목차
Title page
Contents
Acknowledgements 3
1. Executive Summary 5
2. Introduction 9
2.1. HMCTS reform 9
2.2. MoJ's overarching evaluation 13
2.3. HMCTS research and evaluation 13
3. Challenges informing the evaluation approach 15
3.1. Complex systems 15
3.2. Data and evaluation 15
3.3. Challenges posed by COVID-19 18
4. Evaluation approach 20
4.1. Theory-based evaluation 20
4.2. The theory of change 21
4.3. Research questions 24
4.4. Evidence sources 26
5. Next Steps 29
5.1. Planned publications 29
5.2. Further avenues for research 29
5.3. Continued engagement 30
References 31
Technical Appendix 33
1. Introduction 37
2. Challenges informing the evaluation approach 38
2.1. Complex systems 38
2.2. Data and evaluation 40
2.3. Challenges posed by COVID-19 42
3. Evaluation Approach 44
3.1. Theory-based evaluation 44
3.2. The theory of change 47
3.3. Research questions 57
3.4. Defining Access to Justice and Vulnerability 59
4. Evaluation evidence sources 61
4.1. Overarching research 61
4.2. Example data metrics 64
4.3. Project-level evaluations 72
5. Next Steps 91
5.1. Planned publications 91
5.2. Further avenues for research 91
5.3. Continued engagement 92
Figure 1. The overarching evaluation's intervention logic model 23
Technical Appendix Tables
Table 1. Complex system characteristics 39
Table 2. Updated causal pathways 56
Table 3. Status of project-level evaluations, per thematic area 72
Table 4. FOH pilot locations and approaches 84
Technical Appendix Figures
Figure 1. Selecting the approach for impact evaluation, based on the questions to be answered 45
Figure 2. Theory of change model for thematic area one 50
Figure 3. Theory of change model for thematic area two 51
Figure 4. Theory of change model for thematic area three, consolidating the court estate 52
Figure 5. Theory of change model for thematic area three, investing in court infrastructure 53
Figure 6. Theory of change model for thematic area three, improving the data HMCTS collects and decommissioning legacy IT systems 54
Figure 7. Theory of change model for thematic area four 55
Figure 8. Volume of Divorce applications and Final Orders30 per quarter from Quarter 1 (Q1) 2016 to Quarter 1 (Q1) 2022 67
Figure 9. Percentage of cases with hearings where applicants and respondents had legal representation per quarter from Q1 2016 to Q1 2022 69
Figure 10. Percentage of applications submitted digitally per quarter from Q1 2019 to Q1 2022 70
Figure 11. Average case length (mean and median) per quarter from Q1 2016 to Q1 2022 71
