USAID	
  Mexico	
  Legal	
  Education	
  Program
Performance	
  Evaluation	
  
Final	
  Report	
  
January	
  2016
Performance	
  Evaluation	
  of	
  USAID/Mexico’s	
  Legal	
  Education	
  Program
No.	
  SOL-­‐523-­‐15-­‐000009
i
Table	
  of	
  contents

Acronyms,	
  abbreviations,	
  and	
  translations................................................................................... iii
I.	
  Executive	
  summary .....................................................................................................................1
II.	
  Introduction	
  and	
  background ....................................................................................................2
III.	
  Evaluation	
  methodology	
  (including	
  a	
  discussion	
  of	
  the	
  identified	
  evaluation’s	
  limitations) ....5
1.	
  General	
  Research	
  Scope	
  and	
  Activities ................................................................................5
2.	
  Desk	
  research	
   ......................................................................................................................6
3.	
  Strategy	
  to	
  construct	
  the	
  sampling	
  framework	
  ...................................................................7
IV.	
  Evaluation	
  questions,	
  Research	
  Techniques	
  and	
  Scope	
  and	
  Structure	
  of	
  the	
  Research	
  
Instruments	
   ...................................................................................................................................9
1.	
  Main	
  evaluation	
  questions	
   ..................................................................................................9
2.	
  Research	
  Techniques	
  and	
  Scope	
   .........................................................................................9
+	
  Qualitative	
  component..................................................................................................10
+	
  Quantitative	
  component...............................................................................................10
3.	
  Structure	
  of	
  the	
  Research	
  Instruments..............................................................................11
V.	
  Discussion	
  of	
  Evaluation	
  Results	
  and	
  Findings	
  a ......................................................................13
1.	
  Performance	
  Evaluation	
  of	
  activities	
  ................................................................................14
2.	
  Effectiveness	
  of	
  USAID-­‐supported	
  methodologies	
  and	
  approaches.................................22
3.	
  Impact	
  of	
  activities	
  on	
  Improving	
  the	
  Legal	
  Profession,	
  and	
  Facilitating	
  or	
  Accelerating	
  
the	
  Transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS .....................................................................................................30
	
  	
  	
  +	
  Background:	
  Perceptions	
  of	
  Level	
  of	
  Advancement	
  in	
  Implementation	
  of	
  NCJS.............30
	
  	
  	
  +	
  Perceived	
  Impact	
  of	
  Legal	
  Education	
  Activities ...............................................................39
4.	
  Primary	
  constraints	
  to	
  provide	
  quality	
  services	
  and	
  support	
  legal	
  profession	
  transition	
  to	
  
the	
  NCJS.................................................................................................................................43
5.	
  Suggested	
  changes	
  (methods/techniques	
  and	
  activities)	
  for	
  future	
  education	
  activities.49
6.	
  Conclusions........................................................................................................................52
VI.	
  Recommendations	
  to	
  USAID/Mexico	
  and	
  to	
  other	
  stakeholders	
   ..........................................53
Appendix
1. Appendix	
  1.	
  	
  Survey	
  Questionnaire
2. Appendix	
  2.	
  Focus	
  Group	
  Questionnaire	
  
3. Appendix	
  3.	
  In Depth	
  Interviews	
  Questionnaire
4. Appendix	
  4.	
  Focus	
  Group	
  Transcriptions
5. Appendix	
  5.	
  In	
  Depth	
  Interviews	
  Transcriptions
ii
List	
  of	
  tables	
  and	
  figures
TABLES.
Table	
  1.	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Responses	
  Most	
  Supportive	
  Institutions	
  in	
  Transition	
  to	
  NCJS ...........25
Table	
  2.	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Responses	
  about	
  Law	
  Professors	
  Reported	
  Changes	
  in	
  Teaching	
  
Approaches..................................................................................................................43
Table	
  3.	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Responses	
  for	
  Most	
  Significant	
  Challenge	
  in	
  Teaching	
  the	
  NCJS .........46
Table	
  4.	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Responses	
  for	
  Most	
  Complex	
  Challenge	
  for	
  Lawyer	
  in	
  Litigation........47
Table	
  5.	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Responses	
  for	
  Areas	
  of	
  Improvement	
  for	
  Future	
  Legal	
  Education	
  
Activities ......................................................................................................................49
Table	
  6.	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Responses	
  about	
  Priorities	
  in	
  Education	
  for	
  Law	
  Students	
  in	
  Transition	
  
to	
  NCJS .........................................................................................................................50
Table	
  7. Distribution	
  of	
  Responses	
  about	
  Priorities	
  in	
  Training	
  for	
  Lawyers	
  in	
  
Transition	
  to	
  NCJS ........................................................................................................51
FIGURES.
Figure	
  1.	
  Average	
  Performance	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Activities..........................................................17
Figure	
  2.	
  Average	
  Performance	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Activities	
  by	
  State ............................................19
Figure	
  3.	
  Average	
  Performance	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Activities	
  by	
  Implementer ...............................21
Figure	
  4.	
  Average	
  Performance	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Activities	
  by Stakeholder.................................22
Figure	
  5.	
  Opinions	
  on	
  Usefulness	
  of	
  American	
  Assistance	
  for	
  Transition	
  to	
  NCJS.....................24
Figure	
  6.	
  Average	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Effectiveness	
  of	
  Activities......................................................27
Figure	
  7.	
  Average	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Effectiveness	
  of	
  Activities	
  by	
  state........................................28
Figure	
  8.	
  Average	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Effectiveness	
  of	
  Activities	
  by	
  Implementer...........................29
Figure	
  9.	
  Average	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Effectiveness	
  of	
  Activities	
  by	
  Stakeholder.............................30
Figure	
  10.	
  Opinions	
  on	
  the	
  Degree	
  to	
  which	
  the	
  NCJS	
  Is	
  Considered	
  an	
  Improvement	
  for	
  
Mexico .........................................................................................................................31
Figure	
  11.	
  Opinions	
  on	
  Level	
  of	
  Preparation	
  for	
  Exercising	
  Legal	
  Profession	
  under	
  the	
  NCJS	
  by	
  
State.............................................................................................................................35
Figure	
  12.	
  Opinions	
  on	
  Level	
  of	
  Preparation	
  for	
  Exercising	
  Legal	
  Profession	
  under	
  the	
  NCJS	
  by	
  
Implementer................................................................................................................36
Figure	
  13.	
  Opinions	
  on	
  Level	
  of	
  Preparation	
  for	
  Exercising	
  Legal	
  Profession	
  under	
  the	
  NCJS	
  by	
  
Stakeholder..................................................................................................................37
Figure	
  14.	
  Average	
  Level	
  of	
  Preparedness	
  for	
  Key	
  Legal	
  Actors	
  in	
  the	
  Transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS..38
Figure	
  15.	
  Average	
  Level	
  of	
  Preparedness	
  for	
  Key	
  Legal	
  Actors	
  in	
  the	
  Transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS	
  by	
  
State.............................................................................................................................39
Figure	
  16.	
  Average	
  Perceived	
  Impact	
  of	
  Activities	
  on	
  Legal	
  Profession	
  and	
  Transition	
  
to	
  NCJS .........................................................................................................................41
Figure	
  17.	
  Average	
  Perceived	
  Impact	
  of	
  Activities	
  on	
  Legal	
  Profession	
  and	
  Transition	
  to	
  NCJS	
  
by	
  State ........................................................................................................................42
Figure	
  18.	
  Average	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Possible	
  Obstacles	
  for	
  Implementation	
  of	
  and	
  Transition	
  to	
  
NCJS .............................................................................................................................44
iii
Acronyms,	
  abbreviations,	
  and	
  translations
ABA-­‐ROLI =	
  American	
  Lawyers	
  Bar
CAPI =	
  Computer	
  Assistance	
  Personal	
  Interview	
  
CEEAD =	
  Study	
  Center	
  of	
  Law	
  Teaching	
  and	
  Learning	
  (Centro	
  de	
  Estudios	
  sobre	
  la	
  
Enseñanza	
  y	
  el	
  Aprendizaje	
  del	
  Derecho,	
  A.C)
DO2 =	
  Development	
  Objective	
  2
GOM =	
  Government	
  of	
  Mexico
INACIPE =	
  National	
  Institute	
  of	
  Penal	
  Sciences (Instituto	
  Nacional	
  de	
  Ciencias	
  Penales)
NCJS =	
  New	
  Criminal	
  Justice	
  System
SETEC =	
  Technical	
  Secretary	
  (Secretaría	
  Técnica	
  -­‐ Órgano	
  Administrativo	
  Desconcentrado	
  
de	
  la	
  Secretaría	
  de	
  Gobernación)
USAID =	
  United	
  States	
  Agency	
  for	
  International	
  Development
USG =	
  United	
  States	
  Government
1
I.	
  Executive	
  Summary
In	
   2008,	
   the	
   Mexican	
   government	
   approved	
   a	
   constitutional	
   reform	
   that	
   called	
   for	
   a	
  
transformation	
   of	
   the	
   country’s	
   judicial	
   system.	
   This new	
   adversarial	
   criminal	
   justice	
   system
system	
   requires	
  a	
   new	
  mindset	
  and	
   skills	
   that	
   police	
   officers,	
   prosecutors,	
   public	
  and	
   private	
  
counsels,	
  victim	
  assistance	
  services,	
  judicial	
  personnel	
  and	
  correctional	
  officers	
  must	
  learn	
  and	
  
implement.	
  To	
  help	
  achieve	
  the	
  successful	
  implementation	
  of	
  this	
  new	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  
by	
   2016,	
   including	
   the	
   training	
   of	
   key	
   legal	
   actors	
   the	
   USAID/Mexico	
   2015-­‐2019	
   Country	
  
Development	
  Cooperation	
  Strategy	
  established	
  Development	
  Objective	
  2	
  (DO2),	
  which	
  seeks	
  to	
  
support	
   the	
   government	
   of	
   Mexico’s	
   implementation	
   of	
   2008	
   Constitutional	
   criminal	
   justice	
  
reforms	
   in	
   all	
   Mexican	
   states.	
   USAID	
   contributes	
   to	
   DO2	
   by	
   providing	
   assistance	
   the	
  
government	
  of	
  Mexico	
  (GOM)	
  in	
  implementing	
  the	
  constitutional	
  reform	
  though	
  programs	
  that	
  
aim	
  to	
  provide	
  technical	
  assistance,	
  legislative	
  solutions,	
  and	
  institutional	
  policies	
  assistance	
  to	
  
various	
  actors	
  and	
  institutions	
  involved	
  in	
  the	
  implementation	
  of	
  this	
  criminal	
  justice	
  reform,	
  as	
  
well	
  as	
  by	
  increasing	
  public	
  awareness	
  and	
  knowledge	
  about	
   the	
  reform,	
  in	
  order	
   to	
   facilitate	
  
the	
  transition	
  to	
  a	
  new	
  judicial	
  system	
  in	
  Mexico.	
  
This	
  performance	
  evaluation	
  study	
  assesses	
  the	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  USAID/Mexico	
  Legal	
  Education	
  
Program,	
  developed	
  by	
  USAID,	
  through	
  the American	
  Bar	
  Association	
  (ABA-­‐ROLI)	
  and	
  Centro	
  de	
  
Estudios	
   sobre	
   la	
   Enseñanza	
   y	
   el	
   Aprendizaje	
   del	
   Derecho	
   (CEEAD),	
   from	
   the	
   perspective	
   of	
  
program	
   participants	
   themselves.	
   The	
   evaluation	
   involves	
   data	
   from	
   focus	
   groups,	
   in-­‐depth	
  
interviews,	
  and	
  a	
   telephone	
  survey	
  about	
   the	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  USAID’s	
  implementing	
  partners	
  
in	
  Nuevo	
  Leon,	
  Puebla,	
  Chihuaha,	
  Coahuila,	
  and	
  Mexico	
  City.	
  
Overall,	
   the	
   vast	
   majority	
   of	
   participants	
   in	
   this	
   study	
   report	
   that	
   participation	
   on	
   CEEAD	
   or	
  
ABA-­‐ROLI	
   efforts	
   to	
   be	
   very	
   useful.	
   They	
   evaluated	
   positively	
   the	
   structure	
   and	
   quality	
   of	
  
activities,	
   particularly,	
   instructor	
   preparedness,	
   training	
   facilities,	
   and	
   content	
   activities.	
  
However,	
   they	
  also	
  voiced	
   the	
   need	
   for	
  assistance	
   programs	
   to	
  include	
  longer	
   training	
   times,	
  
more	
  hands-­‐on	
  practice	
  or	
  simulations	
  for	
  learning	
  the	
  trial	
  procedures,	
  and	
  the	
  participation	
  of	
  
foreign	
  instructors.	
  
This	
  study	
  also	
  assesses,	
   from	
  participants’	
  perspective,	
   the	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  USAID-­‐supported	
  
methodologies	
  and	
  approaches	
  for	
  aiding	
  Mexico’s transition	
  to	
  a	
  new	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system.	
  
Overall,	
  respondents	
  were	
  receptive	
  to	
  the	
  American	
  assistance	
  for	
  the	
  transition,	
  also	
  pointing	
  
CEEAD/ABA-­‐ROLI/USAID	
   as	
   the	
   most	
   influential	
   institutions	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   legal	
   education	
  
programming.	
   In	
   terms	
   of	
   content,	
   respondents	
   found	
   effective	
   their	
   participation	
   in	
   CEEAD	
  
and	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   activities	
   to	
   learn	
   the	
   rules	
   of	
   oral	
   litigation,	
   to	
   acquire	
   skills	
   for	
   witness	
  
interrogation,	
  and	
  to	
  improve	
  their	
  overall	
  legal	
  practices.	
  Conversely,	
  respondents	
  felt	
  training	
  
activities	
   were	
   the	
   least	
   effective	
   to	
   prepare	
   them	
   on	
   abilities	
   of	
   conditional	
   suspension	
   and	
  
techniques	
  of	
  trial	
  and	
  investigation.
2
This	
   study	
   finds	
   that	
   the	
   majority	
   of	
   survey	
   respondents	
   perceive	
   that	
   the	
   new	
   system	
  
constitutes	
   a	
   significant	
   improvement.	
   However,	
   respondents	
   hold	
   divergent	
   opinions	
   about	
  
the	
  implementation	
  progress	
  and	
  their	
  preparedness	
  for	
  the	
  new	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system.	
  First,	
  
respondents	
   in	
   the	
   D.F.	
   reported	
   the	
   lowest,	
   and	
   Chihuahua	
   the	
   highest,	
   perceived	
  
advancement	
   in	
   the	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
   new	
   system.	
   Similarly,	
   only	
   half	
   of	
   respondents	
  
considered	
  law	
  schools	
  as	
  prepared	
  to	
  train	
   for	
  the	
  new	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system,	
  thus	
  needing	
  
enhancement.	
   Finally,	
   respondents	
   from	
   Nuevo	
   Leon	
   felt	
   the	
   most	
   prepared,	
   while	
   those	
   in	
  
Puebla	
  perceived	
  themselves	
  as	
  least	
  prepared;	
  moreover,	
  respondents	
  perceived	
  judges	
  as	
  the	
  
most	
  prepared,	
  followed	
  by	
  public	
  prosecutors,	
  lawyers,	
  law	
  students	
  and	
  victim	
  legal	
  advisers.	
  
In	
   contrast,	
   Police	
   officers	
   are	
   perceived	
   as	
   the	
   least	
   prepared	
   to	
   face	
   a	
   new	
   criminal	
   justice	
  
system.	
  
Regarding	
  to	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  CEAAD	
  and	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  activities,	
  respondents	
  report	
  positive	
  impacts	
  
of	
   their	
   participation.	
   Respondents	
   find	
   that	
   activities	
   enhanced	
   their	
   ability	
   to	
   face	
   the	
  
demands	
  and	
  challenges	
  of	
  the	
  new	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system,	
  and	
  their	
  overall	
  professional	
  skills.	
  
Professors,	
   in	
   particular,	
   that	
   attended	
   CEEAD	
   activities	
   attribute	
   updates	
   in	
   their	
   teaching	
  
style,	
  use	
  of	
  teaching	
  materials,	
  and	
  bibliography	
  referenced	
  to	
  the	
  training	
  received.	
  
In	
   spite	
   of	
   these	
   activities	
   in	
   preparation	
   for	
   the	
   new	
   system,	
   respondents	
   indicated	
   several	
  
obstacles	
  to	
  a	
  successful	
  transition.	
  In	
  particular,	
  they	
  point	
  that	
  state	
  authorities	
  and	
  lawyers	
  
resist	
   or	
   lack	
   the	
   necessary	
   knowledge	
   to	
   navigate	
   the	
   new	
   justice	
   system.	
   Among	
   law	
  
professors,	
   the	
  lack	
   of	
   teaching	
  materials	
  and	
   the	
   need	
   to	
   update	
  law	
   curricula	
  are	
   the	
  most	
  
critical	
  challenges.	
  Finally,	
  for	
  lawyers	
  the	
  greatest	
  challenge	
  is	
  the	
  transition	
  to	
  oral	
  litigation,	
  
new	
  procedures	
  for	
  criminal	
  investigation,	
  and	
  new	
  intermediate	
  hearing	
  rules.
This	
   evaluation	
   also	
   shed	
   light	
   to	
   areas	
   in	
   which	
   future	
   activities	
   may	
   improve.	
   Respondents	
  
would	
  like	
  greater	
  practical	
  training	
  on	
  litigation	
  strategies	
  and	
  techniques,	
  simulation	
  sessions,	
  
interrogation	
   techniques,	
  and	
   presentation	
   of	
  evidence.	
  Future	
  interventions	
   should	
   focus	
   on	
  
police	
  officers	
  and	
  private	
  attorneys,	
  as	
  respondents	
  mention	
  them	
  as	
  the	
  least	
  prepared	
  within	
  
the	
   criminal	
   justice	
   system.	
   This	
   type	
   of	
   programs	
   should	
   continue	
   until	
   the	
   new	
   system	
  
consolidates.	
  Support	
  is	
  particularly	
  critical	
  regarding	
  the	
  need	
  to	
  update	
  the	
  education	
  of	
  law	
  
students,	
  to	
  train	
  professors	
  with	
  updated	
  materials,	
  have	
  students	
  practice	
  the	
  techniques	
  of	
  
oral	
   litigation,	
   and	
   to	
   consolidate	
   their	
   theoretical	
   and	
   procedural	
   understanding	
   of	
   the	
   new	
  
criminal	
   justice	
   system.	
   Future interventions	
   should	
   also	
   require	
   implementers	
   to	
   gather	
  
comprehensive	
  contact	
  information	
  of	
  all	
  participants	
  and	
  to	
  obtain	
  form	
  them	
  the	
  permission	
  
and	
   commitment	
   to	
   be	
   contacted	
   later	
   by	
   USAID	
   or	
   an	
   external	
   auditor	
   to	
   evaluate	
   the	
  
programs	
   and/or	
   obtain	
   feedback. Finally,	
   USAID	
   should	
   consider	
   recommending	
   exam	
  
