This indicator measures the degree to which supported projects contribute to increasing the independence, accountability, and effectiveness of the justice system. It captures how far activities and outputs delivered by projects lead to observable improvements in:

Independence – reduced undue influence, improved autonomy of judicial actors. Examples of evidence include: adoption/revision of laws or rules enhancing autonomy; strengthened judicial governance bodies; and more transparent appointments, promotions, and disciplinary processes.

Accountability – improved oversight, transparency, disciplinary systems, reporting. Examples of evidence include: New or improved oversight mechanisms (internal/external); public reporting, integrity systems, complaint mechanisms; case-management transparency enhancements; and data-driven monitoring or ethics compliance improvements.

Effectiveness – improved efficiency, quality of decisions, access to justice, service delivery. Examples of evidence include: reduction in case backlog or processing times; improved workflow, digital solutions, or court administration; better quality of decisions or user satisfaction; and increased access to justice or service delivery efficiency.

MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY

Scoring framework: Use the same 1-5 scale for independence, accountability, and effectiveness. All projects are assessed separately on independence, accountability, and effectiveness using the following contribution scale:

1 – None: No observable contribution; project activities/outputs had no relevance or effect.

2 – Minimal: Activities/outputs were relevant but produced only small, localized, or early-stage outputs with negligible system-level effect.

3 – Moderate: Clear outputs delivered and some evidence of contribution to institutional or procedural improvements; early signs of change.

4 – Substantial: Strong contribution with documented improvements in practices, processes, or institutional functioning; evidence suggests meaningful system-level changes.

5 – Transformative: Projects made a major, well-documented contribution to significant reforms, systemic improvements, or marked performance changes.

The PO/FO or external experts document evidence for each dimension and assign a score (1–5).

Project-level indicator score: Each project receives three sub-scores (independence, accountability, effectiveness).

Programme-level indicator score: After scoring all projects, calculate the programme-level score as the average of all project scores.

Programme score = Average of all project scores

The PO/FO is encouraged to provide a brief narrative justification for each score, referencing objective and verifiable evidence. This narrative should accompany the numeric scoring submitted to the FMO/Donors.