?

Release

How do changes to release points affect resettlement and reoffending outcomes, recall likelihood, and risks to public protection?
How do Parole Board decisions affect individual outcomes on release and risks to public protection? What is the impact of review timeliness for prisoners?
What is the impact of home detention curfew in advance of custodial sentence completion, for different cohorts? Both in relation to individual outcomes and risk to public protection?

Electronic monitoring

Do individuals experience a deterrent effect from wearing an electronic monitoring tag device, and if so, what do we know about the causal mechanisms?
What is the effect of GPS location monitoring and alcohol abstinence monitoring (as part of a community sentence) on reducing reoffending?
How does electronic monitoring impact an individual’s quality of life and outcomes? For example, contact with risky settings and anti-social peers, family relationships, mental health, employment, and ability to address root causes of offending, such as substance misuse.
Do individuals subject to electronic monitoring face any barriers to rehabilitation, and how can these be mitigated?
Which electronic monitoring technology is the most beneficial, for whom, and under which circumstances? How can the technology be optimised both in terms of delivery and improving outcomes?
What combination of probation requirements and conditions are most effective at improving compliance with electronic monitoring, and in reducing reoffending?
How does the period of time a person is subject to electronic monitoring affect offending and wider behaviour, and to what extent do benefits persist after monitoring has ended?
How does electronic monitoring affect victims’ experiences and public confidence?

Risk management and effective probation

What is the effectiveness, impact and value for money of different services delivered by Probation Services under the unified model, including unpaid work, supervision and rehabilitative activities?
What do we know about the long-term effectiveness of probation sentence management for different cohorts?
What works to maximise the effectiveness of probation service delivery at different levels of intervention (for example frequency of appointments)? What level of intervention are most appropriate for different cohorts?
What are the enablers and barriers to effective implementation of probation interventions and services?
How can digital tools and technological solutions be used to support management and engagement with people under probation supervision?
What works to facilitate effective multi-agency working, to ensure that individuals under probation supervision get the right support?
To what extent does incentivisation work to improve compliance, behaviour and outcomes for individuals under probation supervision?

Prison estate and operation

What is the impact of specific prison design features on prisoner and staff outcomes (including, for example, wellbeing, engagement in purposeful activity, employment and reoffending)?
What is the impact of trauma-informed prison design in women’s prisons?
What is the impact of environmental factors (for example, overheating, air quality, noise and green space), on health and wellbeing of prisoners and staff, including for vulnerable prisoner cohorts?
How can we deploy technology to manage our estate and reduce our carbon emissions?
How can we maximise resilience of the prison estate to the impacts of natural hazards and climate change?
How can we maximise placing sustainability at the forefront of all facilities management activities, enabling positive environmental outcomes?
What impact do ‘decent conditions’ in prisons have on outcomes for prisoners and staff? For example, on levels of violence, educational and wellbeing outcomes.
What impact does digital technology in prisons have on relationships between prisoners and people living outside prison, for example friends, family and legal representatives? How are different forms of digital communication experienced by prisoners and those living outside?
What is the impact of digital technology on staff-prisoner relationships?
What impact does in-cell technology have on digital literacy and digital confidence among prisoners?
What are the future digital opportunities for the prison system, including technology and AI, which could be safely and securely used by prison staff and prisoners to improve the criminal justice system?
How can the health of a prison population be monitored? What is the role of wastewater-based surveillance in monitoring prisons for pathogens, health biomarkers and illicit substance use? What are the ethical considerations around the use of these methodologies?

Prison safety and security

What works to reduce violence and self-harm in the prison estate (including specific interventions, physical security measures, and wider factors such as physical activity and nutrition)? How does this differ by prison function and for different cohorts?
What is the impact of specific illicit items on prison safety, for example novel psychoactive substances?
What works to prevent novel psychoactive substance conveyance and use across the estate?
How do we detect illicit items such as mobile phones, weapons and drugs in prisons? Which detection methods are accurate, timely and less labour intensive? How do we prevent drones from conveying illicit items into prisons, and detect and deter illegal drone usage?
How can prisons adapt to changing threats in security, including organised crime and emerging technologies such as drones?
How can emerging technologies support security and safety of prisons, including technologies such as wearable tech, biometric security systems, virtual reality training, and predictive analytics?