certification	
   for	
   lawyers	
   similar	
   to	
   us	
   lawyer,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
   providing	
   technical	
  assistance	
   for	
   the	
  
exams	
  design	
  and	
  implementation.
3
II.	
  Introduction	
  and	
  Background
In	
  June	
  2008, Mexico	
  reformed	
  its	
  constitution	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  transform	
  its	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  
from	
  a	
  “mixed”	
  system	
  -­‐with	
  inquisitorial	
  characteristics-­‐ towards	
  an	
  adversarial	
  system.1 The	
  
transition	
  was	
  justified	
  by	
  several	
  reasons, most	
  of	
  them	
  related	
  to	
  human	
  right	
  violations	
  such	
  
as	
   excessive	
   duration	
   of	
   criminal	
   trials,	
   a	
   very	
   high	
   rate	
   of	
   pre-­‐trial	
   imprisonment,	
   lack	
   of	
  
adequate	
  counsel	
  for	
  defendants,	
  trials	
  without	
  the	
  presence	
  of	
  a	
  judge	
  in	
  the	
  courtroom,	
  the	
  
absence	
  of	
  an	
  operating	
  exclusionary	
  rule,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  violations	
  to	
  victim’s	
  rights,	
  among	
  others.
In	
   sum,	
   the	
   “mixed”	
   system	
   was	
   characterized	
   by	
   a	
   series	
   of	
   procedural	
   rules	
   and	
   structural	
  
deficiencies	
   that	
  made	
   it	
   prone	
   to	
   injustices	
   both	
   for	
   defendants	
   and	
   victims,	
   and	
   subject	
   to	
  
unpredictable	
  results	
  and	
  unfair	
  outcomes.
The	
   transition	
   to	
  an	
  adversarial	
  system	
  occurs	
  in	
  a	
  moment	
  in	
  which	
  countries	
  all	
  around	
   the	
  
world	
   are	
   abandoning	
   inquisitorial	
   and	
   mixed	
   systems,	
   and	
   making	
   swift	
   transitions	
   towards	
  
adversarial	
   systems.
2 For	
   example,	
   in	
   the	
   Latin	
   America	
   region during	
   the	
   past	
   two	
   decades,	
  
countries	
  such	
  as	
  Argentina,	
  Chile,	
  Colombia,	
  Peru	
  and	
  Costa	
  Rica	
  have	
  enacted	
  similar	
  judicial	
  
reforms.
3
The	
   criminal	
   procedural	
   rules	
   that	
   were	
   adopted	
   in	
   the	
   Mexican	
   constitutional	
   reform	
   are	
  
based	
  on	
  five	
  main	
  topics:	
  victims’	
  rights,	
  defendant’s	
  rights,	
  limits	
  to	
  police	
  and	
  prosecutorial	
  
practices	
   during	
   the	
   investigation	
   of	
   crimes,	
   trials	
   and	
   hearings	
   with	
   adversarial	
   rules, and
alternative	
  dispute	
  resolution	
  mechanisms	
  and restorative	
  justice.
The	
   incorporation	
   of	
   the	
   new	
   system	
   supposes	
   an	
   enormous	
   challenge	
   for	
   both	
   private	
   and	
  
public	
  actors	
   that	
  intervene	
  in	
   the	
  procedure.	
  The	
  new	
  rules	
  require	
  a	
  new	
  mindset	
  and	
  skills	
  
that	
  police	
  officers,	
  prosecutors,	
  public	
  and	
  private	
  counsels,	
  victim	
  assistance	
  services,	
  judicial	
  
personnel	
  and	
  correctional	
  officers	
  must	
  acquire	
  in	
  a	
  brief	
  term	
  that	
  concludes	
  in	
  June	
  2016.
Specialized	
   training	
   for	
   lawyers	
   and	
   law	
   students	
   is	
   indispensable. In	
   order	
   to	
   perform	
  
adequately	
   in	
   an	
   adversarial	
   system,	
   they	
   should	
   acquire	
   full	
   theoretical	
   comprehension	
   of	
  
rules	
  regarding	
  police	
  and	
  prosecutorial	
  practices.	
  These	
  practices include procedures	
  that	
  were	
  
not	
   regulated	
   in	
   the	
   inquisitorial	
   system,	
   such	
   as	
   stop	
   and	
   frisk	
   practices,	
   and	
   warrantless	
  
searches	
  and	
  line-­‐ups.	
  Attorneys	
  and	
  students	
  must	
  also	
  comprehend	
  the	
  new	
  set	
  of	
  evidence	
  
rules,	
  another key structural	
   component	
   of	
   the	
   reform,	
  as	
   trials	
  will	
   not	
   be	
   based	
   on	
  written	
  
evidence	
   as	
   in	
   the	
   “mixed”	
   system,	
   but	
   will	
   instead	
  rely	
   on	
   witnesses and	
   expert	
   witnesses	
  
which	
   will	
   be	
   examined	
   and	
   cross-­‐examined	
   in	
   public	
   hearings.	
   The	
   change	
   in	
   the	
   rules	
   of	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   1 For	
  an	
  in-­‐depth	
  analysis	
  of	
  adversarial,	
  inquisitorial	
  or	
  continental	
  and	
  mixed	
  systems	
  refer	
  to	
  Craig.	
  M.	
  
Bradley,	
  The	
  Convergence	
  of	
  the	
  Continental	
  and	
  the	
  Common	
  Law	
  Model of	
  Criminal	
  Procedure,	
  Crim.	
  
L.	
  Forum,	
  Vol.	
  7,	
  Iss.	
  2,	
  (1996).
2 David	
  Alan	
  Sklansky,	
  Anti-­‐Inquisitorialism,	
  122	
  Harv.	
  L.	
  Rev.	
  1634	
  (2009).
3 Máximo	
   Langer,	
   Revolution	
   in	
   Latin	
   American	
   Criminal	
   Procedure:	
   Diffusion	
   of	
   Legal	
   Ideas	
   from	
   the	
  
Periphery,	
  55	
  Am.	
  J.	
  Comp.	
  L.	
  617	
  (2007).
4
evidence	
   also	
   demands new	
   skills	
   from	
   attorneys,	
   as	
   adversarial	
   system	
   require	
   new	
   trial	
  
techniques	
  for	
  succeeding	
  in	
  court	
  procedures.
In	
   order to	
   overcome	
   these legal	
   education	
   challenges,	
   the	
   Mexican	
   federal	
   and	
   state	
  
governments	
   have	
   developed	
   efforts	
   that	
   include	
   intensive	
   training	
   of public	
   and	
   private	
  
attorneys	
  through	
  certificated	
  professors,	
  which	
  are	
  financed	
  by	
  the	
  federal	
  budget,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  
technical	
   support	
   for	
   the	
   reform	
   of	
   law	
   curricula in	
   major	
   universities.	
   Nevertheless,	
   other	
  
sources	
  of	
  funding	
  such	
  as	
  international	
  support	
  have	
  been	
  crucial	
  for	
  both	
  advising	
  law	
  schools
in	
   adapting	
   their	
   curricula,	
   and	
   in	
   legal	
   training	
   of	
   students,	
   as	
   well	
   as	
   public	
   and	
   private	
  
attorneys.	
  
All Mexican	
  states	
  and	
  federal	
  entities	
  have	
  to	
  adopt	
  the new	
  adversarial,	
  accusatorial	
  criminal	
  
justice	
  system	
  by	
  June	
  2016.	
  States	
  must	
  effectively	
  implement	
  the	
  new	
  laws	
  and	
  ensure	
  their	
  
relevant	
   institutions	
  and	
  actors	
  are	
   prepared	
   to	
   implement	
   them.	
  The	
  most	
   recent	
  estimates	
  
indicate	
   that	
   there	
  are	
  approximately	
  1,600	
  law	
  schools	
  in	
  Mexico	
   (the	
  vast	
  majority	
  private),	
  
and	
  the	
  quality	
  and	
  content	
  of	
  their	
  curricula	
  are	
  not	
  regulated	
  by	
  a	
  single	
  body.	
  Mexican	
  law	
  
schools	
  must	
  adapt	
   their	
  new	
  curricula	
   to	
   the	
  new	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  and	
  prepare	
  a	
  new	
  
generation	
   of	
   students	
   to	
   practice	
   under	
   it.	
   Experienced	
   and	
   active	
   attorneys	
   who	
   have	
  
practiced	
  law	
  under	
  the	
  previous	
  system	
  also	
  need	
  training	
  to	
  work	
  under	
  the	
  new	
  system.	
  As	
  
such,	
  Mexican	
  bar	
  associations	
  play	
  an	
  important	
  role	
  in	
  promoting	
  continuing	
  legal	
  education	
  
for	
  these	
  attorneys	
  and	
  ensuring	
  their	
  ability	
  to	
  practice	
  effectively	
  under	
  the	
  new	
  system.
Based	
  on	
  the	
  current	
  pressing	
  needs	
  resulting	
  from	
  the	
  2016	
  implementation	
  deadline	
  for	
  the	
  
new	
   criminal	
   justice	
   system	
   and	
   the	
   anticipated	
   requirements	
   for	
   technical	
   assistance	
   and	
  
training	
   that	
   will	
   continue	
   after	
   the	
   deadline	
   passes,	
   the	
   USAID/Mexico	
   2015-­‐2019	
   Country	
  
Development	
  Cooperation	
  Strategy	
  established Development	
  Objective	
  2	
  (DO2),	
  which	
  seeks	
  to	
  
support	
   the	
   GOM’s	
   implementation	
   of	
   2008	
   Constitutional	
   criminal	
   justice	
   reforms	
   in	
   all	
  
Mexican	
   states.	
  USAID	
  contributes	
   to	
  DO2	
  by	
  providing	
  assistance	
   the	
  government	
  of	
  Mexico	
  
(GOM)	
   in	
   implementing	
   the	
   constitutional	
   reform	
   though	
   programs	
   that	
   aim	
   to	
   provide	
  
technical	
  assistance,	
  legislative	
  solutions,	
  and	
  institutional	
  policies	
  assistance	
  to	
  various	
  actors	
  
and	
   institutions	
   involved	
   in	
   the	
   implementation	
   of	
   this	
   criminal	
   justice	
   reform,	
   as	
   well	
   as	
   by	
  
increasing	
   public	
   awareness	
   and	
   knowledge	
   about	
   the	
   reform,	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   facilitate	
   the	
  
transition	
   to	
   a	
   new	
   judicial	
   system	
   in	
   Mexico. This	
   research	
   constitutes	
   an	
   effort	
   from	
   the	
  
government	
  of	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  of	
  America	
  to	
  assess	
  the	
  performance	
  of two	
  projects.
This	
   report	
   presents	
   the	
   design	
   and	
   findings	
   of	
   an	
   external	
   performance	
   evaluation	
   of	
   the	
  
USAID/Mexico	
  Legal	
  Education	
  portfolio	
  conducted	
  by	
  Data	
  Opinión	
  Pública	
  y	
  Mercados	
  S.C.	
  in	
  
collaboration	
  with	
   the	
   Latin	
   American	
   Project	
   for	
   Public	
  Opinion	
   of	
  Vanderbilt	
  University	
  and	
  
Proyectos	
  Estratégicos Consultoría.	
  The	
  purpose	
  of	
   this	
  study	
  is	
   to	
  assess	
   the	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  
USAID/Mexico	
   Legal	
   Education	
   Program,	
  developed	
   by	
  USAID,	
   through	
   ABA-­‐ROLI and	
   CEEAD,	
  
from	
   the	
   perspective	
   of	
   program	
   participants	
   themselves.	
   That	
   is,	
   this	
   study	
   seeks	
   to	
   show	
  
through	
   the	
   opinions	
   of	
   program	
   participants,	
   the	
   degree	
   to	
   which	
   USAID/Mexico’s	
   legal	
  
education	
   program	
   has	
   performed	
   in	
   its	
   efforts	
   to provide	
   technical	
   assistance,	
   legislative	
  
solutions,	
  and	
   institutional	
   policy assistance	
   to	
   various	
  actors	
  and	
   institutions	
   involved	
   in	
   the	
  
5
implementation	
  of	
  this	
  criminal	
  justice	
  reform.
4 The	
  program	
  led	
  by	
  ABA-­‐ROLI consisted	
  in	
  the	
  
developing	
  of	
  specialized	
  training	
  activities	
  for	
  law	
  students	
  and	
  attorneys	
  in	
  relevant matters	
  
of	
   the	
   new	
   adversarial	
   system.	
   The	
   courses	
   developed	
   by	
   ABA-­‐ROLI included	
   trial	
   skills	
  
programs,	
   traditional	
   criminal	
   procedure	
   classes, and	
   moot	
   court.	
   On	
   the	
   other	
   hand,	
   the	
  
activities developed	
   by	
   CEAD	
   consisted	
   mainly	
   in	
   advising	
   Mexico’s top	
   law	
   schools	
   on	
   the	
  
reform	
  of	
  their	
  law	
  curricula and	
  syllabi	
  on	
  criminal	
  procedure	
  courses.	
  
The	
  evaluation	
   study	
  employs both	
   qualitative	
  and	
   quantitative	
   research	
   techniques	
  with	
   the	
  
following	
  objectives: a)	
  Evaluate	
  the	
  results	
  of	
  assistance	
  provided	
  to	
  Mexican	
  bar	
  associations	
  
and	
  law	
  schools	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  advancing	
  and	
  incorporating	
  the	
  accusatorial	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  
into	
  legal	
  education;	
  b)	
  Identify	
  best	
  practices	
  and	
  lessons	
  learned	
  from	
  that	
  assistance;	
  and	
  c)	
  
Identify	
  outside	
  factors	
  that	
  further	
  the	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  assistance	
  provided	
  to	
  strengthen	
  legal	
  
education	
   and	
   the	
   quality	
   of	
   services	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
   legal	
   profession	
   in	
   Mexico,	
   as	
   well	
   as	
  
factors	
  that	
  hinder	
  or	
  inhibit	
  success.
III.	
  Evaluation	
  Methodology
1. General	
  Research	
  Scope and Activities
The	
  objective	
  of	
  the	
  evaluation	
  is to	
  determine	
  what	
  type	
  of	
  USAID-­‐funded	
  technical	
  assistance,	
  
approaches	
  and	
  tools	
  to	
  support	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  stakeholders	
  were	
  effective	
  or	
  not	
  and	
  why.	
  It	
  also	
  
evaluates the	
  overall	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  the	
  approaches	
  and	
  tools	
  implemented	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  
preparing	
   key	
   stakeholders	
   to	
   work	
   under	
   the	
   requirements	
   and	
   characteristics	
   of	
   the	
   new	
  
criminal	
  justice	
  system in	
  Mexico.
The	
  evaluation	
  includes both	
  quantitative	
  and	
  qualitative	
  data	
  from	
  different	
  research	
  activities
with	
  the	
  following	
  main	
  stakeholders	
  who	
  are/were	
  beneficiaries	
  of	
  USAID-­‐funded	
  activities:
• Education	
  Institutions
• Law	
  Students
• Law	
  professor (bar	
  members)
• Private	
  Lawyers
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   4 Unlike	
   an	
   impact	
   evaluation	
   study,	
   this	
   performance	
   evaluation	
   study	
   does	
   not	
   treat	
   USAID/Mexico’s	
   legal	
  
education	
  program	
  as	
  an	
  intervention	
  for	
  which	
  the	
  study	
  seeks	
  to	
  measure	
  its	
  effect	
  on	
  the	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  new	
  
criminal justice	
  system	
  in	
  Mexico.	
  That	
  is,	
  this	
  performance	
  evaluation	
  study	
  is	
  not	
  based	
  on	
  a	
  cause-­‐effect	
  model	
  
that	
  assumes	
  a	
  counterfactual	
  for	
  factors	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  legal	
  education	
  program	
  that	
  this	
  study	
  evaluates.	
  Rather,	
  
this	
   performance	
   evaluation	
   study focuses	
   on	
   assessing	
   how	
   participants’	
   perceptions	
   can	
   yield	
   information	
   on	
  
how	
  well	
  the	
  legal	
  education	
  program	
  has	
  performed	
  in	
  helping	
  participants	
  feel	
  prepared	
  for	
  practicing	
  law	
  under	
  
the	
   new	
   criminal	
   justice	
   system.	
   (For	
   a	
   definition	
   of	
   what	
   USAID	
   considers	
   an	
   impact	
   evaluation	
   see:	
  
https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/IE%20Technical%20Note_2013_0903_Final.pdf)
6
The	
   evaluation	
   covers interventions	
   carried	
   out	
   by	
   USAID´s	
   implementing	
   partners between	
  
2010	
   and	
   2015	
   in	
   the	
   following	
   five	
   states:	
   Nuevo	
   Leon,	
   Puebla,	
   Chihuahua,	
   Coahuila, and	
  
Mexico	
  City
The	
   performance	
   evaluation	
   was	
   conducted	
   by	
   a	
   multidisciplinary team	
   and	
   includes	
   the	
  
following	
   research	
   activities:	
   desk	
   research,	
   construction	
   of	
   a	
   sampling	
   framework	
   to	
   draw	
   a	
  
representative	
   sample	
   for	
   the	
  quantitative	
  competent	
  as	
  well	
  as	
   recruiting	
   for	
   the	
  qualitative	
  
one,	
  personal	
  and	
  telephone	
  in-­‐depth	
  interviews,	
   focus	
  groups,	
  telephone	
  and	
  on-­‐line	
  survey,	
  
transcription	
   of	
   qualitative	
   materials,	
   data	
   entry	
   of	
   quantitative	
   interviews,	
   processing	
   and	
  
analyzing	
  of	
  results.	
  The	
  description	
  and	
  scope	
  of	
   these	
  activities	
  is	
  discussed	
  in	
   the	
   following	
  
pages.
A	
   general	
   report	
   as	
   well	
   as	
   detail	
   status	
   report	
   for	
   the	
   qualitative	
   and	
   quantitative	
   activities	
  
were sent	
  to	
  USAID	
  weekly.
2. Desk	
  Research
The	
   first	
  phase	
  of	
  the	
  evaluation	
  study	
  consisted	
  in	
  reviewing all	
  relevant	
  reports,	
  evaluations	
  
and	
  documents	
  related	
  to	
  USAID/Mexico’s	
  legal	
  education	
  assistance	
  activities	
  as	
  carried	
  out	
  by	
  
ABA-­‐ROLI	
   and	
   CEEAD to	
   aid	
   the	
   transition	
   of	
   lawyers,	
  bar	
   association	
   and	
   law	
   schools	
   to	
   the	
  
new	
  judicial	
  system	
  in	
  Mexico. One	
  objective	
  of	
  this	
  desk	
  review	
  was	
  to	
  gain	
  understanding	
  of	
  
the	
  design	
  and	
  implementation	
  of	
  USAID/Mexico’s	
  Rule	
  of	
  Law	
  Portfolio.	
  At	
  the	
  same	
  time,	
  the	
  
desk	
   review	
   served	
   as	
   an	
   input	
   for	
   designing	
   research	
   instruments	
   for	
   in-­‐depth	
   interviews,	
  
focus	
   groups,	
   and	
   the	
  survey	
   questionnaire.	
   The	
   desk	
   review	
   consisted	
   of three	
   main steps
described	
  below.
The	
  first	
  step	
  included	
  the	
  identification	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  relevant	
  documents	
  needed	
  to	
  understand	
  
the	
  scope	
  of	
  programming	
  by ABA-­‐ROLI	
  and	
  CEEAD.	
  After	
  a	
  systematic	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  provided	
  
materials	
  related	
  to	
  USAID/Mexico’s	
  legal	
  education	
  assistance	
  activities,	
  the	
  Desk	
  Review	
  team	
  
identified	
   the documents	
  that	
   best	
   described	
   the	
   legal	
  education	
  efforts	
   carried	
   out	
   by ABA-­‐
ROLI	
  and	
  CEEAD	
  that	
  this	
  study	
  would	
  evaluate.	
  The	
  the	
  documents	
  that	
  were	
  reviewed	
  in	
  the	
  
desk	
  research are	
  found	
  in	
  the	
  appendices	
  of	
  this	
  report.	
  
