On 9/8/21, dr. Pratap Bisht <pratap....@gmail.com> wrote: > G3ict-A2J-Courts-Survey-results-XT.pdf > Technology & > Access to > Justice for > Persons with > Disabilities > IACA-G3ICT SURVEY RESULTS > Survey Purpose & Methodology > Article 13 of the UN CRPD requires that States Parties ensure > effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal > basis with others > As part of its global initiative, in September-December 2019, G3ict > partnered with International Association of Court Administrators > (IACA) to survey its > members as well as other specialists working in or with courts about > technology and access to justice > Courts and justice systems worldwide are undergoing digital > transformations. It is not clear that their technology roadmaps > include a commitment to ensuring > access to justice for persons with disabilities > In order to promote greater progress on CRPD Article 13, G3ict has > launched a global Access to Justice and Technology initiative > Key Findings: > Courts worldwide are investing in technology > 67% of courts deploy mainstream technologies for internal and/or public use > Primary reasons for technology deployment are to increase efficiency, > increase access to justice and save costs > 60% of courts have budget allocated for digitization, but less than > 10% specifically allocate budget to funding for ICT accessibility and > digital inclusion > of PWDs > 75% of courts deploy digital documents and digital case management, > over 50% of them deploy digital payments and procedures and provide > remote access to > data > Key Findings: Courts lack focus on > accessibility and inclusion > In 48% of cases courts do not or only partially meet the requests for > accommodation from PWDs > Major obstacles to achieving more accessible technology and greater > inclusion of PWDs in the courts are insufficient financial resources, > lack of awareness > about disability and lack of knowledge of accessible technologies > 5 > Around 40% of courts provide technologies and solutions to support > digital inclusion of PWDs in comparison with almost 75% of courts that > ensure physical > accessibility of their premises > 38% of courts provide low or very low level of accessibility and > inclusiveness of the technology deployment for PWDs > Survey Participants > 76 respondents > from 29 > countries > list of 29 items > Albania > Australia > Austria > Bhutan > Brazil > Croatia > Finland > France > Gambia > Germany > India > Indonesia > Jamaica > Kazakhstan > Kenya > Latvia > Malawi > Nepal > Netherlands > New Zealand > Nigeria > North Macedonia > Russia > Rwanda > Spain > Ukraine > United Arab Emirates > United Kingdom > United States > list end > Diverse Respondents > Others working with courts, e.g. diplomats, human rights activists, IT > specialists, architects, project managers, etc. > Answer choices: > Official of a Ministry of Justice 2.63% > Official at Court 30.26% > Prosecutor 1.32% > Judge 10.53% > Professor 10.53% > Student 1.32% > Other (please specify) 44.74% > Total responses 76 > Courts and Digital > Transformation > Courts worldwide are > becoming smarter > To what extent is > technology being > deployed in courts? > Answer choices: > No deployment or almost no deployment of technology 6.58%Limited > deployment of mainstream technologies (e.g. websites, mobile apps, > digital documents) > primarily for internal use 32.89% > Broad deployment of mainstream technologies (e.g. websites, mobile > apps, digital documents), both for internal use and public use 34.21% > Extensive deployment of mainstream technologies for internal and > public use. Exploring use of leading-edge technologies and smart > solutions (e.g. artificial > intelligence, online dispute resolution) 19.74% > Extensive deployment of both mainstream and leading-edge technologies > delivering measurable impact and value 6.58% > Total responses 76 > Most courts have budget to > deploy technology > Do courts have an annual budget allocated to digitization and the > deployment of technology? > Answer choices: > Yes 59.21% > No 17.11% > Not sure 23.68% > Total responses 76 > Courts want to be more > efficient and more accessible > What are the primary reasons for deploying technology in courts? > Answer choices: > Cost savings 47.37% > Increase efficiencies 78.95% > Legal mandate 4.47% > Environmental sustainability 3.95% > Increase access to justice 52.63% > Collect and use data 26.32% > Provide better user experience 18.42% > Increase transparency 18.42% > Other (please specify) 5.26% > Total responses 76 > Courts are using tech to > support core processes > Which technologies are currently deployed in the courts? > Answer choices: > Digital documents to replace paper 75.00% > Digital case management (system to track hearings, dispositions, etc.) > 75.00% > Digital payments (web, mobile, kiosks to pay fines and fees, etc.) 59.21% > Digitalization of procedures (filling in forms, requesting services, > etc.) 57.89% > Electronic scheduling (e-scheduling) 47.37% > Remote access to data (online legal documents, case bundles, case > libraries, up-to-date hearing schedules) 56.58% > Remote court appearances (e.g. video-enabled trial hearings) 42.11% > Online Dispute Resolution (e.g. mechanisms of alternative dispute > resolution online) 17.11% > No technology is being deployed currently 0.00% > Other (please specify) 6.58% > Total responses 76 > Courts and > Accessibility > Most courts know they have > international commitments > Are you aware of the UN CRPD, defining rights related to access to > justice for persons with disabilities? > Answer choices: > Yes 60.27% > No 35.62% > Not sure 4.11% > Total responses 73 > Court technologies are not > accessible > How would you rate the accessibility & inclusiveness of technology > deployments for persons with disabilities? > Answer choices: > Very low 16.44% > Low 21.92% > Moderate 45.21% > High 15.07% > Very high 1.37% > Total responses 73 > Courts are failing persons with > disabilities > How often are requests for accommodation from persons with > disabilities accepted and effectively applied courts? > Answer choices: > Never or almost never 24.66% > 25% of time 23.29% > 50% of time 16.44% > 75% of time 12.33% > Always or almost always 23.29% > Total responses 73 > Courts are better at > physical accessibility > than digital > list of 1 items > Which