Reducing reoffending

Defining and measuring reoffending

How can we expand our measurement of reoffending, to consider change across stages of desistance? How might we measure that change to map progress, for example, longitudinal analysis of sustainability of accommodation, employment or family support?
How can the process of desistance be effectively defined, measured and assessed?
What in-prison behaviours are effective predictors of reoffending behaviour?

Effectiveness of interventions

Which specific education, employment, accommodation and substance misuse interventions work to reduce reoffending, for whom and how?
What is the cost effectiveness of interventions to reduce reoffending, including upstream interventions?
What do we know about the effectiveness of wider interventions, such as those to address finance, benefits and debt, community ties and mental health support in reducing reoffending?
What holistic individualised support works to reduce reoffending, for whom and how?
What is the impact of early interventions, including diversion, on offending and reoffending outcomes (including specifically for female offenders)?
What works best to improve literacy among adult learners?

Sequencing and targeting

What is the optimum sequencing, interaction or combination of interventions to reduce reoffending, accounting for the cumulative impact?
When is the optimal time to intervene to reduce the likelihood of at-risk offenders from (re)-offending, and with what interventions?
For which cohorts of offenders would investment in rehabilitation deliver the maximum reduction in re-offences?
How can interventions be better targeted and prioritised for specific groups to achieve best value for money?

Supporting factors

Building on understanding of the behavioural drivers of reoffending, how can behavioural science be used to support rehabilitation?
What factors influence the quality of intervention delivery, and what works to maintain and maximise quality?
What works to deliver effective end-to-end services across custody and community settings to support resettlement and desistance?
How can factors such as prison environment, regime and quality of relationships with prison and probation staff best support the delivery of interventions and programmes which aim to reduce reoffending?
What are the links between programme attrition, responsivity factors and effects on reducing reoffending?
What are the reasons for disparities in resettlement outcomes, including, housing, employment and continuity of care, for different cohorts?
What is the impact of parental imprisonment on dependent children, and how can they be most effectively supported? How does this differ for maternal and paternal imprisonment?

Offender health

How can we improve our understanding of the prevalence of physical and mental health needs among different cohorts and at different stages of a sentence? How can those needs be addressed or supported in prison and probation settings?
How do health inequalities impact on engagement with justice-based interventions such as court hearings, community sentences and interventions in prison?
What health-based interventions can improve outcomes for those in contact with the criminal justice system?
What is the most effective way to support offenders with substance misuse problems with their rehabilitation, including through the custody-to-community transition? How can health and justice data be used to better understand the impact of substance misuse treatment on outcomes?
How will prisoners be affected by changing drug threats, such as synthetic opioids including nitazenes? What interventions are most effective at tackling this threat?
How could advances in technologies be used for monitoring the health and wellbeing status of prisoners, especially those recovering from addiction?
What public health surveillance approaches can be applied at the prison level to a health picture that is representative of a prison as a whole?

Youth justice

How can the effectiveness of youth diversion activity be assessed, including long-term outcomes for children who have been diverted from the youth justice system?
What works to enable early identification of children at risk of specific profiles of offending, such as prolific and serious violent offending, to better target services and interventions?
How can we better understand levels of crime committed by children and the effect of interventions beyond proven (re-)offending rates?
What types of youth justice interventions and disposals work best to reduce (re)offending and promote positive life outcomes for children, for whom, under which circumstances and why? For example, are there critical intervention points and do some approaches work better for children with specific characteristics or backgrounds? Are offence-specific interventions effective, for example, in relation to violence against women and girls, and knife-crime?
What is the relative cost effectiveness of youth justice interventions?
How can we better understand complex journeys through the youth justice and family justice systems, including interactions with the wider network of children’s services?
What are the links between child exploitation and abuse and youth offending?
How can disparities in the youth justice system be addressed? Why are some children criminalised and others are not?
How much impact does adopting a Child First approach have on improving outcomes for children and supporting pro-social identity?
What are the barriers and enablers to delivering evidence-based practice in youth justice, including Child First approaches? Which delivery models and structures are most effective?
What does a successful youth justice system look like for different groups, including victims, children, and the public? What factors can be used to measure success?