In	
  a	
  second	
  step,	
  we	
  identified	
  the	
  institutional	
  strengthening	
  and	
  individual	
  capacity	
  building	
  
activities	
  carried	
  out	
  by	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  and	
  CEEAD	
   that	
  best	
   reflected	
  USAID/Mexico’s	
  Rule	
  of	
  Law	
  
Portfolio,	
   and	
   also	
   fit	
   the	
   criteria	
   of	
   our	
   evaluation	
   design	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   USAID’s	
   evaluations	
  
questions,	
  target	
  beneficiaries,	
  and	
  geographical	
  constraints.	
  
Based	
   on	
   our	
   identification	
   of	
   key	
   programmatic	
   efforts	
   by	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   and	
   CEEAD	
   for	
   our	
  
evaluation,	
  and	
  guided	
  by	
  USAID’s	
  key	
  evaluation	
  questions,	
  the	
  third	
  step	
  of	
  the	
  desk	
  review	
  
involved	
   the	
   development	
   and	
   design of	
   research	
   instruments	
   for	
   focus	
   groups,	
   in-­‐depth	
  
interviews,	
  and	
  a survey.	
  Questionnaire	
  instruments	
  were	
  drafted	
  with	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
  creating	
  
the	
  most	
  relevant	
  and	
  meaningful	
  measures	
  of	
  the experiences	
  of	
  public	
  authorities,	
  lawyers,	
  
law	
   schools	
   administrators,	
   law	
   professors	
   and	
   law	
   students,	
   and	
   their	
   perceptions	
   of	
   the	
  
7
effectiveness	
  of	
  legal	
  education	
  activities	
  for facilitating	
  and	
  accelerating	
  the	
  implementation	
  of	
  
the	
  new	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  in	
  Mexico.	
  To	
  this	
  end,	
  a	
  series meetings	
  were	
  held	
  to	
  discuss	
  
instrument	
   design	
   and	
   questionnaire drafts.	
   USAID’s	
   input	
  was	
   also	
   solicited	
   in	
   this	
   phase	
   of	
  
instrument	
   and	
   questionnaire	
   design.	
   Copies	
   of	
   the	
   final questionnaires for	
   focus	
   groups,	
   in-­‐
depth	
  interviews,	
  and	
  telephone	
  survey	
  are	
  found appendices.
3. Strategy	
  to	
  Construct	
  the	
  Sampling	
  Framework
We	
  received	
  a	
  total	
  of	
  14	
  documents	
  from	
  USAID	
  containing	
  lists	
  of	
  participants	
  from	
  different	
  
courses	
   and/or	
   trainings	
   conducted	
   by	
   ABA	
   ROLI	
   and	
   CEEAD	
   from	
   2011	
   to	
   2015.	
   These	
  
constitute	
  the	
  sampling	
  framework.	
  In	
  total,	
  there	
  were	
  2,747	
  records	
  distributed	
  by	
  the	
  study	
  
implementer	
  as	
  follows:
• 252	
  records	
  of	
  participants	
  in	
  activities	
  carried	
  out	
  by	
  CEEAD	
  in	
  4	
  files
• 2495	
  records	
  of	
  participants	
  in	
  activities	
  carried	
  out	
  by	
  ABA	
  ROLI in	
  10	
  files
Upon	
   reviewing	
   and	
   filtering	
   the	
   data	
   received,	
   we	
   noted	
   that	
   the	
   valid	
   cases	
   (those	
  
corresponding	
  to	
  states	
  where	
  an	
  evaluation	
  had	
  been	
  completed)	
  reduced	
  the	
  survey	
  frame	
  to	
  
1350;	
   the	
   remaining	
   1397	
   observations	
   were	
   records	
   from	
   other	
   states,	
   duplicate	
   files	
   for	
  
individuals	
   (in	
   some	
   cases	
   as	
   many	
   as	
   3	
   repetitions)	
   and	
   individuals	
   whose	
   information	
   was	
  
incomplete	
  (no	
  email,	
  telephone	
  number,	
  or	
  institution).
Of	
   these	
   valid	
   cases,	
   names	
   are	
   provided	
   for	
   all	
   individuals	
   but the	
   additional	
   information	
  
available	
   varied	
   across	
   individuals,	
   types	
   of	
   individuals	
   and	
   courses.	
   In	
   sum,	
   the	
   following	
  
information	
  was	
  available:
Total contacts from	
  the	
  5	
  states	
  being	
  evaluated	
  (Universe) 1350 cases
Contacts/records	
  with	
  name	
  and	
  institution 876 cases
Contacts/records	
  with	
  name	
  and	
  telephone	
  number 63 cases
Contacts/records	
  with	
  name	
  and	
  e-­‐mail 1199 cases
In	
   light	
   of	
   this	
   situation,	
  and	
   bearing	
   in	
  mind	
   that	
   telephone	
   calls	
  were	
   the	
   primary	
  mode	
   of	
  
contact	
  for	
  completing	
  these	
  interviews,	
  we	
  developed	
  a	
  two-­‐pronged	
  strategy:
1. Search	
   for	
   e-­‐mail	
   and/	
   or	
   telephone	
   information	
   for	
   the	
   cases	
   for	
   which	
   we	
   did	
   not	
  
have	
  this	
  contact	
  information,	
  using	
  the	
  information	
  from	
  the	
  institution	
  as	
  a	
  reference,	
  
and
2. Send	
  emails	
  to	
  those	
  individuals	
   for	
  whom	
  we	
  only	
  had	
  an	
  email	
  address	
  to	
  request	
  a	
  
telephone	
  number	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  conduct	
  the	
  interviews.	
  
Using	
   the	
   first	
   strategy,	
   we	
   conducted	
   Internet	
   and	
   social	
   media	
   searches,	
   which	
   yielded	
   69	
  
telephone	
  numbers,	
  70	
  e-­‐mail	
  addresses,	
  and	
  six contacts	
   that	
  were	
   repeat	
  information	
   from	
  
other	
  listings.	
  We	
  were	
  unable	
  to	
  locate	
  40	
  individuals.	
  In	
  total	
  (combining	
  telephone	
  numbers	
  
8
and	
  email	
  addresses)	
  we	
  obtained	
  information	
  for	
  95	
  individuals,	
  including	
  telephone,	
  email,	
  or	
  
both	
  of	
  these.
Using	
   the	
  second	
  strategy,	
  we	
  sent	
  as	
  many	
  as	
   three e-­‐mails	
   to	
  1093	
  individuals	
   requesting	
  a	
  
telephone	
   number	
   to	
   conduct	
   the	
   interview.	
   Of	
   these,	
   179	
   e-­‐mail	
   addresses	
   were	
   not	
  
recognized	
   by	
   the	
   server,	
  we	
   received	
   102	
   positive	
   responses	
   providing	
  a	
   telephone	
   number,	
  
and	
  the	
  remaining	
  812	
  did	
  not	
  respond.
We	
   reviewed	
   those	
  e-­‐mail	
  and	
   telephone	
  numbers	
   for	
  which	
  we	
   received	
  no	
   response	
  in	
   the	
  
first	
  two	
  weeks	
  and	
  decided	
  to	
  search	
  them	
  on	
  social	
  media.	
  Using	
  this	
  tool,	
  we	
  obtained	
  “new”	
  
information	
  for	
  204	
  contacts.	
  	
  
Using	
  the	
  combination	
  of the	
  above-­‐described	
  strategies,	
  we	
  obtained	
  a	
  total	
  of	
  694	
  telephone	
  
numbers.	
  For	
  some	
  of	
  these	
  cases,	
  we	
  attempted	
  to	
  use	
  a	
  “snow-­‐ball”	
  strategy	
  during	
  the	
  final	
  
week	
  of	
   fieldwork	
   (contacts	
  of	
   the	
  interviewees	
  who	
  had	
  attended	
   training	
  courses	
  at	
  CEEAD	
  
and/or	
  ABA	
  ROLI).	
  
As	
   a	
   last	
   attempt	
   and	
   with	
   the	
   objective	
   of	
   completing	
   as	
   many	
   interviews	
   as	
   possible,	
   we	
  
decided	
   to	
   send	
   e-­‐mail	
   invitations	
   to	
   complete	
   the	
   questionnaire	
   online.	
   We	
   sent	
   600	
  
invitations	
  using	
  this	
  strategy.
In	
   total,	
   we	
   attempted	
   to	
   interview	
   a	
   total	
   of	
   1294	
   contacts	
   for	
   whom	
   we	
   were	
   able	
   to	
   find	
  
sufficient	
   information	
   to	
   contact	
   them	
   by	
   some	
   means	
   (i.e.,	
   telephone	
   and/or	
   e-­‐mail);	
   this	
  
number	
  of	
  contacts	
  constitutes	
  the	
  universe	
  of	
  the	
  study	
  about	
  which	
  we	
  generate	
  estimates	
  in	
  
the	
  quantitative	
  component	
  of	
  this	
  evaluation.	
  Of	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  efforts	
  listed	
  here,	
  we	
  obtained	
  209	
  
valid	
  interviews,	
  of	
  which	
  178	
  were	
  conducted	
  by	
  telephone	
  and	
  with	
  31	
  online	
  respondents.
Given	
  the	
  sum	
  of	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  listed	
  individuals	
  with	
  the	
  1294	
  cases	
  that	
  we counted	
  for	
  the	
  study,	
  
the	
   effectivity	
   quotient	
   for	
   all	
   individuals	
   listed	
   was	
   16%	
   overall,	
   for	
   those	
   with	
   telephone	
  
numbers	
  it	
  was	
  26%,	
  and	
   for	
  the	
  web	
  invitations	
  and	
  other	
  methods	
  was	
  5%.	
  Considering	
  the	
  
size	
  of	
  the	
  universe	
  in	
  the	
  adjustment	
  for	
  the	
  margin	
  of	
  error,	
  the	
  estimations	
  have	
  a	
  variance	
  
of	
  +/-­‐6.2%	
  for	
  a	
  95%	
  confidence	
  level.5
7	
   interviewers	
   participated	
   in	
   fieldwork,	
   five researchers	
   worked	
   under	
   the	
   supervision	
   of	
   a	
  
coordinator	
  on	
  the	
  reconstruction	
  of	
  the	
  participant	
  list	
  and	
  the	
  sample,	
  and	
  three researchers	
  
programmed	
  the	
  web	
  questionnaire,	
  sent	
  web	
  invites,	
  and	
  worked	
  on	
  quality	
  control.	
  The	
  data	
  
base	
  was	
  constructed	
  between	
  October	
  13	
  and	
  December	
  8,	
  2015.
The	
   first	
   recommendation	
   for	
   future	
   program	
   is	
   to	
   require	
   implementers	
   to	
   gather	
  
comprehensive	
  contact	
  information	
  of	
  all	
  participants	
  and	
  to	
  obtain	
  form	
  them	
  the	
  permission	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   5 Given	
  the	
  restrictions	
  in	
  the	
  contact	
  listing,	
  the	
  final	
  sample	
  was	
  not	
  selected	
  probabilistically,	
  but	
  rather	
  with	
  a	
  
mix	
  of	
  self-­‐selection	
  (web)	
  and	
  convenience	
  (from	
  the	
  list);	
  as	
  a	
  result,	
  these	
  margins	
  of	
  error	
  might	
  not	
  be	
  
sufficiently	
  precise	
  in	
  the	
  estimations.
9
(and	
  commitment)	
  to	
  be	
  contacted	
  later	
  by	
  USAID	
  or	
  an	
  external	
  auditor	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  USAID	
  to	
  
evaluate	
  the	
  programs	
  and/or	
  obtain	
  feedback.
IV.	
  Evaluation	
  Questions, Research	
  Techniques and	
  Scope	
  and	
  Structure	
  of	
  the	
  Research
Instruments
1. Main	
  Evaluation	
  Questions
Following	
  is	
  a	
  list	
  of	
  the	
  main	
  evaluation questions	
  that	
  guided the	
  research	
  design	
  and	
  analysis	
  
of	
  the	
  performance	
  evaluation:
6
• Which	
  USAID-­‐supported	
  institutional	
  strengthening	
  and	
  individual	
  capacity	
  building	
  
activities	
   were	
   most	
   relevant	
   and	
   effective	
   at	
   increasing	
   the	
   abilities	
   of	
   bar	
  
associations	
   and	
   legal	
   education	
   institutions	
   to	
   improve	
   the	
   legal	
   profession	
   and	
  
facilitate	
  their	
  transition	
  to Mexico’s	
  new	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system?	
  
• What	
   have	
   been	
   the	
   most	
   effective	
   USAID-­‐supported	
   methodologies	
   and	
  
approaches	
   carried	
   out	
   by	
   bar	
   associations	
   and	
   legal	
   education	
   institutions	
   to	
  
support	
  the	
  legal	
  profession	
  to	
  practice	
  under	
  the	
  new	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system?	
  Why	
  
are	
  they	
  considered	
  successful?	
  What	
  were	
  the	
  primary	
  factors	
  contributing	
  to	
  their	
  
success?	
  
• Similarly,	
  which	
  USAID-­‐supported	
  methods	
  or	
  approaches	
  have	
  been	
  less	
  effective?	
  
Why	
   are	
   they	
   considered	
   so?	
   What	
   were	
   the	
   primary	
   factors	
   that	
   hindered	
   their	
  
success?	
  
• To	
  what	
  extent	
  did	
  USG	
  assistance	
  contribute	
  to	
  and/or	
  accelerate	
  this	
  transition?	
  
• What	
  have	
  been	
  the	
  primary	
  constraints	
  (i.e.	
  institutional,	
  capacity,	
  policy,	
  political,	
  
etc.)	
   that	
   have	
   impeded	
   the	
   abilities	
   of	
   legal	
   education	
   institutions	
   and	
   bar	
  
associations	
   to	
   provide	
   quality	
   services	
   and	
   successfully	
   support	
   the	
   legal	
  
profession’s	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  new	
  system?	
  
• What	
  other	
  methods	
  or	
  technical	
  recommendations	
  should	
  USAID	
  consider	
  in	
  the	
  
design	
  of	
  future	
  legal	
  education	
  activities?	
  
2. Research	
  Techniques and	
  Scope
As	
   stated	
   above,	
   the	
   performance	
   evaluation	
   included	
   a	
   qualitative	
   and	
   a	
   quantitative	
  
component	
  that	
  were	
  conducted	
  simultaneously.	
  These	
  research	
  techniques	
  complement	
  each	
  
other	
   and	
   the	
   findings	
   discussed	
   in	
   the	
   next	
   section contain information	
   from	
   both
components.	
   The	
   qualitative	
   component	
   included	
   telephone	
   and	
   face-­‐to-­‐face in	
   depth-­‐
interviews, as	
  well	
  as	
  focus	
  groups	
  among	
  faculty	
  of	
  participating	
  universities. The	
  quantitative	
  
component	
   consisted	
   of	
   telephone	
  interviews	
  among	
   students	
   professors,	
  lawyers	
  and	
   public	
  
officials.	
  Following	
  is	
  a	
  brief	
  description	
  of	
  the	
  scope	
  of	
  each	
  components:
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   6 Source:	
  Performance	
  Evaluation	
  of	
  USAID/Mexico’s	
  Legal	
  Education	
  Program	
   request	
   for	
  quotation,	
  August	
  14,	
  
2015.
10
Qualitative	
  component
In	
  conducting	
  focus	
  groups	
  and	
  in-­‐depth	
  interviews,	
  an	
  interview	
  guide	
  was	
  developed	
  for	
  both	
  
studies	
  (see	
  Appendices	
  2	
  and	
  3).	
  
The	
  main	
   goal	
   of	
   this	
   study	
  was	
   to	
   identify	
  what	
   the	
   strengths	
  and	
  weaknesses	
   of	
  education	
  
programs	
  about	
  the	
  new	
  legal	
  system	
  were	
  at	
  different	
  institutions,	
  schools,	
  and	
  universities	
  in	
  
those	
  Mexican	
  states	
  where	
  the	
  implementation	
  of	
  the	
  new	
  justice	
  system	
  was	
  more	
  advanced.	
  	
