Independent proposal for public review. Evidence date: 4 November 2026. Pilot sizes, targets and institutional roles are proposed. Baselines, institutional acceptance, quotations, specialist review and funding require confirmation before implementation.
People receive timely, fair justice and responsive support when harmed.
Proposed pilot: One consenting court registry and its authorised referral partners; select a defined case class after judicial and administrative consultation.
IDB has supported criminal-justice strengthening [S9]. This historical reference requires an overlap check; the new proposal addresses administrative case visibility and referral continuity.
Independent proposal for public review. Evidence date: 4 November 2026. Pilot sizes, targets and institutional roles are proposed. Baselines, institutional acceptance, quotations, specialist review and funding require confirmation before implementation.
People receive timely, fair justice and responsive support when harmed.
One consenting court registry and its authorised referral partners; select a defined case class after judicial and administrative consultation.
IDB has supported criminal-justice strengthening [S9]. This historical reference requires an overlap check; the new proposal addresses administrative case visibility and referral continuity.
Days 1–30: judicial/agency agreement and confidentiality review. Days 31–60: baseline audit and process design. Days 61–90: pilot approved registry routines and referral tracking.
Review case-flow indicators, procedural fairness and user access with authorised oversight. Publish aggregate data with context and safeguards against perverse incentives.
Proposed lead: consenting judicial administration for registry processes; relevant legal/public-safety agencies for their own services. Partners: legal aid and qualified victim-support providers. Skills: court administration, legal review, secure records and social support.
Cost registry audit, authorised staff time, training, secure record improvements and referral coordination. Confirm annual staffing and support capacity before expansion.
Require judicial independence, lawful confidentiality, due process and safety for vulnerable users. Case-speed targets must be reviewed alongside fairness and complexity.
Baseline status: pending local verification for every measure. Confirm definitions, sample, reporting owner and realistic thresholds before implementation. All percentage-point changes use the same defined cohort; relative reductions are calculated against the verified baseline.
| Type / measure | Definition | Proposed target | Data owner / cadence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Result · Age of unresolved pilot cases | Median days since filing among unresolved selected cases, with case-mix breakdown. | Proposed: 15% reduction after 12 months, subject to court approval. | Court data officer; quarterly |
| Result · Support referral completion | Verified first support contact ÷ accepted referrals due ×100. | Proposed: 80%. | Authorised support coordinator; monthly |
| Activity · Administrative readiness checks | Files checked against court-approved checklist before scheduled event ÷ files due ×100. | Proposed: 95%. | Registry supervisor; monthly |
| Activity · Adjournment reasons recorded | Adjournments with authorised reason code ÷ adjournments ×100. | Proposed: 95%. | Registry data lead; monthly |
Community Safety and Road-Injury Prevention: select one evidence-defined hotspot for coordinated prevention, safe road design and response improvements, with rights protections and independent outcome review.
By 2030, participating institutions sustain secure case-flow records and accessible, verified support pathways.
Low to medium; current caseload, legal permissions and programme overlap pending.
[S9] [S9] IDB: Support for the Criminal Justice System, GY-L1044
Historical programme reference for coordination and duplication checks. Current case backlogs and programme status require verification.
The earlier roadmap research informs this proposal. Read the portfolio roadmap and review standard.
Funding status: Uncommitted. Proposed institutional roles require acceptance. Next editorial review: 4 February 2027, or earlier when material evidence changes.
No related goals assigned to this post.
The infrastructure gap continues to limit economic growth, social inclusion, and sustainable development. Roads, ports, energy systems, housing, and digital networks remain underdeveloped or overstretched,
IDB has supported criminal-justice strengthening [S9]. This historical reference requires an overlap check; the new proposal addresses administrative case visibility and referral continuity.
Independent proposal for public review. Evidence date: 4 November 2026. Pilot sizes, targets and institutional roles are proposed. Baselines, institutional acceptance, quotations, specialist review and funding require confirmation before implementation.
People receive timely, fair justice and responsive support when harmed.
One consenting court registry and its authorised referral partners; select a defined case class after judicial and administrative consultation.
IDB has supported criminal-justice strengthening [S9]. This historical reference requires an overlap check; the new proposal addresses administrative case visibility and referral continuity.
Days 1–30: judicial/agency agreement and confidentiality review. Days 31–60: baseline audit and process design. Days 61–90: pilot approved registry routines and referral tracking.
Review case-flow indicators, procedural fairness and user access with authorised oversight. Publish aggregate data with context and safeguards against perverse incentives.
Proposed lead: consenting judicial administration for registry processes; relevant legal/public-safety agencies for their own services. Partners: legal aid and qualified victim-support providers. Skills: court administration, legal review, secure records and social support.
Cost registry audit, authorised staff time, training, secure record improvements and referral coordination. Confirm annual staffing and support capacity before expansion.
Require judicial independence, lawful confidentiality, due process and safety for vulnerable users. Case-speed targets must be reviewed alongside fairness and complexity.
Baseline status: pending local verification for every measure. Confirm definitions, sample, reporting owner and realistic thresholds before implementation. All percentage-point changes use the same defined cohort; relative reductions are calculated against the verified baseline.
| Type / measure | Definition | Proposed target | Data owner / cadence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Result · Age of unresolved pilot cases | Median days since filing among unresolved selected cases, with case-mix breakdown. | Proposed: 15% reduction after 12 months, subject to court approval. | Court data officer; quarterly |
| Result · Support referral completion | Verified first support contact ÷ accepted referrals due ×100. | Proposed: 80%. | Authorised support coordinator; monthly |
| Activity · Administrative readiness checks | Files checked against court-approved checklist before scheduled event ÷ files due ×100. | Proposed: 95%. | Registry supervisor; monthly |
| Activity · Adjournment reasons recorded | Adjournments with authorised reason code ÷ adjournments ×100. | Proposed: 95%. | Registry data lead; monthly |
Community Safety and Road-Injury Prevention: select one evidence-defined hotspot for coordinated prevention, safe road design and response improvements, with rights protections and independent outcome review.
By 2030, participating institutions sustain secure case-flow records and accessible, verified support pathways.
Low to medium; current caseload, legal permissions and programme overlap pending.
[S9] [S9] IDB: Support for the Criminal Justice System, GY-L1044
Historical programme reference for coordination and duplication checks. Current case backlogs and programme status require verification.
The earlier roadmap research informs this proposal. Read the portfolio roadmap and review standard.
Funding status: Uncommitted. Proposed institutional roles require acceptance. Next editorial review: 4 February 2027, or earlier when material evidence changes.
No related goals assigned to this post.