Staff and workforce

What works to recruit and retain prison and probation staff?
What are the training needs for prison and probation staff to deliver effective supervision and interventions?
What is the impact of the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) training on probation delivery and performance?
What is the optimal caseload to deliver supervision that protects the public and rehabilitates people on probation?
How does staff confidence influence intervention delivery and effectiveness in the community and in prison settings? What other staffing factors influence this?
How and why does staff experience impact on levels of violence in prison? How do staff build relationships with prisoners?

Question 4

Ensure timely, just outcomes for victims and defendants through a modern and efficient criminal courts system

Accepted Answer

The objective for MOJ goal is to deliver a modern, sustainable and resilient criminal justice system, which ensures timely progression of cases through the courts and supports victims and witnesses to engage with, and feel confident in, the justice system. We want to strengthen our understanding of what works to achieve these aims at each stage. Key areas of interest include:

Flows into the courts system and what works to improve the efficiency of case progression.
Understanding case complexity through all stages of the criminal justice system, and the impact of complexity on justice outcomes.
User experiences, engagement and confidence in the justice system.
Effectiveness of interventions and services to support victims and witnesses, including victims of serious sexual violence.

Several areas of research relating to courts apply across the justice system (criminal, family, civil and tribunals) jurisdictions, reflected in the cross-jurisdiction section.

Modern and efficient court system

Cross-jurisdiction areas of interest

What factors drive disparities in outcomes at different stages of the court journey? How does intersectionality impact upon this?
What are the needs and experiences of different groups of vulnerable users within the court system?
How can we better understand flows into the courts system and improve forecasts of case volumes?
How can we better understand complex user journeys through the court system, including particular barriers and ‘pain points’?
How should case complexity be defined and measured? What impact does case complexity have on justice outcomes, and how might management of complex cases be improved?
How can we measure the quality of case outcomes across different jurisdictions, types of cases, and for the individuals and organisations involved?
How does procedural justice and (subjective) fairness vary by jurisdiction, and protected characteristics? What is effective in improving user perceptions of procedural justice and fairness?
How have court and tribunal modernisation reforms such as digitisation, new support services and remote hearings, affected access to justice and administrative outcomes? Are there differences in justice outcomes in relation to online compared to face-to-face processes?
What are people’s experiences of open justice, for example, remote observation of hearings, accessing sentencing remarks online, and publicly available documents? How does this impact access to justice and confidence in the justice system?
What role, if any, could digital, automation, data analytics and machine learning solutions have in supporting court decision-making and wider operation of the courts?
Are there differences for those using a paper journey rather than a digital journey, for example in justice and administrative outcomes, case duration, case type and complexity? Do paper users differ from digital users in terms of protected characteristics or digital capability? Why do users choose to use paper over digital channels?
What types of support do different groups of court users need to access and participate in the court process? How does the type of support needed vary by type of case or offence?
How can we measure user engagement with civil, family and tribunal cases, and what are the drivers? How can we facilitate and increase user engagement? What is the impact of user engagement?
To what extent do court users understand the decisions they receive?
How does contact with the court system impact upon confidence in the justice system?
What do we know about users’ expectations of the courts system? What additional information would prospective users find helpful to improve confidence in the justice system?