  	
  
In	
  addition,	
   this	
  study	
  sought	
   to	
  confirm	
  whether	
   the	
   teaching	
  methods	
  used	
  in	
   these	
  classes	
  
and	
   workshops	
   were	
   optimal,	
   what	
   factors	
   contributed	
   to	
   their	
   success.	
   Also,	
   we	
   sought	
   to	
  
understand	
   which	
   methods	
   were	
   the	
   least	
   effective,	
   to	
   what	
   extent	
   the	
   US	
   government	
   has	
  
influence	
  over	
   the	
   transition	
   to	
   the	
  new	
  system,	
  and	
   finally	
   to	
  provide	
   recommendations	
  and	
  
suggestions	
  that	
  practitioners	
  can	
  follow	
  in	
  the	
  design	
  of	
  similar	
  activities	
  in	
  the	
  future.
Focus	
  groups	
  included	
  64	
  contacts	
  obtained	
  by	
  the	
  general	
  listing	
  sent	
  by	
  USAID,	
  of	
  whom	
  we	
  
were	
  able	
  to	
  recruit	
  eleven	
  participants	
  in	
  total:	
  seven	
  for	
  the	
  groups	
  in	
  Mexico	
  City	
  (five	
  in	
  the	
  
first	
  and	
  two	
  in	
  the	
  second)	
  and	
  four	
  for	
  the	
  group	
  in	
  Puebla.
For	
  in-­‐depth	
  interviews,	
  we	
  began	
  with	
  a	
  list	
  of	
   52	
  possible	
  contacts,	
  of	
  whom	
  we	
  were	
  only	
  
able	
   to	
   interview	
   six	
   by	
  November	
   18th.	
   Starting	
   on	
  November	
   23rd,	
   we	
   implemented	
   a	
   new	
  
strategy,	
   which	
   involved	
   including	
   some	
   contacts	
   from	
   the	
   academic	
   profile	
   from	
   the	
  
quantitative	
  list,	
  in	
  conjunction	
  with	
  the	
  former	
  strategy,	
  we	
  were	
  able	
  to	
  increase	
  the	
  number	
  
of	
   interviews	
   completed.	
   In	
   total,	
   we	
   completed	
   18	
   in-­‐depth	
   interviews,	
   four	
   more	
   than	
   the	
  
fifteen	
   originally	
   proposed.	
   The	
   distribution	
   of	
   these	
   interviews	
   is	
   as	
   follows:	
   five	
   in	
   Nuevo	
  
Leon,	
  four	
  in	
  Coahuila,	
  five	
  in	
  Chihuahua,	
  two	
  in	
  Mexico	
  City,	
  and	
  two	
  in	
  Puebla.
For	
   the	
   contacts	
   in	
   Chihuahua,	
   which	
   did	
   not	
   include	
   telephone	
   numbers	
   but	
   only	
   e-­‐mail	
  
addresses,	
  we	
  identified	
   (for	
   some	
   cases)	
   the	
  institution	
   that	
   the	
  e-­‐mail	
  address	
  appeared	
   to	
  
belong	
  to,	
  and	
  contacted	
  these	
  universities	
  and	
  high	
  schools	
  to	
  locate	
  these	
  individuals.	
  In	
  this	
  
way,	
  we	
  were	
  able	
  to	
  complete	
  four	
  interviews	
  with	
  participants	
  from	
  this	
  state.
The	
   primary	
   reasons	
   potential	
   participants	
   gave	
   for	
   not	
   participating	
   were:	
   a)	
   scheduling	
  
complications	
   (they	
  did	
  not	
  have	
  a	
   fixed	
  schedule	
   to	
   take	
  classes,	
  or	
   they	
   take	
  classes	
  on	
  line	
  
and,	
  as	
  a	
   result,	
  are	
   hard	
   to	
  locate	
  in	
   their	
  workplace),	
   b)	
  little	
  availability	
   or	
  interest,	
  and	
   c)	
  
non-­‐response	
  to	
  emails	
  and/or	
  insufficient	
  or	
  incorrect	
  contact	
  information.
Quantitative	
  Component
In	
   constructing	
   the	
   instrument	
   for	
   the	
   quantitative	
   portion	
   of	
   the	
   project,	
   multidisciplinary	
  
teams	
  worked	
   to	
  generate	
  items about	
   the	
   substantive	
  topics and	
  main	
  evaluation questions	
  
described above.
11
Using	
   these	
   topics,	
   the	
   teams	
   generated	
   a	
   broad	
   catalogue	
   of	
   questions	
   that	
   allowed	
   the	
  
generation	
   of	
   a	
   first	
   version	
   of	
   the	
   “long”	
   questionnaire,	
   which	
   was	
   used	
   for	
   the	
   pilot	
   study	
  
completed	
  on	
  October	
  30th.	
  With the	
  results	
  from	
  this	
  pilot,	
  a	
  reduced	
  form	
  questionnaire	
  was	
  
generated	
   and	
   approved	
   by	
   USAID,	
   and	
   this	
   new	
   instrument	
   was	
   used	
   via	
   the	
   computer	
  
program	
  (CAPI)	
  beginning	
  on	
  November	
  2nd.	
  
Even	
   though	
   the	
   questionnaire	
   was	
   reduced	
   in	
   size	
   for	
   its	
   final	
   version,	
   it	
   still	
   included	
   the	
  
topics	
  requested	
  by	
  USAID	
  to	
  evaluate	
  the	
  training	
  sessions	
  conducted	
  by	
  its	
  providers.	
  At	
  the	
  
same	
   time,	
   the	
   instrument	
   addressed	
   topics	
   related	
   to	
   the	
   specific	
   profile	
   of	
   the	
   individuals	
  
who	
  attended	
  these	
  training	
  sessions.
Using	
  this	
  instrument,	
  209	
  valid	
  (complete)	
  interviews	
  were	
  conducted;	
  to	
  that	
  end,	
  we	
  made	
  
1856	
  telephone	
  calls	
  and	
  sent	
  600	
  e-­‐mail	
  invitations.
3. Structure	
  of	
  the	
  Research	
  Instruments
The	
  design	
  and	
  analysis	
  of	
   the	
   research	
  instruments	
   for	
  both	
   the	
  qualitative	
  and	
  quantitative	
  
components	
   of	
   this	
   study	
   were	
   designed	
   based	
   on	
   the	
   evaluation	
   questions	
   outlined	
   above.	
  
These	
  evaluation	
  instruments	
  contain	
  the	
  following	
  general	
  structure:
General	
  Structure	
  of	
  the	
  Evaluation	
  Instruments	
  
Section	
  1.	
  Evaluation of	
  key	
  aspect	
  by	
  type	
  of	
  activity:
+	
  Training	
  (study	
  tours)
+	
  Curriculum	
  building
+	
  Dissemination/diffusion
+	
  Produced	
  documents	
  (Legislative	
  framework,	
  Guide	
  for	
  Reform	
  
of	
  the	
  Legal	
  Profession	
  and	
  Legal	
  Education	
  in	
  Mexico,	
  Manual	
  for	
  
Bar	
  associations)
Which	
  methods	
  
have	
  been	
  
more	
  or	
  less	
  
effective Section	
  2.	
  Evaluation	
  of	
  key	
  content/components	
  of	
  specific	
  
activities
Section	
  3.	
  Perception	
  of	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  the	
  different	
  activities	
  to	
  …
+	
  Improve	
  legal	
  profession
+	
  Facilitate	
  transition	
  to	
  new	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system
+	
  Accelerate	
  transition	
  to	
  new	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system
Section	
  4.	
  Enumeration	
  of	
  primary	
  constraints	
  to
+	
  Provide	
  quality	
  services
+	
  Support	
  legal	
  profession	
  for	
  the	
  NCJS
Section	
  5.	
  Recommendation	
  of	
  other	
  methods/techniques	
  for	
  future	
  education	
  activities
As	
  you	
  can	
  see	
   from	
   the	
   table above,	
  all	
  of	
   the	
  main	
  evaluation questions	
  were	
  included	
  and	
  
are measured	
  directly	
   (sections	
   1	
   to	
   5)	
  or	
  indirectly	
  by	
  analyzing	
   the	
   results	
  of	
   the	
   first	
   three	
  
sections.	
  From	
  this	
  general	
  structure	
  we produced a	
  list	
  of	
  general	
  (sections	
  1,	
  3,	
  4	
  and	
  5)	
  and	
  
specific	
   (section	
   3)	
   questions	
  that	
  were reviewed	
  and	
  approved	
   by	
  USAID	
   before	
   the	
   start	
   of	
  
12
fieldwork.	
  The	
  discussion	
  guidelines	
  for	
  the	
  focus	
  groups	
  and	
  in-­‐depth	
  interviews, as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  
survey instrument	
  for	
  the	
  quantitative	
  component are	
  shown	
  in	
  the	
  appendices.
Regarding	
   the	
   scope	
   of	
   the	
   qualitative	
   and	
   quantitative	
   research	
   instrument	
   the	
   next	
   table	
  
shows	
  a	
  synthesis	
  of	
  the	
  specific activities	
  that	
  were	
  included.	
  For	
  each	
  type	
  of	
  assistance	
  effort
carried	
  out	
  by	
  CEEAD	
  and	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  we	
  show its corresponding	
  program	
  objective/component,	
  
specific	
  activities carried	
  out, and	
  stakeholders	
  involved.
Scope	
  of	
  Work	
  Quantitative Component
Activity
Implementor
CEEAD ABA	
  -­‐ ROLI
Training	
  
(sections	
  1,	
  2	
  
and	
  3)
Objective	
  3:	
  Strengthen	
  Teaching	
  Capacity	
  and	
  
Law	
  School	
  Curriculum
Activities:	
  (1)	
  Adversarial	
  criminal	
  procedures
(2)	
  Oral	
  litigation	
  techniques
(3)	
  Alternative	
  methods	
  of	
  dispute	
  resolution	
  
and	
  alternative	
  solutions	
  to	
  criminal	
  proceedings
Stakeholders:	
  students,	
  professors
Component	
  2:	
  	
  Strengthen	
  the	
  capacity	
  of	
  law	
  
schools	
  to	
  prepare	
  students	
  for	
  the	
  accusatorial	
  
system	
  (named	
  “Activity	
  3”	
  in	
  2010	
  WP)	
  and
Component	
  3:	
  Strengthen	
  the	
  Capacity	
  of	
  Bar	
  
Associations	
  to	
  Support	
  Attorneys	
  Under	
  the	
  
Accusatorial	
  System	
  (named	
  “Activity	
  2”	
  in	
  2010	
  
WP)
Activities:	
  (1)	
  Trial	
  advocacy
(2)	
  Criminal	
  defense	
  clinics/mock	
  trials
(3)	
  Accusatorial	
  system
Stakeholders:	
  students,	
  professors	
  and	
  
lawyers/bars
Curriculum
(sections	
  1,	
  2	
  
and	
  3)
Objective	
  3:	
  Strengthen	
  Teaching	
  Capacity	
  and	
  
Law	
  School	
  Curriculum
Activities:	
  (1)	
  Personalized	
  virtual	
  consulting	
  
Stakeholders:	
  students,	
  professors
Component	
  2:	
  	
  Strengthen	
  the	
  capacity	
  of	
  law	
  
schools	
  to	
  prepare	
  students	
  for	
  the	
  accusatorial	
  
system	
  (named	
  “Activity	
  3”	
  in	
  2010	
  WP)
Component	
  3:	
  Strengthen	
  the	
  Capacity	
  of	
  Bar	
  
Associations	
  to	
  Support	
  Attorneys	
  Under	
  the	
  
Accusatorial	
  System	
  (named	
  “Activity	
  2”	
  in	
  2010	
  
WP)
Activities:	
  (1)	
  First	
  and	
  second	
  law	
  school	
  
assistance
(2)	
  Continuing	
  Legal	
  Education Curriculum	
  for	
  Bar	
  
Associations
Stakeholders:	
  students,	
  professors,	
  lawyers/bars
Diffusion	
  /	
  
Dissemination
(sections	
  1,	
  2	
  
and	
  3)
Objective	
  2:	
  Raise	
  Academic	
  Community’s	
  
Awareness	
  about	
  their	
  Role	
  in	
  the	
  Adversarial	
  
Justice	
  System
Activities:	
  (1)	
  Portal	
  and	
  social	
  networks
(2)	
  Press	
  conferences
Stakeholders:	
  students,	
  professors
Note:	
  whenever	
  possible	
  and	
  relevant,	
  sections	
  4	
  and	
  5	
  will	
  be	
  applied	
  to	
  the	
  different	
  stakeholders.
13
V.	
  Discussion	
  of	
  Evaluation	
  Results	
  and	
  Findings
This	
   section	
   discusses	
   the	
   results	
   of	
   the	
   qualitative	
   and	
   quantitative	
   components	
   of	
   this	
  
evaluation	
  study	
  in	
  five	
  subsections.	
  First,	
  we	
  provide	
  participants’	
  performance	
  evaluations	
  of	
  
the	
   activities	
   carried	
   out	
   by	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   and	
   CEEAD	
   as	
   part	
   of	
   USAID/Mexico’s	
   Legal	
   Education
Program.	
  Second,	
  we	
  discuss	
  participants’	
  opinions	
  on	
  the	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  the	
  methodologies	
  
used	
  by	
  these	
  USAID-­‐supported	
  efforts	
  in	
  facilitating	
  the	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  new	
  judicial	
  system	
  in	
  
Mexico.	
   Third,	
   we	
   assess	
   the	
   impact	
   of	
   participation	
   in	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   and	
   CEEAD activities	
   on	
  
improving	
   the	
   legal	
   profession	
   in	
   Mexico	
   and	
   facilitating	
   the	
   transition	
   to	
   the	
   New	
   Criminal	
  
Justice System (NCJS).	
  Fourth,	
  we	
  outline	
  the	
  primary	
  constraints	
  participants	
  identified	
  in	
  the	
  
provision	
   of	
   services	
   and	
   support	
   for	
   law	
   professionals	
   transitioning	
   to	
   the	
   NCJS.	
   Finally,	
   we	
  
discuss	
   participants’	
   suggestions	
   for	
   improvements	
   in	
   future	
   legal	
   education	
   programs	
   in	
  
Mexico.
The	
  discussion	
  of	
   results	
  in	
   the	
   following	
  sections is	
  based	
  on	
   the	
  analysis	
  of	
  data	
   from	
  focus	
  
groups,	
  in-­‐depth	
  interviews,	
  and	
  a	
  telephone	
  survey.	
  We	
  conducted	
  three	
  focus	
  groups	
  (two	
  in	
  
the	
  Federal	
  District	
  of	
  Mexico	
  and	
  one	
  in	
  Puebla) and	
  18	
  face-­‐to-­‐face	
  in-­‐depth	
  interviews	
  (in	
  the	
  
D.F.,	
   Chihuahua,	
   Monterrey,	
   Puebla,	
   Saltillo,	
   and	
   Torreón)	
   with	
   lawyers,	
   law	
   professors,	
   law	
  
school	
   administrators,	
   and	
   law	
   students	
   that	
   have	
   knowledge	
   of	
   and/or	
   have	
   participated	
   in	
  
ABA-­‐ROLI	
   and	
   CEEAD legal	
   education	
   efforts.	
   We	
   also	
   conducted	
   a	
   survey	
   of	
   209 telephone	
  
interviews	
  across five	
  states,	
  including	
  the	
  D.F. (80), Chihuahua (25),	
  Coahuila (3),	
  Nuevo	
  León
(42),	
   and	
   Puebla (59).	
   The	
   sample,	
   as	
   reported	
   in	
   the	
   main	
   activity	
   of	
   the	
   respondent, is	
  
composed	
   of law	
   students	
   (12.4%),	
   law	
   professors	
   (16.3%),	
   law	
   school	
   authorities	
   (2.4%),	
  
private	
  lawyers	
  (51.7%),	
  law	
  bar	
  members (2.4%),	
  public	
  officials (11.0%),	
  judges (1.9%),	
  recent	
  
law	
  school	
  graduates (1.0%).
7 The	
  sample	
  included	
  95	
  women	
  and	
  114	
  men.	
  
There	
   are	
   two	
   important	
   methodological	
   issues	
   that	
   need	
   to	
   be	
   taken	
   into	
   account	
   when	
  
interpreting	
  the	
  results	
  in	
  this	
  report.	
  First,	
  in	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  the	
  qualitative	
  research employed	
  for	
  
this	
   study,	
  we	
   present	
   the	
  most	
   recurrent	
  findings,	
   as	
   reported by focus	
   group	
   and	
   in-­‐depth	
  
interview participants.	
   It	
   is	
   important	
   to	
   note	
   that	
   the	
   patterns	
   we	
   summarize	
   in	
   the	
   report	
  
correspond	
  to	
  the	
  opinions	
  and	
  experiences	
  of	
  focus	
  group	
  and	
  in	
  depth-­‐interview	
  participants,	
  
and	
   they	
   may	
   or	
   may	
   not correspond	
   to the	
   opinions	
   and	
   experiences	
   of	
   the	
   project	
  
beneficiaries	
  as	
  a	
  whole. For	
  conclusions	
  drawn	
   from	
  a	
   representative	
  sample, we	
  use	
   results	
  
obtained	
  from	
  the quantitative “telephone	
  survey”	
  with	
  selected	
  beneficiaries	
  of	
  the	
  program.	
  
Second,	
  in	
  interpreting results	
  obtained	
  through	
  the	
  telephone	
  survey,	
  we	
  provide	
  information	
  
related	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  to	
  which	
  differences	
  are	
  statistically significant,	
  meaning	
  that	
  a	
  difference	
  
between	
   two	
   values	
   is	
   statistically	
   distinguishable	
   from	
   zero (no	
   difference).	
   Statistical	
  
significance	
   analyses	
   inform	
   the	
   degree	
   of	
   confidence a	
   reader	
   can	
   have	
   that differences	
  
between	
   groups	
   of	
   participants	
   are	
   true differences	
   and	
   not	
   simply	
   the	
   result	
   of	
   chance.
Statistical significance	
  in	
  analyses	
  of	
  large	
  survey	
  datasets	
  is	
  typically	
  specified when	
  the	
  p-­‐value	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   7 Many	
  respondents	
  reported	
  more	
  than	
  one	
  occupation	
  (for	
  example	
  lawyer	
  and	
  professor).	
  Reported	
  her	
  is	
  only	
  
the	
  main	
  occupation.
14
of	
  a	
  calculated	
  statistic	
  is	
  less	
  than 0.05,	
  meaning	
  that	
  investigators	
  are 95%	
  confident that	
  the	
  
null	
  hypothesis	
  of	
  no	
  difference	
  can	
  be	
  rejected.	
  When	
  sample	
  sizes	
  are	
  small,	
  very	
  strict	
  cut-­‐off	
  
levels	
   for	
  statistical	
  significance	
  can	
  increase	
   the	
   risk	
  of	
  Type	
  II	
  errors:	
   failing	
   to	
  detect	
  a	
   true	
  
result.	
  Given	
  the	
  limited	
  sample	
  size of	
  the	
  telephone	
  survey	
  reported	
  here,	
  to	
  minimize	
  Type	
  II	
  
errors	
   we	
   employ	
   a	
   more	
   generous	
   rule	
   to	
   reporting statistical	
   significance:	
   specifically,	
   we	
  
consider	
   differences	
   that	
  are	
   significant	
  at	
   the 90%	
   confidence level (p<.10) to	
   be	
   sufficiently	
  
reliable	
  and	
  thus	
  we	
  report	
  any	
  differences	
  significant	
  at	
  p<.10	
  as	
  “statistically	
  significant.”
8
This	
  confidence	
  interval,	
  expressed	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  a	
  range	
  surrounding	
  that	
  point,	
  represents	
  the	
  
margin	
  of	
  error	
   for	
  each	
  data	
  point,	
  or	
  average,	
  displayed.	
  It	
  is	
  expressed	
  in	
   terms	
  of	
  a	
   range	
  
surrounding	
   that	
  point.	
  In	
  bar	
  charts	
   this	
  confidence	
  interval	
  of	
   90%	
  appears	
  as	
  a	
  grey	
  block.	
  
The	
   dot	
  in	
   the	
   center	
   of	
  a	
   confidence	
  interval	
   depicts	
   the	
  estimated	
  mean	
  in	
   bar	
   charts.	
  The	
  
numbers	
   next	
   to	
  each	
   bar	
   in	
   the	
   bar	
   charts	
   represent	
   the	
  estimated	
  mean	
   values	
   (the	
   dots).	
  
When	
   two	
   estimated	
   points	
   have	
   confidence	
   intervals	
   that	
   overlap	
   to	
   a	
   large	
   degree,	
   the	
  
difference	
   between	
   the	
   two	
   values	
   is	
   typically	
   not	
   statistically	
   significant;	
   conversely,	
   where	
  
two	
   confidence	
  intervals	
  in	
   bar	
  graphs	
   do	
   not	
   overlap,	
   the	
   reader	
   can	
   be	
  very	
   confident	
   that	
  
those	
  differences	
  are	
  statistically	
  significant	
  at	
  the	
  90%	
  confidence	
  level.	
  
