From: The use of legal empowerment to improve access to quality health services: a scoping review
Factor | Explanation | Citation |
---|---|---|
Inconsistency in paralegal capacity | • Paralegals not always supported after training • Paralegals come from marginalised communities, and as such, may require significant training and support to learn about rights, entitlements, and the details of health policy • Paralegals may be overwhelmed with case-loads and lack the time and support to think about and address the upstream causes of the cases • Frequent turnover, especially among volunteer cadres, loss of institutional memory; may be more common among women, who may be focus of the programme | |
Lack of formalised role for paralegals | • In some countries, paralegals and LE organisations are seeking formal recognition for paralegals in national law, as well as accreditation processes • When roles are not recognised or ‘registered’ no customised training for them | |
Even with support, formal judicial or other processes can be inaccessible or infeasibly long | • Even when paralegals understand processes, they can be long; marginalised individuals may lack the time or may lose legal personhood over the course of case resolution or belief that the process will bear fruit | |
Customary law processes can reinforce social inequities | • In cases where those claiming rights are marginalised, the customary system may reproduce such inequities, especially when they are mediating between two parties, e.g. a poor woman who has experienced discriminatory treatment by a health provider | ([49]; interviews) |
Poor state capacity to respond | • Even where public officials are motivated, they may lack the resources, incentives, and/or expertise required to respond to complaints • Making demands on an ill-equipped bureaucracy can result in failure or even retaliation | |
Unclear entitlements | • When rights and entitlements are not well enumerated (e.g. what drugs should be available at primary health care level?) then use of legal empowerment is impractical | |
Social hierarchies | • Pervasive discrimination and other norms can undercut individual and institutional responsiveness to complaints from groups/communities (e.g. drug users, ethnic minorities) • Paralegals from minoritised communities can face risks and stigma when approaching individuals with more power as well as state institutions | |
Donor priorities not aligned with community need | • Many programmes are donor driven and are siloed from broader state processes • Programme accountability is typically upwards to donors rather than to communities • Short term programmes aiming for long term change face challenges • Funder reluctance to support NGOs to take up politically sensitive issues |