Criminal court system

To what extent do pre-court factors (such as type of evidence gathered, investigation and charge procedures and case file quality) influence the journey through the court system? For example, impacts on plea behaviour, timeliness, trial outcomes and case attrition.
What works, at which stage, and for whom, to improve the efficiency of case progression? How can we better understand the barriers Crown Courts face in improving case progression and productivity of the court?
What are the reasons for case attrition and what works to avoid it, for different case types? What proportion of victims drop out of the Criminal Justice System at different stages and by different crime types?

Victims and witnesses

What interventions work to most effectively to support victims and witnesses to cope, recover and build resilience following a crime? How does this vary by type of crime, offender and victim?
How can support services be tailored to the individual needs of victims and witnesses? How does this vary specifically for children and young people?
What do we know about victim experiences at each stage of the criminal justice system, including court processes and special measures? How does contact with the system impact confidence?
What are the key drivers of victim engagement and disengagement in the criminal justice system and what works to support engagement? How should engagement be measured?
How can barriers to accessing the criminal justice system for victims be addressed? What are the benefits and impacts of specialist courts?
How do victims experience the interaction between support received through the criminal justice system and support delivered by external victim support services?
How can case information be communicated and made accessible to victims in a trauma-informed way?
How can we ensure the victim support sector is sustainable?

Victims of serious sexual violence

What is the effectiveness, impact and value for money of different support services and models, such as counselling, for victim-survivors of sexual violence? What do we know about their effectiveness for different groups?
What specific impacts do court delays and case attrition have on victim-survivors of sexual and domestic violence?

Question 5

Uphold the rule of law at home and abroad and promote our world-leading legal services that contribute to economic growth

Accepted Answer

The rule of law describes the fundamental principles underpinning a functioning democracy. MOJ’s objective is to uphold the rule of law domestically and internationally, and promote the impact of legal services to support UK prosperity. We want to improve our understanding of the economic impact of the legal services sector, the challenges facing the legal profession and the opportunities offered by innovations in legal technology. Key areas of interest include:

Understanding how the rule of law, legal services market and wider justice system contribute to economic growth.
What works to promote and sustain diversity in the legal profession and judiciary.
The impact of legal aid on case outcomes and ways in which to ensure sustainability in the legal aid market.
How to harness innovation in legal technology and artificial intelligence (AI).

Rule of law

Which components of the rule of law – including for example, legal rights, judicial independence and access to justice – could be improved through justice system interventions?
In what ways does the rule of law contribute to economic growth and other measures of economic welfare? Will further improvements to the rule of law promote additional economic growth?
In what aspects, and why, does England and Wales perform well or less well in terms of published rule of law measures?
What factors relating to the justice system, including public government commitment to the rule of law, impact upon business confidence and other growth measures?

The legal profession and judiciary

Why does recruitment, career progression, and retention within the legal profession vary by protected characteristics, socio-economic and socio-demographic backgrounds? What works to promote and sustain greater diversity?
What does ‘ideal’ diversity amongst magistrates and the judiciary look like? What works to promote, enable, and sustain diversity among magistrates and the judiciary? To what extent do different recruitment approaches facilitate diversity?
What works to improve recruitment and retention in the not-for-profit legal advice and support sector, and to support careers within the social welfare legal profession?
How sustainable are different types of roles within the legal profession and sector?

Legal services market

How does the legal services market and wider justice system contribute to economic growth?
What works to ensure that individuals can access quality legal services at a fair and accessible price, whilst growing the sector overall?
What is the scale, scope and function of the unregulated legal services market in England and Wales?
How effective are industry mechanisms and frameworks in resolving complaints and meeting the wider regulatory needs of the legal services market and profession?
What are the barriers to legal services trade with the UK’s overseas markets and what levers can help overcome these?
What can be learned from international dispute resolution services? Who are the main competitors to the UK as a centre for international dispute resolution and what are their current and emerging advantages?
For which types of legal service do UK law firms enjoy the greatest competitive advantages and why?
Which are likely to be the fastest growing overseas markets for UK legal services over the next decade?
What are main legal needs of small and medium sized businesses? To what extent does the legal service market meet these needs at a fair and accessible price?