1. Performance	
  Evaluation	
  of	
  Activities
This	
   section	
   focuses	
   on	
   discussing	
   participant’s	
   overall	
   evaluations	
   of	
   the	
   legal	
   assistance	
  
activities	
  they	
  participated	
  in.	
  Some	
  of	
  our	
  key	
  findings	
  in	
  this	
  respect	
  are	
  the	
  following:	
  
• Survey	
  respondents	
  and	
  focus	
  group	
  participants	
  have	
  overall	
  positive	
  evaluations	
  of	
  
the	
  CEEAD	
  or	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  activities	
  they	
  participated	
  in.
• The	
  vast	
  majority	
  of	
  survey	
  respondents	
  (86.5%)	
  reported	
  their	
  experiences	
  as	
  “very	
  
useful”	
  for	
  their	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS.
• Instructor	
  preparedness,	
  training	
  facilities,	
  the	
  content,	
  and	
  relevancy	
  of	
  training	
  for	
  
transitioning	
   to	
   the	
   NCJS	
   are	
   the	
   most	
   successfully	
   perceived	
   performance	
  
dimensions	
  of	
  legal	
  education	
  activities	
  by	
  CEEAD	
  and	
  ABA-­‐ROLI.
• Short	
   length	
   of	
   trainings,	
   desire	
   for	
   more	
   practical/simulations	
   sessions,	
   greater	
  
attendance	
  of	
  foreign	
  instructors,	
  and	
  greater	
  balance	
  between	
  theory	
  and	
  practice	
  
are	
  dimensions	
  which	
  participants	
  evaluated	
  least	
  positively.	
  
The	
   purpose	
   of	
   this	
   study	
   is	
   to	
   assess	
   the	
   effectiveness	
   of	
   USAID/Mexico	
   Legal	
   Education	
  
Program	
   from	
   the	
   perspective	
   of	
   program	
   participants	
   themselves.	
   To	
   do	
   this,	
   we	
   asked	
  
respondents	
   in our	
   sample	
   whether	
   they	
   had	
   participated	
   any	
   of	
   a	
   number	
   of	
   training	
   and	
  
consulting	
  activities	
  carried	
  out	
  by	
  CEEAD	
  and	
  ABA-­‐ROLI including	
  trainings	
  on	
  laws	
  of	
  criminal	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   8 For	
  further	
  information	
  and	
  detailed	
  results,	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  transcriptions	
  for	
  the	
  in-­‐depth	
  interviews	
  and	
  focus	
  groups,	
  
as	
  well	
  a	
  graphic	
  and	
  cross-­‐tab	
  reports	
  can	
  be	
  found	
  in	
  the	
  Appendix.
15
procedure	
   of	
   the	
   NCJS,	
   oral	
   litigation	
   techniques,	
   methods	
   for	
   legal	
   conflict	
   resolution,	
   law	
  
school	
   curriculum	
   development,	
   and	
   public	
   dissemination	
   of	
   information	
   about	
   the	
   legal	
  
education	
  program.
9 The	
  vast	
  majority	
  (95.2%)	
  of	
  respondents	
  indicated	
  having	
  participated	
  in	
  
at	
   least	
   one	
   these	
   activities10,	
   while	
   66.5%	
   participated	
   in	
   at	
   least	
   one	
   CEEAD	
   activity,	
   and	
  
80.4%	
  in	
  an	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  activity.
Survey	
  respondents generally	
  gave	
  positive	
  evaluations	
  of	
  the	
  activities	
  they	
  participated	
  in as	
  
part	
  of	
  CEEAD	
  or	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  efforts. When	
  asked	
  to	
  evaluate	
  the	
  usefulness	
  of	
  training	
  courses	
  
or	
   activities,	
   86.5%	
   of	
   respondents	
   reported	
   their	
   experiences	
   as “very	
   useful”	
   for	
   their	
  
transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS.
11 Participants	
  of	
  in-­‐depth	
  interviews	
  mirrored	
  these	
  positive	
  evaluations.	
  
An	
   interviewee	
   from	
   Monterrey	
   described	
   the	
   usefulness	
   of	
   activities	
   saying,	
   “…todo	
   el	
  
contenido	
   y	
   obviamente	
   toda	
   la	
  metodología,	
   obviamente	
   todo,	
   es	
   otro	
   chip	
   completamente,	
  
obviamente	
  ya	
  son	
  las	
  prácticas	
  tienen	
  un	
  contenido	
  de	
  teórico	
  pero	
  es	
  más	
  práctico…” Another	
  
interviewee	
   from	
   an	
   organization	
   providing	
   legal	
   assistance	
   in	
   the	
   area	
   of	
   human	
   rights	
  
summarized	
  his	
  views	
  saying,
Bastante	
  buena,	
  me	
  parece	
  que	
  nos	
  dan	
  las	
  herramientas	
  suficientes	
  para	
  poder	
  hacer	
  
frente	
  a	
  este	
  sistema,	
  me	
  queda	
  claro	
  que	
  una	
  capacitación	
  no	
  te	
  hace (experto),	
  por	
  lo	
  
tanto	
   los	
   participantes	
   tienen	
   que	
   buscar	
   más	
   capacitaciones	
   porque	
   esto	
   es	
   así,	
   la	
  
constante	
  capacitación	
  es	
  la	
  clave	
  del	
  éxito	
  de	
  la	
  implementación	
  de	
  esta	
  reforma.
On	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  10.4%	
  thought	
  that	
  courses	
  or	
  activities	
  were	
  “somewhat	
  useful”,	
  2.6%	
  said	
  
they	
  were	
  “a	
  little useful”,	
  and	
  only	
  1	
  person	
  (0.5%)	
  thought	
  that	
  his	
  or	
  her experience was	
  not	
  
useful	
  at	
  all.	
  A	
  professor	
  from	
  Saltillo	
  that	
  participated	
  in	
  an	
  in-­‐depth	
  interview	
  pointed	
  at	
  one	
  
reason	
  that	
  may	
  limit	
  the	
  usefulness	
  of	
  the	
  legal	
  assistance	
  activities	
  saying,	
  “Son	
  efectivos,	
  el	
  
problema	
  es	
  que	
  no	
  hay	
  un	
  seguimiento	
  o	
  sea	
  no	
  hay	
  una	
  parte	
  dos.”
The	
  tenor	
  of	
  evaluations	
  in	
  the focus	
  groups	
  was	
  roughly	
  equivalent,	
  with	
  positive	
  evaluations	
  
of	
  legal	
  education	
  activities	
  more prevalent	
  than	
  negative	
  evaluations.	
  The statements	
  by	
  focus	
  
group	
   participants	
   often	
   provide	
   explanations	
   for	
   positive	
   perspectives.	
   One	
   focus	
   group	
  
participant	
   from	
   Puebla	
   summarized	
   his	
   evaluation	
   of	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   courses	
   saying,	
   “Las	
  
capacitaciones	
   de	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   son	
   muy	
   completas	
   porque	
   literal[mente] estás como	
   en	
   ceros	
   y	
  
entonces	
  ya	
  te	
  empiezan	
  a	
  explicar	
  paso	
  por	
  paso.”	
  Another	
  participant	
   from	
  a	
   focus	
  group	
  in	
  
the	
  D.F.	
  explained	
  his	
  positive	
  evaluation	
  of	
  activities	
  a	
  bit	
  further,	
  saying,	
  
Fue	
  el	
  inicio,	
  esos	
  cursos	
  nos	
  ayudaron	
  a	
  clarificar	
  qué	
  es	
  el	
  Sistema	
  Acusatorio,	
  cómo	
  se	
  
puede	
   litigar	
   en	
   el	
   sistema	
   y	
   (es)	
   muy	
   importante	
   que	
   referencias	
   podemos	
   tener	
   de	
  
cómo	
  operan	
  otras	
  Clínicas	
  en	
  Estados	
  Unidos	
  y	
  en	
  México	
  para	
  de	
  ahí	
  arribar	
  y	
  hacer	
  el	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   9 See	
  series	
  F2	
  of	
  the	
  survey	
  questionnaire	
  for	
  specific	
  question	
  wording	
  of	
  activities.	
  
10 Some	
  respondents	
  only	
  participated	
  in	
  diffusion	
  activities. 11 See	
  appendices	
  containing	
  survey	
  questionnaire	
  for	
  specific	
  wording	
  of	
  this	
  question	
  and	
  all	
  others	
  analyzed	
  in
this	
  results	
  section.	
  
16
propio	
  modelo	
   de	
   Clínica	
   Penal	
  en	
   Sistema	
   Acusatorio. Entonces	
  eso	
  es	
   lo	
   que	
   yo	
   creo	
  
que	
  (la	
  capacitación)	
  aportó	
  en	
  sí.
To	
   further	
   examine	
   participants’	
   evaluations	
   of	
   activities,	
   the	
   telephone	
   survey asked	
  
respondents	
  to	
  think	
  about	
  the	
  most	
  recent	
  activity	
  he/she	
  participated	
  in	
  and	
  evaluate	
  it	
  on	
  a	
  
number	
  of	
  performance	
  dimensions.	
  To	
  do	
  this,	
  respondents	
  indicated their level	
  of	
  agreement	
  
with	
  statements	
  describing	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  the	
  activity	
  on	
  1	
  to	
  7	
  scale	
  that	
  was	
  recoded	
   from 0	
  
(strongly	
   disagree)	
   to	
   100	
   (strongly	
   agree)	
   scale.	
   Sample	
   averages	
   for	
   each	
   dimension are	
  
displayed	
  in	
  Figure 1.	
  As	
  shown,	
  no	
  dimension receives	
  a	
  score	
  below	
  72.2	
  degrees,	
  indicating	
  a	
  
high	
  mean	
  level	
  of	
  satisfaction	
  with	
  the	
  way	
  CEEAD	
  and	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  activities	
  were	
  carried	
  out.	
  
Participants	
  gave	
  the	
  best	
  average	
  evaluation	
  to	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  preparation	
  of	
  training	
  instructors	
  
(91.9)	
  and	
   the	
   lowest	
   to	
   the	
  amount	
   of	
   hands-­‐on	
   practice	
   or	
   simulations	
   included	
   in	
   training	
  
activities	
   (72.2).	
   In	
   fact,	
   pairwise	
   comparisons	
   of	
   the	
   differences between	
   each	
   of	
   these	
  
dimensions	
   and all other	
   evaluated	
   aspects	
   of activities	
   are statistically significant	
   (p<.10).	
   In	
  
other	
  words,	
  relative	
  to	
   the	
   rest	
  of	
   the	
  dimensions	
   that	
   respondents	
  were	
  asked	
   to	
  evaluate,	
  
they	
   evaluated instructors’	
   preparation	
   as	
   the	
   most	
   positive	
   aspect.	
   An	
   in-­‐depth	
   interview	
  
participant	
   shared	
   this	
   positive	
   views	
   of	
   trainers	
   saying,	
   “A	
   mí	
   me	
   parecieron	
   excelentes	
   los	
  
expositores	
   con	
   los	
   que	
   yo	
   tomé	
   las	
   clases,	
   me	
   parecen	
   muy	
   capacitados	
   y	
   me	
   gustó	
   porque	
  
veíamos	
  teoría	
  y	
  veíamos	
  práctica	
  también.”
In	
  contrast,	
  survey participants	
  viewed	
  the	
  quantity	
  of	
  practice	
  sessions	
  and	
  simulations	
  as	
  the	
  
least	
   satisfactory	
  aspect	
  on	
  a	
   scale	
   from	
  0	
   to	
  100.	
  On	
   this	
  point,	
  a	
   focus	
  participant	
   from	
   the	
  
D.F. explained,	
  
…que	
   incluso	
   están	
   capacitando	
   gente	
   y	
   mi	
   pregunta	
   y	
   mi	
   inquietud	
   siempre	
   ha	
   sido	
  
¿Cómo	
   los	
   están	
   capacitando	
   cuando	
   tenemos	
   nula	
   experiencia	
   en la	
   aplicación	
   del	
  
sistema?...	
  Uno	
  tiene	
  que	
  acudir	
  a	
  un	
  juicio	
  como	
  parte	
  en	
  el	
  proceso	
  … y	
  hasta	
  juez,	
  MP
(ministerio	
   público/fiscal) y	
   abogado,	
   pero	
   si	
   es	
   importante	
   que	
   nos acerquemos	
   y	
  
entendamos	
  cómo	
  funciona,	
  porque	
  una	
  cosa	
  es	
  la	
  teoría	
  y	
  otra	
  cosa es	
  aterrizar	
  en	
  una	
  
práctica…	
  Tratan	
  de	
  pensar	
  en	
  esa	
  misma	
  forma	
  o	
  sea	
  el	
  auto	
  de	
  formal	
  prisión	
  es	
  como	
  
el	
  auto	
  de	
  vinculación	
  o	
  sea	
  hacer	
  una	
  homologación	
  y	
  no	
   funciona	
  así.	
  Uno	
   tiene	
  que	
  
entender	
   que	
   son	
   procesos	
   completamente	
   diferentes	
   y	
   partir	
   de	
   ese	
   momento	
   para	
  
poder	
  avanzar,	
  si	
  seguimos	
  pensando	
  de	
  la	
  misma	
  forma,	
  es	
  más	
  porque	
  aparte	
  a	
  veces	
  
nos	
   hemos	
   traído	
   los	
   viejos	
   vicios	
   que	
   hacemos	
   en	
   el	
   sistema	
   tradicional,	
   estamos	
  
acostumbrados	
   algunos	
   operadores	
   del	
   sistema	
   pues	
   a	
   la	
   corrupción,	
   a	
   cierto	
   tipo	
   de	
  
autonomía,	
  ser	
  discrecionales	
  y	
  esto	
  ya	
  no	
  se	
  puede	
  hacer.
Differences in	
  average	
  evaluations	
  displayed	
  in Figure 1	
  that	
  are	
  greater	
  than	
  four degrees	
  are	
  
also	
   statistically	
   significant.	
   This	
   means	
   that we	
   can	
   conclude	
   with	
   confidence	
   that average	
  
perceptions	
  of	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  facilities and	
  the	
  content	
  and	
  relevancy	
  of	
  trainings	
  with	
  respect	
  
to	
  the	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS were	
  evaluated	
  significantly	
  more	
  positively	
  than	
  average	
  views	
  of	
  
activities’	
   didactic	
   materials,	
   the	
   balance	
   of	
   theory	
   and	
   practice,	
   attendance	
   of	
   foreign	
  
instructors,	
  length,	
  and	
  simulation	
  sessions.	
  Differences	
  among	
  average	
  evaluations	
  of	
  number	
  
17
of	
   activity	
   participants,	
   the	
   utility	
   of	
   materials for	
   learning	
   about	
   the	
   NCJS,	
   and	
   the	
   use	
   of	
  
audiovisual	
   materials	
   are	
   not	
   statistically	
   distinguishable.	
   That	
   is,	
   they	
   receive	
   similar	
  
performance	
  evaluations,	
  on	
  average.	
  
Figure	
  1.	
  Average	
  Performance	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Activities
Among	
   focus	
   group	
   participants, positive	
   evaluations	
   of	
   the	
   structure	
   of	
   activities	
   were	
  
common,	
  although some	
   pointed	
   out	
   that	
  activities	
  were	
   sometimes	
   carried	
   out	
  with	
  limited
time	
  constraints.	
  A	
  professor	
  from	
  Puebla	
  summarized	
  this	
  view	
  saying,“siento	
  que	
  fue	
  un	
  curso	
  
demasiado	
  corto	
  para	
  toda	
  la	
  información	
  que	
  se	
  tiene	
  que	
  dar.” A	
  focus	
  group participant	
  from	
  
the	
  D.F.	
  noted a	
  similar	
  opinoin	
  saying,	
  “…	
  la	
  dinámica	
  taller	
  que	
  tuvo	
  ABA	
  ROLI	
  fue	
  buena,	
  digo	
  
en	
  el	
  caso	
  mío	
  tratar	
  de	
  hacer	
  muchos	
  ejercicios	
  y	
  que	
  fuera	
  constantemente,	
  creo	
  que	
  el	
  tiempo	
  
digo	
   a	
   veces	
   es	
   muy	
   difícil	
   poner	
   los	
   tiempos	
   pero	
   eran	
   pequeñitos…”. Another	
   focus	
   group	
  
participant	
  expressed	
  a	
  similar	
  perspective	
  by saying,
91.9
88.8
87.6
87.2
85.7
84.8
84.1
83.9
83.0
80.4
78.1
72.2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Facilitator/trainer was sufficiently prepared
Adequate facilities
Content focused on key aspects of NCJS
Activity was relevant in helping transition to NCJS
Adequate number of participants
Materials effectively facilitated learning
Necessary audio-visual materials where used
Received sufficient didactic materials
Good balance between theory and practice
Foreign instructors were invited as lecturers
Adequate length of the activity
Had sufficient practical/simulations sessions
Average
 90 % Confidence Interval 
 
Respondent agrees with the following statement (0-100 scale)
18
Me	
  pareció	
  muy	
  breve,	
  a	
  mí	
  me	
  pareció	
  muy	
  breve	
  porque	
  era	
  tema-­‐taller,	
  tema-­‐taller,	
  pero	
  
desafortunadamente	
  los	
  temas	
  eran	
  muy	
  pequeños	
  y	
  me	
  parece	
  que	
  justo	
  en	
  el	
  que	
  se	
  nos	
  
dio	
  a	
  nosotros…	
  	
  en	
  este	
  incluyeron	
  un	
  módulo	
  de	
  género	
  que	
  me	
  pareció	
  demasiado	
  general	
  
y	
  muy	
  poco	
  aterrizado	
  al	
  objetivo	
  del	
   taller,	
  era	
  un	
   taller	
  de	
  Litigación	
  Oral,	
  si	
  hubiéramos	
  
tomado	
  un	
  taller	
  de	
  género	
  pues	
  qué	
  lindo	
  pero	
  no	
  era	
  el	
  (tema	
  del)	
  taller.
However,	
   another	
   participant	
   disagreed,	
   stating,	
   “…me	
   gustó	
  mucho	
   porque	
   si	
   estuvieron	
   los	
  
tiempos	
  muy	
  bien	
  distribuidos,	
  nos	
  pusieron	
  videos,	
  nos	
  pusieron	
  a trabajar	
  en	
  equipo,	
  hubo	
  una	
  
muy	
  buena	
  interacción,	
  hubo	
  casos	
  muy	
  buenos,	
  muy	
   reales…”. And	
  one	
  participant	
   from	
   the	
  
D.F. explained	
   that	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   courses	
   sometimes	
   covered	
   topics	
   that	
   other	
  types of	
   training	
  
programs	
  did not:	
  	