technologies and procedures are available to support > accessibility and inclusion of persons with disabilities? > list end > Answer choices: > Physical accessibility (built environment, e.g. ramps) 74.60% > Communication aids and services for persons with disabilities (e.g. > visual, speech, hearing) 41.27% > On site sign language interpretation 28.57% > Remote video sign language interpretation 11.11% > Captioned and/or audio described video 14.29% > Documents in alternative formats (e.g. braille, easy-to-read format) 12.70% > Documents in accessible formats (formatted for use with a screen reader) > 17.46% > Accessible websites, online portals or kiosks 36.51% > Accessible mobile apps 9.52% > Tools that check web and document content for accessibility 4.76% > Storage and accessing of information online (general information and > case-specific-databases) 23.81% > Websites, portals, platforms to provide information regarding measures > available to and for persons with disabilities 22.22% > Remote participation in court (e.g. via phone, video) 33.33% > Provision of personal assistance for persons with disabilities 31.75% > Publicly available, comprehensive and functional ICT accessibility > policies 1.59% > Specific protocols or procedures to address petitions of reasonable > adjustments or accommodations 22.22% > Mechanisms to test or collect feedback on how the measures in place > are working for users with disabilities 0.00% > No technologies to support accessibility are available currently 0.00% > Other (please specify) 12.70% > Total responses 63 > Courts may not be budgeting > for digital inclusion > Do the courts have an annual budget for ICT accessibility and digital > inclusion of persons with disabilities? > Answer choices: > Yes 9.52% > No 42.86% > Not sure 47.62% > Total responses 63 > Courts need help to be more > accessible and inclusive > What are the obstacles to achieving greater inclusion of persons with > disabilities in courts? > Answer choices: > Insufficient financial resources 58.73% > Lack of awareness about disability 53.97% > Lack of knowledge of accessible technology 52.38% > Insufficient commitment to diversity and inclusion 36.51% > No strategy for digital inclusion 34.92% > Organizational culture is not supportive 23.81% > Ineffective organizational processes (e.g. procurement) 12.70% > Lack of engaged leadership 25.40% > No business rationale for inclusion and accessibility 14.29% > Other (please specify) 7.94% > Total responses 63 > Most courts can use > procurement to be more > accessible and inclusive > How are accessibility and digital inclusion for persons with > disabilities considered when purchasing technology in courts? > Answer choices: > The procurement department and officials have limited awareness of ICT > accessibility and digital inclusion. They include it as part of the > procurement > process only infrequently and in very general terms 57.14% > The procurement department and officials use defined ICT accessibility > and digital inclusion criteria and incorporate them in the procurement > process. > However, the criteria are applied inconsistently to technology > products, services, and subcontractors 25.40% > The procurement department and officials consistently require ICT > accessibility and digital inclusion in the procurement process 7.94% > In making buying decisions, the procurement department and officials > give preference to the most accessible ICTs that support clear digital > inclusion outcomes. > They regularly assess whether the accessibility of products and > services purchased is improving 7.94% > The procurement department and officials prevent the purchase of > inaccessible technology products or services and use metrics to ensure > technology deployments > meet the needs of all people 1.59% > Total responses 63 > 0% > 10% > 20% > 30% > 40% > 50% > 60% > There is limitedawareness of ICTaccessibility anddigital > inclusionamong procurementand officials > Procurement andofficials use definedICT accessibility anddigital > inclusioncriteria > ICT accessibility anddigital inclusion arerequired in theprocurementprocess > In making buyingdecision, thepreference is gien tothe most accessbleICTs > Procurement andofficials preventpurchase ofinaccessibletechnology > Court professionals see > technology as a key to access to > justice > To what extent do you agree with the following statements? > Answer choices: > Technology could be used to improve access to justice for persons with > disabilities: Strongly disagree 11.11%, disagree 0%, neutral 0%, agree > 23.81%, strongly > agree 65.08% > Professionals working at courts and within the field of justice would > benefit from training on disability and accessible technology: > Strongly disagree > 11.11%, disagree 0%, neutral 4.76%, agree 30.16%, strongly agree 53.97% > I would be willing to use technology to increase access to justice for > persons with disabilities in the court/s where I do work: Strongly > disagree 9.52%, > disagree 0%, neutral 6.35%, agree 20.63%, strongly agree 63.49% > Total responses 63 > Contact information > list of 7 items > James Thurston > G3ict –The Global Initiative for Inclusive ICTs > Vice President for Global Strategy & Development > jthurs...@g3ict.org > @jamesthu > www.g3ict.org > www.buyict4all.org > list end > James Thurston is smiling. He is standing in front of a building, > dressed in blue shirt. > >> Disclaimer: >> 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of >> the >> person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; >> >> 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the >> mails >> sent through this mailing list.. >> >> >> Search for old postings at: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "AccessIndia" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to accessindia+unsubscr...@accessindia.org.in. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/BA47E45E-3056-426B-BD02-2DD4E85ABFA8%40gmail.com. >> > > > -- > DR Pratap Singh Bist >
-- DR Pratap Singh Bist -- Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list.. Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AccessIndia" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to accessindia+unsubscr...@accessindia.org.in. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/CAOp1nn29h71VK3yCcaFU_e1J2KcwsAgiRy%3Dc08CUDBD%2BkdJGTA%40mail.gmail.com.