Legal Aid

How does receiving legal aid impact upon case outcomes, and how does this vary depending on the type of legal aid service, the quality of service or the time at which it is received?
To what extent does the legal aid system adequately meet the needs of individuals with different protected characteristics?
How do different individuals and groups perceive their experiences of legal aid services? How does this vary by the nature of their legal problem, advice and support received, jurisdiction and outcome?
What are the current issues in the legal aid sector? How can we further understand and ensure sustainability – including profitability, capacity and demand – in the legal aid market?

LawTech

How can innovation in legal technology improve the productivity, cost effectiveness, and efficiency of different services and outputs in the legal sector?
How can LawTech and innovation support greater access to justice?
How might future employment within the legal sector change because of technology and technological investment?
What is the current state of adoption of technology in legal services and what are the drivers and barriers to innovation and adoption, specifically in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)?
What can be learned from international jurisdictions regarding successful adoption and implementation of LawTech? What skills are needed to drive the adoption and implementation of LawTech?

Question 6

Deliver accessible and timely civil, family, and administrative justice

Accepted Answer

The objective for MOJ is to improve the way people are supported to resolve their legal matters in a fair and efficient way, that leads to positive and sustained outcomes. This includes delivering a modern and efficient courts and tribunal service that harnesses the potential of digital innovation. We want to enhance our understanding of complex journeys through the justice system, including the interaction between civil, family and criminal justice systems. Key areas of interest include:

The effectiveness of legal support and advice, including what works to increase awareness and engagement.
Costs and benefits of different dispute resolution options.
What works to ensure positive long-term outcomes for users of the family justice system.

Legal support and advice

What are the behavioural factors that affect engagement with legal support? How can we address these to increase awareness and uptake of support?
At what points of the dispute resolution journey are people most likely to disengage, and how do we address this for different problem types and populations?
How do we define and identify those with vulnerabilities who struggle to enforce their legal rights?
What methodological approaches can we explore to improve our evidence on costs and benefits of different legal support models, including the benefits to individuals, wider society and the economy?
How can we understand the legal support and advice market better, including the best ways to encourage improvement and innovation, such as the use of technology and remote advice?
What is the relationship between early legal support and dispute resolution, for example how does early legal support and advice influence whether an issue is resolved through mediation or the courts?
How can we help people to identify and select the most appropriate type of support for their problem and their individual needs as early as possible? For example, situations that can be resolved without formal legal advice and situations where legal support should be encouraged.
What modes of support are most effective for different problems and individuals, for example, the use of, and interaction between in-person and remote legal support?
What works in the delivery of remote legal advice, and where could improvements be made? What is the impact of delivering remote legal advice on providers? How does it affect retention and diversity in the market?
How can we better understand links between social and criminal justice issues, to identify pressures that lead towards offending and reoffending? How do we provide offenders, victims, and families with legal advice and support to help them avoid crime and rebuild their lives?

Dispute resolution

What are the best ways to define and measure the quality of dispute resolution outcomes, for example, legality satisfaction, compliance and problem resolution? What frameworks are most appropriate to assess different aspects of quality and how can we collect appropriate data?
How can we assess the costs and benefits of different dispute resolution options more robustly, including wider social and economic impacts?
To what degree are mandatory dispute resolution gateways effective, and how can voluntary dispute resolution offers be presented to people in a clear way that encourages an informed decision about uptake?
How can technology be used to increase awareness of dispute resolution options, and provide better information and advice?
What types of mediator behaviour are effective for specific types of users and disputes and how does this affect proceedings and outcomes? What regulation, for example training, accreditation and standards, is proportionate and appropriate to promote good practice and consistency in dispute resolution services?
Which types of case are most likely to achieve uptake and settlement via dispute resolution, and how is this affected by the type of dispute and the parties themselves? Are compliance rates better for settlements agreed via dispute resolution compared to court?
What lessons can we learn from other jurisdictions to incentivise dispute resolution and identify which forms are most appropriate for different disputes?
How can we support businesses – in particular smaller businesses – to resolve legal problems quickly and effectively without imposing excessive cost and complexity?