  
…yo	
  había	
   tomado	
  cursos	
  del	
  Tribunal	
  Superior	
  de	
   Justicia,	
  del	
  INACIPE,	
  algún	
  otro	
  por	
  
ahí	
   y	
   tomar	
   el	
   curso	
   de	
   ABA	
   ROLI	
   fue	
   una	
   perspectiva	
   distinta,	
   fue	
   exclusivamente	
   la	
  
parte	
  de	
  la	
  técnica	
  pero,	
  la	
  técnica	
  de	
  la	
  litigación	
  que	
  nadie	
  le	
  ponía	
  énfasis	
  en	
  los	
  otros	
  
cursos.
Overall,	
   the results from	
   the	
   quantitative	
   and	
   qualitative	
   research	
   lead	
   us	
   to	
   conclude that	
  
instructor	
   preparedness,	
   training	
   facilities,	
   the	
   content	
   and	
   relevancy	
   of	
   training	
   for	
  
transitioning	
   to	
   the	
  NCJS	
  are the	
  most	
   successful	
   performance	
   dimensions of	
   legal education	
  
activities	
  by	
  CEEAD	
  and	
  ABA-­‐ROLI.	
  On	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  we	
  interpret	
  lower	
  average	
  evaluations	
  
for	
   length	
   of	
   training,	
   practical/simulations	
   sessions,	
   attendance	
   of	
   foreign	
   instructors,	
   and	
  
balance	
   between	
   theory	
   and	
   practice	
   as indications	
   that	
   these dimensions	
   have	
   room	
   for	
  
improvement.
In	
   fact,	
   one focus	
   group participant	
   from	
   Puebla	
   pointed	
   to	
   information	
   overload	
   as	
   an	
  
impairment	
  for	
  students’	
  ability	
  to	
  fully	
  benefit	
  from	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  activities,	
  saying,	
  “Yo	
  a	
  lo	
  mejor	
  
criticaría	
   y	
   no	
   a	
   manera	
   de critica	
   sino	
   que	
   hubo	
   veces	
   que	
   presentaron	
   diapositivas	
   muy	
  
cargadas	
  de	
  mucha	
  información	
  y	
  eso	
  como	
  que	
  no	
  da	
  pauta	
  a	
  que	
  el	
  alumno…, bueno	
  en	
  este	
  
caso	
  estábamos	
  lee	
  y	
  lee	
  y	
  lee.” While	
  another	
  focus	
  group	
  participant	
  highlighted	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  
more	
  dynamic	
  activities	
  in	
  training	
  as	
  opposed	
  to	
  only	
  lectures,	
  saying,
Quizás	
  habría	
  que	
  mejorar	
  algunas	
  cosas	
  en	
  cuanto	
  a	
  involucrar	
  más	
  a	
  los	
  destinatarios,	
  
yo	
  creo	
  que	
   se	
   sentía	
  mucha	
  exposición	
  y	
  eso	
  los	
  cansaba	
  enormemente,	
   son	
  jornadas	
  
largas	
  entonces	
  se	
  necesita	
  una	
  cierta	
  dinámica	
  en	
  la	
  que	
  todos	
  los	
  participantes	
  puedan	
  
hablar	
   de	
   pronto	
   y	
   aquí	
   si	
   hubo	
   momentos	
   pesados	
   por	
   esta	
   dinámica	
   un	
   poco	
  
unidireccional	
  o	
  vertical.
To	
   assess	
   whether	
   there	
   are perceived differences	
   in	
   the	
   implementation	
   of	
   USAID/Mexico	
  
legal	
   education	
   program	
   across	
   states,	
   we	
   disaggregate	
   average	
   evaluations	
   of	
   training	
   and	
  
19
consulting	
  activities by	
   state.
12 As	
   shown	
  in	
  Figure	
   2,	
  participants	
  in	
  D.F.	
   reported	
   statistically	
  
significantly	
  poorer	
  performance	
  evaluations	
  on	
  a	
   0	
   to	
   100	
   scale	
   than	
   those	
   from Chihuahua,	
  
Nuevo	
   León,	
   and	
   Puebla	
   along	
   three	
   key	
   performance	
   dimensions:	
   the	
   degree	
   to	
   which	
   the	
  
content	
  of	
  activities	
   focused	
  on	
  key	
  aspects	
  of	
   the	
  NCJS,	
   the	
  degree	
   to	
  which	
  participation	
  in	
  
activities	
  helped	
  in	
  the	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS,	
  and	
  the	
  length	
  of	
  training	
  activities.	
  What	
  might	
  
be	
   the	
  source	
  of	
   these	
  lower	
  evaluations?	
  We	
  note	
   that	
  participants	
  in	
   the	
  D.F.	
  also	
  reported	
  
lower	
  levels	
  of	
  attendance	
  of	
  foreign	
  instructors	
  as	
  lecturers	
  at	
  their	
  trainings than	
  those	
  from
Puebla	
   and	
   Nuevo	
   León. Participants	
   from	
   the	
   D.F.	
   reported	
   significantly	
   lower	
   performance	
  
evaluations	
   for	
   the	
  preparedness	
  of	
   trainers than	
   those	
   from	
  Chihuahua.	
  Those	
   from	
   the	
  D.F.
and	
  Puebla	
  likewise	
  reported less	
  satisfaction	
  with	
  the adequacy	
  of	
  activity	
  facilities	
  than	
  those	
  
from Chihuahua. In	
   terms	
   of	
   evaluations	
   of	
   the	
   adequacy	
   of	
   number	
   of	
   participants,	
  
respondents	
  from	
  Puebla	
  reported	
  lower	
  average	
  evaluations	
  than	
  those	
  from	
  Nuevo	
  León	
  and	
  
Chihuahua.	
  Finally,	
  participants	
   from	
  Puebla	
  and	
  the	
  D.F.	
  gave	
  lower	
  performance	
  evaluations
of practical/simulations	
   sessions,	
   though	
   only	
   differences	
   in	
   comparison	
   to participants	
   from	
  
Nuevo	
  León	
  are	
  statistically	
  significant.	
  
Figure	
  2.	
  Average	
  Performance	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Activities	
  by	
  State
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   12 There	
   were	
   only	
   three	
   respondents	
   from	
   Coahuila	
   is	
   excluded	
   from	
   this	
   analysis	
   because	
   the	
   survey	
   only	
  
includes	
   three	
   respondents	
   from	
   this state,	
  which	
   prevents	
   us	
   from	
   carrying	
   out	
  any	
  meaningful	
  analysis	
   of	
   the	
  
state	
  as	
  a	
  distinct	
  group.	
  
90.2
90.6
95.2
94.3
88.8
94.4
89.2
86.0
88.6
81.0
92.5
94.4
89.5
92.5
92.1
81.4
85.5
89.6
90.5
81.0
85.7
83.1
84.9
85.7
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
0 20 40 60 80 100
Facilitator/trainer was sufficiently prepared
Adequate facilities
Activity was relevant in helping transition to NCJS
Content focused on key aspects of NCJS
Adequate number of participants
Materials effectively facilitated learning
Average
87.6
78.7
88.6
74.9
84.2
83.6
87.3
81.3
85.7
79.8
83.9
85.8
84.9
83.7
79.8
70.7
86.3
86.7
81.7
81.2
69.3
68.1
80.5
76.2
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
0 20 40 60 80 100
Foreign instructors were invited as lecturers
Received sufficient didactic materials
Good balance between theory and practice
Adequate length of the activity
Necessary audio-visual materials where used
Had sufficient practical/simulations sessions
Average
 90 % Confidence Interval 
 
20
In	
  addition	
  to	
  differences	
  across	
  states,	
  we	
  also	
  analyze	
  differences	
  in	
  performance	
  evaluations	
  
of	
   activities	
   among participants	
  that	
   attended training	
   activities	
   carried	
   out	
   by	
   CEEAD,	
   ABA-­‐
ROLI,	
  or	
  both.	
  Results	
  displayed	
  in	
  Figure	
  3 that	
  on	
  most	
  dimensions,	
  participants	
  exhibited	
  no	
  
real	
  difference	
  in	
  their	
  performance	
  evaluations	
  of	
  educational	
  activities	
  for	
  the	
  NCJS.	
  However,	
  
exceptions	
  include	
  respondents	
  who	
  only	
  participated	
  in	
  activities	
  carried	
  out	
  by	
  CEEAD,	
  who
report	
   less	
   favorable evaluations	
   of	
   the	
   relevancy	
   of	
   training	
   for	
   their	
   transition	
   to	
   the	
   new	
  
NCJS	
  in	
  comparison	
   to	
   those	
   that	
  participated	
  only	
  in	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  activities	
  or	
  in	
  activities	
   from	
  
both	
  implementers.	
  For	
  example,	
   professor	
  from	
  Monterrey	
  expressed	
  her	
  views	
  of	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  
activitites	
   saying,	
   “A	
   mí	
   me	
   encantó	
   ABA	
   ROLI	
   porque	
   fue	
   más	
   concreto…principalmente	
   los	
  
expositores	
   Carlota	
   y	
   Alejandra…	
   	
   Me	
   gustó	
   mucho	
   el	
   final,	
   de	
   que	
   un(o) pudo	
   haberlo	
  
aprendido	
   con	
   las	
   simulaciones	
   que	
   hubo,	
   que	
   me	
   dio	
   equipo	
   con	
   el	
   Mp (ministerio	
  
público/fiscal),	
   equipo	
   de	
   Seguridad	
   como	
   Defensor	
   y	
   enfrentarme	
   contra	
   otro (en	
   una	
  
simulación).”
We	
   note	
   that	
   it	
   possible	
   that	
   these	
   lower	
   evaluations of	
   CEEAD-­‐only	
   participants stem	
   from	
  
selection	
   effects:	
   that	
   is,	
   it	
   could	
   be	
   that	
   those	
   who	
   selected	
   into	
   CEEAD	
   only	
   experiences	
  
entered into	
  the	
  training	
  activities	
  with	
  different	
  initial	
  characteristics.	
  Only	
  random	
  assignment	
  
to	
   the	
   different	
   experiences	
   – CEEAD	
   only,	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   only,	
   and	
   both	
   – could	
   rule	
   out	
   such	
  
selection	
  effects	
  as	
  the	
  source	
  of	
  differences	
  we	
  observe	
  in	
  evaluations	
  expressed	
  across	
  these	
  
subsets	
  of	
  individuals.	
  That	
  said,	
  CEEAD only	
  participants also gave	
  lower	
  average	
  performance	
  
evaluations	
  to	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  participants	
  in	
  trainings	
  and	
  attendance	
  of	
  foreign	
  instructors	
  in	
  
comparison	
   to	
   those that	
   exclusively participated	
   in ABA-­‐ROLI	
   efforts.	
   Each	
   of	
   the	
   discussed
differences	
  are	
  statistically	
  significant	
  (p<.10).
21
Figure	
  3.	
  Average	
  Performance	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Activities	
  by	
  Implementer
In	
  addition	
   to	
  differences	
  across	
  states	
  and	
  implementers,	
  we	
  also	
  divided	
  our	
  survey	
  sample	
  
into	
   four	
   types	
   of	
   stakeholders:	
   law	
   students,	
   law	
   professors,	
   private	
   lawyers,	
   and	
   public	
  
officials.	
   However,	
   the	
   reader	
   should	
   note	
   that	
   the	
   comparisons	
   we	
   make	
   across	
   these	
   four	
  
groups	
  should	
  be	
  interpreted	
  with	
  caution	
  as	
   the	
  number	
  of	
  cases	
  in	
  each	
  category	
  are	
  quite	
  
small.	
  This	
  means	
   that	
   the	
   statistical	
  confidence	
  with	
  which	
  we	
  can	
   report	
   real	
  differences	
  in	
  
averages	
  across	
  groups	
  is	
  limited	
  and	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  high	
  probability	
  that	
  we	
  may	
  be	
  failing	
  to	
  detect	
  
a	
  true	
  result	
  as	
  (as	
  discussed	
  above).	
  
According	
  to	
  Figure	
  4,	
  Lawyers	
  reported	
  lower	
  evaluations	
  of	
  the	
  balance	
  between	
  theory	
  and	
  
practice	
  than	
  law	
  students	
  and	
  public	
  officials;	
  lower	
  evaluations	
  of	
  didactic	
  materials	
  than	
  law	
  
professors;	
  lower	
  evaluations	
  of	
  relevancy	
  of	
  training	
  for	
  transition	
  to	
  NCJS than	
  law	
  professors	
  
and	
   students;	
  and	
  lower	
  evaluations	
   of	
   the	
   preparedness	
   of	
   trainers	
   than	
  law	
   professors	
  and	
  
public	
  officials.	
  
Contrastingly,	
   law	
   professors	
   reported	
   higher	
   satisfaction	
   than	
   other	
   actors	
   on	
   a	
   few	
  
dimensions.	
  They	
  report	
  higher	
  evaluations	
  of	
  the	
  participation	
  of	
  foreign	
  instructors	
  than	
  law	
  
students	
   and	
   public	
   officials,	
   and	
   higher	
   evaluations	
   of	
   the	
   content	
   of	
   the	
   training	
   than	
   law	
  
students	
  and	
  lawyers
92.3
90.6
92.4
89.2
78.6
88.5
87.2
86.3
88.1
92.4
85.1
87.7
86.7
76.8
88.0
81.5
83.9
86.0
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
0 20 40 60 80 100
Facilitator/trainer was sufficiently prepared
Activity was relevant in helping transition to NCJS
Content focused on key aspects of NCJS
Adequate facilities
Adequate number of participants
Materials effectively facilitated learning
Average
83.0
84.6
83.9
81.9
84.5
84.6
82.1
84.8
82.1
90.9
65.3
78.4
78.0
79.8
74.4
76.0
69.1
70.6
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
0 20 40 60 80 100
Necessary audio-visual materials where used
Received sufficient didactic materials
Good balance between theory and practice
Foreign instructors were invited as lecturers
Adequate length of the activity
Had sufficient practical/simulations sessions
Average
 90 % Confidence Interval 
 
22
Law	
  students	
  reported	
  more	
  varied	
  performance	
  evaluations	
  of	
  the	
  activities	
  they	
  participated	
  
in.	
   On	
   the	
   one	
   hand,	
   law	
   students	
   reported	
   higher	
   evaluations	
   of	
   training	
   facilities	
   than	
  
professors	
  and	
  lawyers,	
  and	
  higher	
  evaluations	
  of	
  trainer	
  preparedness	
  than	
  law	
  professors.	
  On	
  
the	
   other	
   hand,	
   law	
   students	
   reported	
   lower	
   evaluations	
   of	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   audiovisual	
   materials	
  
than	
  public	
  officials,	
  and	
  lower	
  evaluations	
  of	
  practical/simulation	
  sessions	
  than	
  public	
  officials.	
  
Figure	
  4.	
  Average	
  Performance	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Activities	
  by	
  Stakeholder
2. Effectiveness	
  of	
  USAID-­‐Supported	
  Methodologies	
  and	
  Approaches
This	
   study	
   also	
   seeks	
   to	
   assess,	
   from	
   participants’	
   perspective,	
   the	
   effectiveness	
   of USAID-­‐
supported	
  methodologies	
  and	
  approaches	
   for	
  aiding	
  Mexico’s	
   transition	
   to	
  a	
  new	
  NCJS.	
  Some	
  
key	
  findings	
  in	
  this	
  section	
  include:
• Survey	
  respondents	
  welcomed	
  the	
  idea	
  of	
  American	
  assistance	
  for	
  the	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  
new	
   NCJS.	
   Over	
   half	
   of	
   respondents	
   (54.1%)	
   thought	
   this	
   approach	
   would	
   be	
   “very	
  
useful”.
97.1
93.3
97.5
88.4
92.8
84.0
85.1
91.7
87.9
96.9
88.5
83.9
84.3
84.4
88.5
90.1
88.0
83.3
88.3
83.2
92.2
83.8
86.1
91.4
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
0 20 40 60 80 100
Facilitator/trainer was sufficiently prepared
Content focused on key aspects of NCJS
Adequate facilities
Adequate number of participants
Materials effectively facilitated learning
Activity was relevant in helping transition to NCJS
Average
78.3
92.2
90.2
84.0
89.7
91.7
79.6
82.1
82.2
90.0
86.1
82.7
66.0
76.7
81.3
69.5
80.6
76.8
76.5
78.7
72.9
81.8
91.7
72.9
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
0 20 40 60 80 100
Good balance between theory and practice
Necessary audio-visual materials where used
Received sufficient didactic materials
Had sufficient practical/simulations sessions
Adequate length of the activity
Foreign instructors were invited as lecturers
Average
 90 % Confidence Interval 
 
23
• When	
  asked	
  specifically	
  about	
  USAID	
  initiatives	
  in	
  aiding	
  Mexico’s	
  transition toward	
  a	
  
new	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system,	
  focus	
  group	
  participants	
  predominantly	
  expressed	
  positive	
  
perceptions.
• Over	
  a	
  third	
  of	
  respondents	
  (37.1%)	
  reported	
  CEEAD/ABA	
  ROLI/USAID	
  as	
  the	
  most	
  
influential	
  institutions	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  legal	
  education	
  programming,	
  while	
  SETEC	
  ranks	
  
second	
  (25%)	
  and	
  the	
  Superior	
  Justice	
  Tribunal	
  ranks	
  third	
  (9.9%).
• Survey	
  respondents	
  perceived	
  their	
  participation	
  in	
  CEEAD	
  and	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  activities	
  to	
  be	
  
most	
  effective	
  in	
  helping	
  them	
  understand	
  the	
  rules	
  of	
  oral	
  litigation,	
  learn	
  skills	
  related	
  
to	
  witness	
  interrogation,	
  improve	
  the	
  overall	
  practice	
  of	
  their	
  legal	
  profession,	
  apply	
  of	
  
rules	
  of	
  ethics	
  and	
  legal	
  integrity,	
  and	
  apply	
  of	
  rules	
  of	
  presentation	
  of	
  evidence.	
  
