ContentJust Search pageLJF site navigationLeft navigation links
LJF Logo
Publications sectionJustice Awards sectionResearch sectionGrants sectionPlain language law sectionNetworks section
Just Search
Research Report: Data digest
Print chapter
Search or view whole report
View PDF

Limitations of the data

The following limitations apply to the data in this report.

Gaps in data collection

The data have been collected by the agencies for their internal administrative purposes, and not with research of this nature in mind. It is not surprising, therefore, that for the purposes of this research, there are a number of gaps in the data collected. Most notably, the collection of demographic data varied across services. There were also imperfections in collection procedures and inconsistencies in the application of protocols leading to a high percentage of missing data in a number of cases.

Format of data

Data were received in a variety of forms, ranging from relatively raw data to heavily pre-processed cross-tabulations to published data. This limited both the extent to which the quality of the data could be checked and the level of analysis that could be undertaken.

Consistency across services

In the interests of standardising data from all sources, we have attempted to map variables to common sets of categories. The integrity of our process rests on the integrity of the collection and classification processes of each service. There are, however, wide variations in how the services collected and classified data. At the most obvious level, some inquiries were described as ‘civil’ or ‘criminal’ or ‘family’ with no further detail. Thus, even at the major law classification level, we are dependent on what a service regards as belonging to each broad category of law.

Double counting

Even if all services used the same definitions for data collection, and made no mistakes in collection procedures, it is not possible to aggregate the data meaningfully to provide accurate indicators of total expressed legal need in the community. This is due to the effect of an unknown incidence of ‘double counting’. One person may approach a service a number of times or contact a range of services to seek help. Without a major redesign of collection protocols, there is no way of tagging the inquiries of any one person seeking assistance so as to distinguish him or her from other once-off inquirers.


Scott, S, Eyland, A , Gray, A, Zhou, A & Coumarelos, C 2004, Data digest, a compendium of services usage data from NSW legal assistance and dispute resolution services 1999-2002, Law and Justice Foundation of NSW, Sydney, 2004