Civil court system^{[footnote 3]}

What works to encourage compliance with court orders, including enforcement?
What impact do delays in the justice system have on small and medium sized businesses? How can these impacts be reduced?

Tribunal system^{[footnote 4]}

What are the reasons for the high volume of overturned tribunal decisions, and how can decision-making be improved?
How does upstream and in-case decision making by public authorities affect demand and case progression within the tribunal system?

Family justice

What factors drive positive or negative long-term outcomes for children involved in the family justice system? What interventions lead to positive and sustained outcomes?
What are the system-wide costs and benefits of the family justice system, for example contribution to wider outcomes for families or impact on demand for cross-government services?
Does mediation, early legal advice or other forms of dispute resolution lead to better and more sustainable outcomes compared to the courts for users of the family justice system?
What is the evidence on the sustainability and suitability of arrangements made in mediation in private family law cases? Does child-inclusive mediation produce better and more sustainable outcomes?
What are the long-term outcomes for children who are subject to different forms of child arrangements following parental separation? For example, out-of-court or court orders.
How do families and children move through the family justice system, including cases returning to court and moving from the private to public law systems?
What works to ensure that parents and children involved in domestic abuse cases are effectively supported throughout the family court process? What are the barriers to ensuring all victims receive this support to achieve fair outcomes and how can they be addressed?
What justice problems do co-habiting couples experience when separating and how do they reach decisions? What impact does this have on long-term outcomes for the individuals and any children involved?
What do we know about the intersection between the family and criminal justice systems? What do we know about users’ experiences and the outcomes of cases where there are concurrent family and criminal cases, for example cases involving domestic abuse, rape or child sex offences?
What do we know about users’ expectations of the family justice system? What additional information would prospective users find helpful to improve confidence in the family justice system?
Does legal representation in private family law cases lead to more positive and sustainable outcomes?
How can family courts effectively listen to and engage children in proceedings?
What digital technology can be used to improve the experiences of families going through the family courts?

Question 7

Cross-cutting themes and research methods

Accepted Answer

Cross-cutting themes

Given the complex and interconnected nature of the justice system, there are several system-wide themes and issues that cut across jurisdictions and policy areas. We welcome innovative research that takes a holistic approach to improving understanding of what works to improve outcomes across the system. This section outlines some of the cross-cutting themes (in alphabetical order) that apply across our research priorities.

Confidence and perceptions: What shapes confidence in the justice system, and how can confidence be improved? How does confidence impact on willingness to engage in the justice system, and what are the wider impacts on social cohesion?
Emerging technologies: How can we best identify and evaluate the emerging technology that will improve efficiency and safety of service delivery across the justice system? What are the practical, ethical, security, and data protection considerations for implementation of new technologies, including AI and machine learning?
Equality, diversity and intersectionality: How does experience of the justice system and impact of policies vary by different cohorts based on, for example, demographic, linguistic or protected characteristics? How can we better understand and account for population-level differences, experiences and inequalities of our interventions and services, particularly for people from ethnic minority backgrounds?
Mental health and neurodiversity: How can we ensure the right level of support for those with health conditions, particularly mental health and neurodevelopmental disorders, at all stages in the justice system?
Pathways and systems-mapping: How can we better understand the system-wide impacts of policies to support a sustainable and effective criminal justice system that delivers value for money? What are the policy and practice implications and considerations at the intersections between criminal, civil and family justice, for example, understanding and addressing problem clustering across jurisdictions?
Physical space and geography: How does the physical and built environment impact offender health and other outcomes? How does location and geographic variation affect justice outcomes?
Sustainable operations and estate management: What does a sustainable estate look like and what are the steps needed to get there, including adapting the existing estate? How do we ensure our estate, operations, and supply chains are resilient to future climate change and natural hazards? How can we place sustainability at the forefront of all facilities management activities, enabling positive environmental outcomes?
Trauma-informed approaches: How can we improve the evidence base on which to develop trauma-informed policy and practice throughout the justice system?