• Survey	
   respondents	
   felt	
   that	
   training	
   activities	
   were	
   the	
   least	
   effective	
   in	
   preparing	
  
them	
  in	
  abilities	
  of	
  conditional	
  suspension	
  and	
  techniques	
  of	
  trial	
  and	
  investigation.
To	
   understand	
   the	
   context	
   for	
   participants’	
   evaluations	
   of	
   the	
   effectiveness	
   of	
   the	
   USAID-­‐
supported	
  activities,	
   we	
   first	
  asked	
   them	
  their	
   opinions	
   regarding	
   the	
   involvement	
   of	
   foreign	
  
nationals	
   in	
   transition-­‐related	
   programs.	
   Specifically,	
   we	
   asked	
   how	
   useful	
   they	
   thought	
   it	
  
would	
   be	
   to	
   have	
   American	
   professors,	
   lawyers,	
   and	
   judges	
   work	
   with	
   Mexican	
   judicial	
  
institutions	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   facilitate	
   the	
   transition	
   to	
   the	
   NCJS.	
   Overall,	
   survey	
   respondents	
  
reported positive	
  views of	
  American	
  assistance	
  for	
  the	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  new	
  NCJS.	
  As	
  shown	
  in	
  
Figure	
  5,	
  over	
  half	
  of	
  respondents	
  (54.1%)	
  rated	
  such	
  as approach	
  as “very	
  useful”.	
  A	
  minority	
  
expressed	
  less	
  enthusiasm,	
   though	
   the	
   plurality	
   response	
  is	
   the	
  most	
   positive	
   of	
   the	
   options:
27.3%	
   of	
   respondents	
   thought	
   that	
   assistance	
   from	
   American	
   legal	
   professionals	
   would	
   be	
  
“somewhat	
  useful”;	
  12%	
   said	
  it	
  would	
  only	
  be	
  “a	
  little useful”;	
   6.7%	
  reported	
  that	
  American
assistance	
  would	
  be	
  not	
  be	
  useful	
  at	
  all.13
One	
  potential	
   reason	
   that	
  participants	
   report	
  positive	
  views	
  of	
  American	
  involvement	
  in	
  legal	
  
education	
  assistance	
  efforts	
  is	
  the	
  experience	
  the	
  US	
  and	
  the	
  country’s	
  legal	
  actors	
  have	
  with	
  
an	
   adversarial	
   judicial	
   system.	
   As	
   a	
   participant	
   from	
   an	
   in-­‐depth	
   interview	
   in	
   Monterrey	
  
explained,	
   “Pues	
   bueno,	
   yo	
   creo	
   que	
   ha	
   sido	
   clave	
   porque	
   como	
   normalmente	
  ellos	
   ya	
   tienen	
  
una	
  experiencia	
  más	
  vasta	
  en	
  lo	
  que	
  es	
  la	
  oralidad	
  de	
  los	
  sistemas	
  orales	
  fue	
  clave	
  porque	
  por	
  
razones	
  obvias	
  pues	
  era	
  el	
  país	
  vecino	
  ¿verdad?,	
  que	
  ha	
  servido	
  como	
  modelo	
  y	
  obviamente	
  ha	
  
sido	
  clave	
  digamos	
  la	
  experiencia	
  que	
  nos	
  han	
  transmitido.”
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   13 To	
  clarify,	
  these	
  results	
  do	
  not	
  refer	
  to	
  general	
  "American	
  assistance"	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  USAID	
  support	
  (which	
  could	
  be	
  
carried	
  out	
  by	
  Mexican	
  nationals,	
  in	
  theory).	
  Rather,	
  the	
  data	
  reflect	
  participant	
  opinions	
  about	
  the	
  possible	
  direct	
  
involvement	
  of	
  Americans	
  in	
  legal	
  assistance	
  programs.
24
Figure	
  5.	
  Opinions	
  on	
  Usefulness	
  of	
  American	
  Assistance	
  for	
  
Transition	
  to	
  NCJS
When	
   asked	
   specifically	
   about	
   USAID	
   initiatives	
   in	
   aiding	
   Mexico’s	
   transition	
   toward	
   a	
   new	
  
criminal	
  justice	
  system,	
  focus	
  group	
  participants	
  predominantly	
  expressed	
  positive	
  perceptions.	
  
A	
  participant	
  from	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  focus	
  groups	
  in	
  the	
  D.F.,	
  expressed	
  confidence	
  in	
  USAID’s	
  efforts	
  
saying,	
  “Yo	
  creo	
  que	
  es	
  bastante	
  importante	
  la	
  labor	
  de	
  USAID	
  porque	
  yo	
  creo	
  que	
  se	
  hace	
  una	
  
asignación	
   de	
   recursos	
   de	
  manera	
   profesional…” Similarly, a	
   participant	
   from	
   the	
   other	
   focus	
  
group	
  in	
  the	
  D.F. explained,	
  
...	
   la	
   contratación	
   pública	
   es	
   complicadísima	
   entonces	
   el	
   tema	
   de	
   que	
   llegue	
   USAID	
   y	
  
decir	
  bueno	
  te	
  voy	
  a	
  dar	
  capacitación,	
  te	
  voy	
  a	
  dar	
  asistencia	
  y	
  además	
  es	
  gratis	
  o	
  sea	
  no	
  
te	
  voy	
  a	
  cobrar	
  para	
  las	
  instituciones	
  es	
  bienvenida,	
  igual	
  las	
  universidades	
  de	
   repente	
  
llegan…
Another	
  participant	
  from	
  this	
  focus	
  group	
  in	
  the	
  D.F. expressed	
  a	
  similar	
  view, by	
  saying,	
  
…	
  hay	
  muchas	
  iniciativas	
  de	
  USAID	
  que	
  se	
  están	
  implementando	
  por	
  ejemplo	
  y no	
  solo	
  
con	
  las	
  universidades.	
  En el	
  mismo	
  sistema	
  tienen	
  el	
  Proyecto	
  Justicia	
  por	
  ejemplo, digo	
  
que	
  nos	
  invitan	
  constantemente	
  a	
  los	
  desayunos	
  del	
  Proyecto	
  de	
   Justicia	
  en	
  donde	
  son	
  
foros	
   de	
   ideas	
  muy	
   importantes	
   para	
   operadores.	
  Y está	
   el	
   proyecto	
   de	
  Monitores	
   del	
  
Nuevo	
   Proyecto	
   de	
   Justicia,	
   por	
   ejemplo	
   ha	
   financiado	
   algunas	
   organizaciones	
   serias	
  
como	
   INSIDE	
   y	
   tiene	
   por	
   ejemplo	
   INSIDE	
   estuvo	
   trabajando	
   con	
   financiamiento	
   de	
  
USAID…
In	
   addition	
   to	
   USAID-­‐supported	
   activities,	
   the	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
   NCJS	
   in	
   Mexico	
   has	
  
involved	
   numerous	
   other	
   actors	
   and	
   institutions.	
   The	
   telephone	
   survey asked	
   respondents	
  
about institutions	
  they	
  believe had been	
  most	
  supportive in	
  offering	
  legal	
  education	
  assistance	
  
Very useful
54.1%
Somewhat Useful
27.3%
Minimally useful
12.0%
Not useful
6.7%
Usefulness of American Assistance for Transition to NCJS
25
in	
  Mexico’s	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS.	
  Specifically,	
  respondents	
  were	
  asked	
  to	
  indicate	
  which	
  of	
  a	
  
list	
  of	
  institutions	
  had	
  offered	
  the	
  greatest	
  support	
  for	
  their	
  law	
  bar	
  or	
  firm	
  with	
  regards	
  to	
  the	
  
NCJS.	
  They	
  were	
  then	
  asked	
  to	
  name	
  what	
  they	
  thought	
  had	
  been	
  the	
  second	
  most	
  influential	
  
institution.
14 Table	
   1 below	
   shows	
   the	
   distribution	
   of	
   responses.	
  Over	
   a	
   third	
   of	
   respondents	
  
(37.1%)	
   reported	
  CEEAD/ABA	
  ROLI/USAID as	
   the	
  most	
  influential	
  institutions	
  in	
   terms	
  of	
  legal	
  
education	
   programming,	
   while	
   SETEC	
   ranks	
   second (25%) and	
   the	
   Superior	
   Justice	
   Tribunal	
  
ranks	
   third	
   (9.9%). Results	
   for	
   second	
   mentions	
   are	
   similar,	
   as	
   CEEAD/ABA	
   ROLI/USAID were	
  
regarded	
   as	
   the	
   second	
   most supportive	
   institutions	
   by	
   32.6%	
   of	
   respondents	
   and	
   SETEC	
   by	
  
19%.	
   Private	
   universities	
   also	
   received	
   a	
   considerable	
   proportion	
   of	
   mentions	
   as	
   the	
   second	
  
most	
  supportive	
  institutions	
  at	
  10.6%.15
Table	
  1.	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Responses	
  about	
  Most	
  Supportive	
  Institutions	
  in	
  Transition	
  to	
  NCJS
Most	
  Supportive	
  Institutions	
  in	
  Transition	
  to	
  NCJS
First	
  Mention Second	
  Mention
CEEAD/ABA	
  ROLI/USAID 49	
  (37.1%) 43	
  (32.6%)
SETEC 33	
  (25%) 19	
  (14.4%)
Tribunal	
  Superior	
  de	
  Justicia	
  local 13	
  (9.9%) 9	
  (6.8%)
Universidades	
  privadas 9	
  (6.8%) 14	
  (10.6%)
Poder	
  Judicial	
  Federal 8	
  (6.1%) 6	
  (4.6%)
Procuraduría	
  General	
  de	
  Justicia	
  local 6	
  (4.6%) 3	
  (2.3%)
Universidades	
  públicas 5	
  (3.8%) 9	
  (6.8%)
Otro 4	
  (3.0%) 7	
  (5.3%)
Academias,	
  institutos	
  y	
  escuelas	
  privadas 3	
  (2.3%) 7	
  (5.3%)
Otros	
  gobiernos	
  u	
  organismos	
  internacionales 1	
  (0.76%) 1	
  (0.76%)
To	
   further	
   assess	
   the	
   degree	
   to	
   which	
   participants	
   perceive	
   the	
   effectiveness	
   of	
   as	
   USAID-­‐
supported	
   methodologies	
   and	
   approaches	
   for	
   aiding	
  the	
   transition	
   of	
   the	
   legal	
   profession	
   in	
  
Mexico	
   to	
   a	
   NCJS,	
   we	
   asked	
   respondents	
   a	
   series	
   of	
   questions	
   about	
   the	
   effectiveness	
   of	
  
activities	
  in	
  preparing	
  them	
  for	
  different	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  NCJS.	
  Respondents	
  indicated	
  the	
  degree	
  
to	
  which	
  their	
  participation	
  in	
  activities	
  helped	
  prepare	
  them	
  on	
  a 1	
  to	
  7 scale that	
  was	
  recoded
from	
  0	
  (not	
  at	
  all)	
  to	
  100	
  (a	
  lot).	
  Average	
  responses	
  to	
  these	
  questions are	
  displayed in	
  Figure	
  6.
Overall,	
   results	
   show	
   that	
   respondents	
   believe	
   their	
   participation	
   in CEEAD	
   and	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
  
activities	
  was	
  highly effective	
  in	
  preparing	
  them	
  to	
  practice	
  law	
  under	
  the	
  NCJS.	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   14 Respondents	
   are	
   read	
   a	
   list	
   of	
   institutions	
   to	
   choose	
   from.	
   If	
   they	
   say	
   indicated	
   one	
   not	
   on	
   the	
   list,	
   it	
   was	
  
included “other.” 15 It	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  note	
  that	
  the	
  results	
  in	
  Table	
  1	
  may	
  have	
  been	
  influenced	
  by	
  priming	
  of	
  CEEAD,	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  and	
  
USAID	
  given	
  that	
  the	
  question	
  used	
  to	
  measures	
  responses	
  in	
  the	
  figure	
  is	
  asked	
  after	
  respondents	
  have	
  answered	
  
a	
  series	
  of	
  survey	
  questions	
  about	
  these	
  institutions.
26
Specifically, respondents	
   perceived	
  their	
   participation	
  in	
  CEEAD	
  and	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  activities	
   to	
   be	
  
most	
  effective	
  in	
  helping	
  them	
  understand	
  the	
  rules	
  of	
  oral	
  litigation,	
  a	
  fundamental	
  practice	
  in	
  
accusatorial	
   judicial	
   system	
   and	
   one	
   of	
   the	
   key	
   differences	
   from	
   Mexico	
   previous	
   judicial	
  
system.	
  As	
  a	
  participant	
  from	
  an	
  in-­‐depth	
  interview	
  in	
  the	
  D.F.	
  explained,	
  
En	
  el	
  caso	
  de	
  las	
  prácticas	
  de	
  ABA	
  ROLI, las	
  realizamos	
  en	
  una	
  charla	
  de	
  juicios	
  orales	
  …	
  
(donde) cada	
  uno	
  de	
  los	
  representantes	
  (tenía)	
  un	
  papel.	
  Y en	
  las	
  conferencias	
  a	
  las	
  que	
  
también	
  ha	
  organizado	
  ABA	
  ROLI, le	
  reitero,	
  (tuvieron) componentes	
  de	
  muy	
  alta	
  calidad	
  
en	
  los	
  cuales	
  resolvía	
  todas	
  nuestras	
  dudas	
  de	
  este	
  nuevo	
  sistema.
As	
  shown	
  in	
  Figure	
  6,	
  on	
  the	
  from	
  0	
  to	
  100	
  scale	
  of	
  effectiveness,	
  respondents	
  rated	
  this	
  aspect	
  
of	
  activities	
  with	
  an	
  average	
  score	
  of	
  80.4,	
  a	
   result	
   that	
  we	
  can	
  argue	
  with	
  90%	
  confidence	
  is	
  
significantly	
  different	
  from	
  all	
  other	
  evaluations	
  of	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  activities.	
  Respondents	
  also	
  
gave	
   relatively	
   high	
   effectiveness	
   scores	
   to	
   the	
   ability	
   of	
   activities	
   to	
   prepare	
   them	
   in	
   skills	
  
related	
   to	
   witness	
   interrogation	
   (77),	
   overall	
   practice	
   of	
   their	
   legal	
   profession	
   (76.9),	
   the	
  
application	
   of	
   rules	
   of	
   ethics	
   and	
   legal	
   integrity	
   (76.3),	
   and	
   the application	
   of	
   rules	
   of	
  
presentation	
  of	
  evidence	
  (73.9).	
  These	
  average	
  scores	
  are	
  not	
  statistically	
  distinguishable	
  from	
  
one	
   another,	
   meaning	
   that	
   respondents	
   evaluated	
   the	
   effectiveness	
   of	
   activities	
   along	
   these	
  
dimensions	
  in	
  similar	
  fashion.
On	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  respondents	
  felt	
  that	
  training	
  activities	
  were	
  the	
  least	
  effective	
  in	
  preparing	
  
them	
   in abilities	
   of	
   conditional	
   suspension	
   (62.7)	
   and	
   techniques	
   of	
   trial	
   and	
   investigation	
  
(67.7).16 The	
  relatively	
  low	
  scores	
  given	
  to	
  these	
  two	
  dimensions	
  could	
  be	
  considered	
  potential	
  
areas	
  of	
  improvement	
  in	
  future	
  efforts	
  for	
  legal	
  education	
  in	
  Mexico’s NCJS.	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   16 The	
  difference	
  between	
  these	
  average	
  scores	
  is	
  statistically	
  significant	
  (p<.10).	
  
27
Figure	
  6.	
  Average	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Effectiveness	
  of	
  
Activities
When	
   we	
   break down	
   these	
   effectiveness	
   evaluations	
   by	
   state (see	
   Figure	
   7),	
   we	
   find	
   that	
  
survey	
  respondents	
  from	
  the	
  D.F.	
  consistently	
  perceive	
  activities	
  to	
  have	
  been	
  less	
  effective	
  in	
  
their	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS.	
  On	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  respondents	
  from	
  Chihuahua	
  consistently	
  rated	
  
activity	
  effectiveness to	
  a	
  more	
  positively than	
  other	
  states.	
  Those	
  from	
  Nuevo	
  León	
  and	
  Puebla	
  
ranked	
   somewhere	
   in	
   between.	
   Respondents	
   from	
   the	
   D.F.	
   gave	
   significantly	
   poorer	
  
evaluations	
   of	
  effectiveness	
   than	
   all other	
   states	
   in	
   regards	
   to	
   activities’	
   ability	
   to	
   help	
   them
understand	
   the	
   rules	
   of	
   ethics	
   and legal	
   integrity,	
   while	
   differences	
   among	
   responses	
   from	
  
Chihuahua,	
   Nueva	
   León,	
   and	
   Puebla	
   were	
   indistinguishable.	
   We	
   can	
   also	
   say	
   with	
   90%	
  
confidence	
  that	
  respondents from	
  the	
  D.F. and	
  Puebla	
  reported	
  similar	
  and	
  lower	
  evaluations	
  
of the	
   following	
  dimensions in	
   comparison	
   to	
   respondents	
   from	
   Chihuahua	
   and	
  Nuevo	
   León:	
  
understanding	
  the	
  rules	
  of	
  oral	
  litigation,	
  practicing	
  law	
  under	
  the	
  NCJS,	
  the	
  application	
  of	
  rules	
  
of	
   witness	
   interrogation	
   and	
   “desahogo de	
   pruebas.” Differences	
   across	
   evaluations	
   of	
  
activities’	
   ability	
   to	
   prepare	
   respondents	
   in	
   techniques	
   of	
   trial	
   and	
   investigation,	
   as	
   well	
   as	
  
abilities	
  of	
  conditional	
  suspension	
  were	
  less	
  pronounced	
  across	
  states.	
  
80.4
77.0
76.9
76.3
73.9
67.7
62.7
0 20 40 60 80
Activity has helped me understand rules of oral litigation
Activity has prepared me to apply rules of witness interrogation
Activity prepared me to practice profession under NCJS
Activity has prepared me to apply rules of ethics and legal integrity
Activity has prepared me to apply rules of presentation of evidence
Activity has prepared me in techniques of trail and investigation
Activity has given me abilities of conditional suspension
Average
 90 % Confidence Interval 
 
28
Figure	
  7.	
  Average	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Effectiveness	
  of	
  Activities
by	
  State
A	
   few	
   notable	
   differences	
   exist	
   in	
   survey	
   respondents’	
   evaluations	
   of	
   the	
   effectiveness	
   of	
  
activities	
   when	
   we	
   compare	
   across	
   implementers. As	
   shown	
   in	
   Figure	
   8,	
   respondents	
   who	
  
participated	
   in	
   activities	
   implemented	
   by	
   both	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   and	
   CEEAD	
   gave	
   significantly	
   higher	
  
evaluation	
   scores	
   regarding	
  the	
   degree	
   to	
  which	
  activities	
  support for	
  understanding	
   rules	
   of	
  
oral	
   litigation	
   and	
   witness	
   interrogation	
   than	
   those	
   that	
   solely	
   participated	
   in	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
  
initiatives.	
   Additionally,	
   CEEAD	
   only	
   participants	
   gave	
   significantly	
   higher	
   average	
   evaluations	
  
than	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   only	
   participants	
   on the	
   ability	
   of	
   activities	
   to	
   apply	
   rules	
   of	
   ethics	
   and	
   legal	
  
integrity,	
  techniques	
  of	
  trial	
  and	
  investigation,	
  and	
  abilities	
  of	
  conditional	
  suspension.	
  
78.4
75.7
84.5 91.3
73.7 81.7
72.9
87.3
75.1
72.2
81.386.5
71.978.6 84.9
68.8
80.1
79.4
68.3
81.7
72.2 68.1
71.4
63.0
69.469.8
61.1 57.2
D.F. Puebla Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F. Puebla Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F. Puebla Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F. Puebla Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F. Puebla Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F. Puebla Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F. Puebla Nuevo León
Chihuahua
0 20 40 60 80 100
Activity has helped me understand rules of oral litigation
Activity prepared me to practice profession under NCJS
Activity has prepared me to apply rules of witness interrogation
Activity has prepared me to apply rules of presentation of evidence
Activity has prepared me to apply rules of ethics and legal integrity
Activity has prepared me in techniques of trail and investigation
Activity has given me abilities of conditional suspension
Average
 90 % Confidence Interval 
 
29
Figure	
  8.	
  Average	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Effectiveness	
  of	
  Activities
by	
  Implementer
When	
  we	
  compare	
  average	
  evaluations	
  of	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  activities	
  by	
  stakeholder	
  (see	
  Figure	
  
9),	
  we	
  do	
  not	
  see	
  many	
  differences	
  across	
  groups.	
  However,	
  law	
  students	
  do	
  report	
  significantly	
  
less	
   satisfaction	
   with	
   activity	
   effectiveness	
   on some	
   dimensions.	
   Students	
   reported	
   lower	
  
evaluations	
  of	
  understanding	
  the	
  rules	
  of	
  oral	
  litigation	
  than	
  public	
  officials;	
  lower	
  evaluations	
  
of	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  apply	
  the	
  rules	
  of	
  ethics	
  and	
  legal	
  integrity	
  than	
  professors	
  and	
  public	
  officials;	
  
lower	
  evaluations	
  of	
  preparedness	
  to	
  practice	
  law	
  than	
  professors;	
  and	
  lower	
  evaluations	
  of	
  the	
  
ability	
  to	
  apply	
  rules	
  of	
  presentation	
  of	
  evidence	
  than	
  lawyers	
  and	
  public	
  officials.	
  