Analytical and research methods

To address evidence priorities set out in this ARI, we need to draw on a wide range of analytical and research methodologies, including the use of AI. We want to engage with researchers to enhance our scientific capability and explore how innovative methods can be applied to justice research and analysis. These include, but are not limited to (in alphabetical order):

Behavioural science methods and insights: to better understand the needs and motivations of those within the justice system, their interactions with public services, and their responses to interventions.
Co-production: to explore the co-production of research with people with lived experience, to promote engagement with the research process and findings. This includes understanding effective approaches in engaging justice system users in the co-design, co-production and dissemination of research.
Data mapping and linking: improving the quality and use of administrative data through developments in cutting-edge data linking methodologies, to provide cross-system insights of justice user journeys and outcomes.
Data science, machine learning, and artificial intelligence (AI): using digital tools for AI whilst ensuring transparency, accountability and reserved legal activities; algorithmic decision-support and decision-making; large language models for feature extraction and the analysis of complex textual data.
Economic methods: to understand the value of justice including economic and econometric analysis to investigate, quantify and monetise social and economic benefits and costs of different aspects of justice, and how the rule of law contributes to economic growth.
Evaluation: building on commitments set out in the MOJ Evaluation and Prototyping Strategy^{[footnote 5]}, for example by exploring use of a wide range of approaches to evaluation design such as Bayesian trials, confounding control approaches to causal inference, theory-based evaluation and value for money evaluation; additionally, the use of AI tools for evidence synthesis.
Prototyping: including agile design methods to understand user needs, test core mechanisms and assumptions early, and inform continuous improvement; use of AI to create synthetic participants and analyse data in the very early stages of policy development.
Simulation, agent-based modelling and hybrid modelling methods: using optimisation methods; forecasting techniques; resource modelling, and performance frameworks to inform evidence-based effective and efficient operational delivery across the MOJ estate.
Social research methods: including qualitative research and ethnographic methods to give a richer understanding of the experience of, and interactions with, the justice system; advances in ‘big qual’ methodology; quantitative social research methods such as sequence and cluster analysis, and use of online methodologies.
Statistical techniques: to better measure effects within our research and the analysis of our data; learning from new methodologies to analyse and interrogate data, including clustering effects, multi-level modelling, power calculations for complex study designs and dealing with bias and paradox types that are highly prevalent in our datasets (self-selection and demographic bias; Simpson’s paradox and ecological correlations), missing information and low frequencies.

Question 8

Engagement and collaboration

Accepted Answer

Building on the foundations of the 2020 ARI, MOJ remains committed to facilitating meaningful engagement and collaboration with the external research community to enhance the use of academic evidence and expertise in our decision-making. The themes in this ARI provide a basis for engagement through which we are keen to discuss the existing evidence base and our priority evidence needs in more depth.

We facilitate this engagement via a range of activities, including:

Our monthly ARI academic seminar series: present your research to MOJ colleagues and discuss the implications with policy and operational teams.
The Academic Network: join the network to hear from us about collaboration opportunities, including policy roundtables, events and funding.
Fellowships and secondments: apply to work with us via the fellowships and secondment schemes we take part in.
Data First is facilitating researcher access to justice data held on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Secure Research Service to explore priority research questions. The Data First GOV.UK page hosts a suite of materials to support researchers make the best use of this data. Feel free to get in touch with the team if you have any questions: datafirst@justice.gov.uk.

Contact us at evidence_partnerships@justice.gov.uk if you would like to explore ways to collaborate, discuss this ARI or have any questions about academic engagement at MOJ.

Cookies on GOV.UK

Applies to England and Wales