76.3
83.0
78.0
71.9
73.8
80.3
73.2
74.3
79.2
68.1
79.2
82.1
73.2
75.3
71.1
70.6
73.2
59.6
68.5
64.4
56.7
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
CEEAD
ABA-ROLI
Both
0 20 40 60 80 100
Activity has helped me understand rules of oral litigation
Activity has prepared me to apply rules of witness interrogation
Activity prepared me to practice profession under NCJS
Activity has prepared me to apply rules of ethics and legal integrity
Activity has prepared me to apply rules of presentation of evidence
Activity has prepared me in techniques of trail and investigation
Activity has given me abilities of conditional suspension
Average
 90 % Confidence Interval 
 
30
Figure	
  9.	
  Average	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Effectiveness	
  of	
  Activities
by	
  Stakeholder
3. Impact	
  of	
  Activities	
  on	
  Improving	
  the	
  Legal	
  Profession,	
  and	
  Facilitating	
  or	
  Accelerating	
  the	
  
Transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS
Background:	
  Perceptions	
  of	
  Level	
  of	
  Advancement	
  in	
  Implementation	
  of	
  NCJS
To	
   understand	
   the	
   perceived	
   success	
   of	
   respondents’	
   participation	
   in	
   USAID-­‐supported	
  
activities	
   through	
   CEEAD	
   and	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   for	
   the	
   legal	
   profession	
   in	
   Mexico,	
   it	
   is	
   critical	
   to	
  
examine	
   their	
   evaluations	
   of	
   the	
   overall	
   level	
   of	
   advancement	
   of	
   the	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
  
NCJS.	
  Hence,	
  we	
  provide	
  a	
  review	
  of	
  these	
  evaluations	
  as	
  a	
  preface	
  to	
  discussing	
  respondents’	
  
evaluations	
   of	
   the	
   impact	
   activities	
   have	
   had	
   on	
   improving	
   their	
   ability	
   to	
   practice	
   law	
   and	
  
transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS.	
  The	
  following	
  are	
  a	
  few	
  key	
  findings:
• The	
  majority	
  of	
  survey	
  respondents	
  (72%)	
  and	
  focus	
  group	
  respondents	
  perceive	
  the	
  
NCSJ	
  as	
  a	
  significant	
  improvement	
  to	
  the	
  Mexico	
  judicial	
  system.
81.1 79.7
72.2
87.0
77.0 82.4
71.675.3
75.7
66.7 80.0
82.4
80.6 70.4
81.5 75.4
74.3 79.6
63.0 73.9
71.3
59.268.4
62.3
60.2 65.2
59.2 56.8
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
Law Student
Law Professor
Private Lawyer
Public Official
0 20 40 60 80 100
Activity has helped me understand rules of oral litigation
Activity has prepared me to apply rules of witness interrogation
Activity has prepared me to apply rules of ethics and legal integrity
Activity prepared me to practice profession under NCJS
Activity has prepared me to apply rules of presentation of evidence
Activity has prepared me in techniques of trail and investigation
Activity has given me abilities of conditional suspension
Average
 90 % Confidence Interval 
 
31
• Survey	
   respondents	
   from	
   the	
   D.F.	
   reported	
   the	
   lowest	
   degree	
   of	
   advancement	
   in	
   the	
  
implementation	
   of	
   the	
  NCJS,	
  while	
   those	
   from	
  Chihuahua	
   reported	
   the	
   highest.	
  Those	
  
from	
  Nuevo	
  Leon	
  and	
  Puebla	
  reported	
  intermediate	
  levels	
  of	
  implementation.	
  
• Over	
   half	
   (53.1%)	
   believe	
   approaches	
   by	
   law	
   schools	
   in	
   their	
   state	
   are	
   adequate	
   for	
  
teaching	
  the	
  NCJS	
  are	
  at	
  least	
  adequate,	
  while	
  another	
  44.8%	
  believe	
  they	
  are	
  a	
  little	
  or	
  
not	
  adequate	
  at	
  all.
• Respondents	
  from	
  Nuevo	
  León	
  seemed	
  to	
  be	
  among	
  those	
  that	
  feel	
  most	
  prepared	
  for	
  
the	
  NCJ,	
  while	
  those	
  from	
  Puebla	
  perceive	
  themselves	
  as	
  least	
  prepared.	
  Respondents	
  
from	
  the	
  D.F.	
  and	
  Chihuahua	
  report	
  similar	
  levels	
  of	
  preparedness.
• Survey	
  respondents	
  perceive	
  judges as	
  the	
  most	
  prepared	
  in	
  the	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS,	
  
followed	
   by	
   public	
   prosecutors,	
  lawyers,	
  law	
   students	
  and	
  victim	
  legal	
  advisers. Police
officers	
  are	
  perceived	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  least	
  prepared.	
  
• Survey	
   respondents	
  perceive	
   that	
  law	
   schools and	
  professors	
   still	
  lack	
   some	
  degree	
  of	
  
preparation	
  in	
  teaching	
  the	
  NCJS.
Survey	
   respondents	
   perceive	
   the	
   NCSJ	
   as	
   a	
   significant	
   improvement	
   to	
   the	
   Mexico	
   judicial	
  
system.	
  As	
   shown	
   in	
   Figure	
   10,	
   over	
   72%	
   of	
   them	
   felt	
   that	
   the	
  NCSJ	
   improved	
   the	
   system	
   of	
  
justice	
   “a	
   lot”.	
  A non-­‐trivial	
  minority of	
   respondents	
   gave	
  more	
   critical	
  responses,	
   saying	
   the	
  
new	
  NCJS	
  only	
  improved	
   the	
  judicial	
   system	
  “somewhat”	
   (20.6%), “little”	
   (5.7%),	
  or	
  not	
  at	
  all	
  
(1.4%).	
  	
  	
  
Figure	
  10.	
  Opinions	
  on	
  the	
  Degree	
  to	
  which	
  the	
  NCJS	
  Is	
  Considered	
  
an	
  Improvement	
  for	
  Mexico
A lot
72.2%
Somewhat
20.6%
Little
5.7%
Not at all
1.4%
Degree to which NCJS is an Improvement for Mexico
32
Focus	
   group	
   participants	
   also	
   reported	
   feeling	
   that	
   the	
   change	
   to	
   the	
   NCJS	
   is	
   welcomed,	
  
necessary,	
   and	
   positive	
   for	
   Mexico.	
   Participants stated	
   that	
   they view	
   the	
   transition	
   as	
   an	
  
improvement	
  not	
  just	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  a	
  more	
  efficient	
  judicial	
  system,	
  but	
  also	
  a	
  fairer	
  one,	
  and	
  one	
  
that	
   is	
   likely	
   seen	
   as	
   more	
   transparent	
   by	
   Mexican	
   citizens.	
   As	
   one	
   participant	
   from	
   a	
   focus	
  
group	
  in	
  the	
  D.F. explained,	
  	
  
Bueno	
   yo	
   creo	
   y	
   estoy	
   convencido	
   que	
   es	
   un	
   cambio	
   que	
   era	
   necesario, que	
   era	
  
indispensable.	
  Primero	
  pues	
  para	
  corregir	
  vicios	
  estructurales	
  que	
  tenía	
  la	
  justicia	
  penal	
  
en	
  primer	
  lugar	
  porque	
  se	
  devuelve	
  al	
   Juez	
  la	
  centralidad	
  en	
  el	
  proceso	
  penal.	
  El	
  Poder	
  
Judicial	
  retoma	
  una	
  serie	
  de	
  atribuciones	
  o	
  decisiones	
  que	
  le	
  había	
  sido	
  de	
  alguna	
  forma	
  
invadidas	
  o	
  despojadas	
  por	
  la	
  averiguación,	
  la	
  existencia	
  de	
  la	
  averiguación	
  previa	
  en	
  el	
  
antiguo	
  sistema,	
  de	
  modo	
  que	
  el	
  Juez	
  ahora	
  es	
  quien	
  realmente	
  escucha	
  a	
  las	
  partes	
  de	
  
forma	
  directa,	
  es	
  quien	
  decide	
  si	
  la	
  detención	
  fue	
  legal,	
  es	
  quien	
  decide	
  si	
  se	
  le	
  leyeron	
  o	
  
no	
  los	
  derechos	
  al	
  acusado.
Another	
  participant	
  expressed	
  an	
  expansion	
  of this	
  opinion	
  by	
  saying,	
  
Pues	
   por	
   ejemplo	
   el	
   tema	
   de	
   las	
   mayores	
   áreas	
   que	
   se	
   va	
   a	
   lograr	
   proteger	
   es	
   a	
   las	
  
víctimas	
  ¿Por	
  qué?,	
  porque	
  al	
  darle	
  la carga	
  investigadora	
  al	
  Ministerio	
  Público	
  se	
  brinda	
  
mayor	
  justicia	
  porque	
  ya	
  caen	
  en	
  el	
  principio	
  de	
  presunción	
  de	
  inocencia	
  en	
  vez	
  de	
  que	
  
suceda	
  lo	
  contrario	
  ¿no?,	
  y	
  a	
  la	
  defensa	
  quien	
  tendrá	
  que	
  analizar	
  toda	
  la	
  investigación	
  
también	
  ya	
  se	
  presume	
  más	
  la	
  legalidad	
  de	
  las	
  partes	
  y	
  también	
  la	
  presencia	
  del	
  juez	
  en	
  
los	
  juicios	
  cambia	
  yo	
  creo	
  que	
  todo	
  el	
  sistema.	
  Es	
  uno	
  de	
  los	
  puntos	
  claves	
  porque	
  el	
  juez	
  
está	
   presente	
   y	
   ya	
   va	
   a	
   poder	
   realmente	
   ver	
   todas	
   las	
   pruebas,	
   evaluarlas	
   y	
   ser	
  
realmente	
  él	
  quien	
  juzgue	
  y	
  también	
  al	
  estar	
  tres	
  jueces	
  eso	
  facilita	
  que	
  no	
  solamente	
  la	
  
decisión	
  recaiga	
  sobre	
  uno	
  en	
  la	
  etapa	
  ya	
  del	
  juicio.
Other	
  participants	
   from	
  the	
  same	
   focus	
  group	
  in	
  the	
  D.F. expressed their	
  support	
   for	
  the	
  new	
  
criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  by	
  emphasizing	
  the increase	
  in	
  the	
  quality	
  and	
  transparency	
  of	
  judicial	
  
processes.	
  As	
  one	
  participant	
  described,	
  
Los	
   argumentos	
   de	
   la	
   defensa,	
   los	
   fundamentos	
   de	
   las	
   decisiones	
   de	
   los	
   jueces	
   y	
   esto	
  
obviamente	
  eleva	
   la	
   calidad	
   de	
   la	
  justicia	
   y	
   así	
   se	
   ha	
   visto	
  esto	
   no	
  es	
   ya solamente	
   la	
  
teoría.	
   A pesar	
   de	
   algunas	
   deficiencias	
  en	
   la	
   implementación, si	
   uno	
   acude	
   a	
   observar	
  
una	
  audiencia	
  claramente	
  puedes	
  ver	
  como	
  así	
  está	
  funcionando.	
  Ya	
  no	
  se	
  hacen	
  cosas	
  
en	
  lo	
  oscuro	
  digamos	
  porque	
  antes	
  como	
  había	
  sido	
  extraída	
  o	
  recabada	
  la confesión	
  del	
  
acusado	
  en	
  sede	
  ministerial	
  o	
  sea	
  era	
  desconocido	
  por	
  todos.
Another	
  participant	
  agreed,	
  saying,	
  
Totalmente	
   más	
   transparente,	
   se	
   reconfigura	
   el	
   sistema	
   para	
   ubicar	
   al	
   Poder	
   Judicial	
  
donde	
   debe	
   	
   de	
   estar	
   porque	
   él	
   es	
   el	
   que	
   imparte	
   la	
   justicia	
   y	
   bueno	
   se	
   le	
   pone	
   al	
  
Ministerio	
   Público	
   se	
   le	
   coloca	
   en	
   una	
   situación	
   en	
   la	
   que	
   debe	
   de	
   profesionalizarse	
   o	
  
definitivamente	
  no	
  van	
  a	
  prosperar	
  sus	
  acusaciones.
33
These	
  opinions	
  about	
  the	
  NCJS	
  were	
  also	
  evident	
  among	
  in-­‐depth	
  interviewees.	
  As	
  a	
  professor	
  
from	
   Coahuila	
   said,	
   “…se	
   ven	
   mayores	
   avances	
   en	
   cuanto	
   a	
   la	
   transparencia,	
   en	
   la	
   misma	
  
percepción	
  de	
  la	
  gente,	
  de	
  la	
  sociedad	
  civil	
  respecto	
  de	
  que	
  quienes	
  participan	
  en	
  este	
   tipo	
  de	
  
procesos	
  pues	
  hace	
  que	
  logren	
  adquirir	
  mayor	
  credibilidad	
  en	
  las	
  autoridades.”
A	
  participant	
  from	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  focus	
  groups	
  conducted	
  in	
  the	
  D.F. added	
  that	
  the	
  new	
  criminal	
  
justice	
  system	
  gives	
  a	
  new	
  and	
  more	
  dignified	
  role	
  to	
  lawyers	
  in	
  court,	
  
…digo	
  con	
  las	
  personas	
  que	
  yo	
  he	
  capacitado	
  y	
  con	
  quien	
  he	
  tenido	
  oportunidad	
  a mí	
  me	
  
parece	
   excelente.	
   Yo	
   sí	
   creo	
   que	
   se	
   le	
   puede	
   aportar	
   a	
   ese	
   sistema	
   porque	
   desde	
   mi	
  
punto	
  de	
  vista	
  personal	
  de	
  entrada	
  dignifica	
  la	
  profesión	
  del	
  abogado.	
  Simplemente	
  el	
  
lugar, una	
   sala	
   de	
   juicio	
   oral	
   y	
   un	
   juzgado	
   por	
   ejemplo	
   penal,	
   hablo	
   del	
   Reclusorio	
  
Oriente,	
  Reclusorio	
  Norte,	
  Reclusorio	
  Sur,	
  tienen	
  un	
  mundo	
  de	
  distancia	
  y	
  yo	
  creo	
  que	
  se	
  
le	
  da	
  la	
  preponderancia	
  al	
  MP (ministerio	
  público/fiscal),	
  al	
  Defensor	
  y	
  al	
   Juez	
  sobre	
  la	
  
importancia	
  de	
  lo	
  que	
  hacen,	
  porque	
  no	
  es	
  cosa	
  menor	
  tener	
  entre	
  tus	
  manos	
  la	
  libertad	
  
de	
   una	
   persona.	
   Digo	
   yo	
   en	
   lo	
   personal	
   que	
   parte	
   de	
   mi	
   formación	
   la	
   he	
   llevado	
   al	
  
interior	
  de	
  los	
  reclusorios	
  pues	
  conoce	
  uno	
  esas	
  peculiaridades	
  al	
  respecto…
This	
  overall	
  positive	
  and	
  welcoming	
   sentiment	
   for	
   the	
  NCJS	
  is	
  mitigated	
  by	
   findings	
   regarding	
  
participants’	
   evaluation	
   of	
   the	
   advancement	
   of	
   the	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
   NCJS.	
   We	
   asked	
  
survey	
  respondents	
  to	
  rate	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  advancement	
  of	
  the	
  implementation	
  of	
  the	
  NCJS	
  in	
  their	
  
state	
   on	
  a	
   scale	
   from	
   0	
   (not	
  at	
  all)	
   100%	
   (complete	
  implementation).	
   Results	
  yield	
  significant	
  
variation	
   in	
   opinions.	
   While	
   the	
   average	
   degree	
   of	
   implementation	
   reported	
   across	
   all	
  
respondents	
   in	
   the survey	
   sample	
   is	
   60.8%,	
   a deeper look	
   at responses	
   shows	
   that	
   only	
   just	
  
under	
  a	
  third	
  of	
  respondents	
  (32.1%)	
  reported that	
  the	
  advancement	
  of	
  the	
  implementation	
  of	
  
the	
  NCJS	
  in	
  their	
  state was	
  somewhere	
  between	
  75-­‐100%.	
  Equal	
  proportions	
  of	
  around	
  28%	
  of	
  
respondents	
   report	
   either	
   a	
   26-­‐50%	
   or	
   51-­‐75%	
   degree	
   of	
   advancement,	
   and 11%	
   of	
  
respondents	
  said	
  that	
  implementation	
  in	
  their	
  state	
  had	
  only	
  advanced	
  between	
  0-­‐25%.	
  
A	
   breakdown	
   of	
   responses	
   by	
   state	
   reveals further	
   differences	
   in	
   opinion	
   regarding	
   the	
  
advancement	
   of	
  implementation	
   of	
  the	
  NCJS.	
  Survey	
   respondents	
   from	
   the	
  D.F.	
   reported	
   the	
  
lowest	
   degree	
   of	
  advancement	
  at	
  an	
  average	
   49.3%.	
  A focus	
   group	
   participant	
  from	
   the	
  D.F.	
  
corroborated	
  this	
  evaluation	
  saying,	
  “…el	
  sistema	
  está	
  a	
  cuenta	
  gotas	
  en	
  el	
  Distrito	
  Federal	
  pero	
  
en	
   el	
   proyecto	
   de	
   Naciones	
   Unidas	
   en	
   el	
   que	
   participo	
   el	
   proyecto	
   es	
   mucho	
   más	
   fuerte	
   en	
  
Durango	
  y	
  en Coahuila	
  en	
  donde	
  el	
  sistema	
  pues	
  ya	
  tiene	
  algún	
  tiempo.” However,	
  a	
  participant	
  
form	
   an	
   in-­‐depth	
   interview	
   gave	
   a	
   different	
   opinions	
   about	
   the	
   level	
   of	
   advancement	
   of	
   the	
  
NCJS	
  in	
  the	
  D.F.	
  saying,	
  “El	
  porcentaje	
  de	
  avance	
  que	
  llevamos	
  yo	
  me	
  imagino	
  que	
  ya está	
  en	
  un	
  
80%	
  más	
  o	
  menos.”
Survey	
   respondents	
   from	
   Chihuahua,	
   on	
   the	
   other	
   hand,	
   reported	
   the	
   highest	
   degree	
   of	
  
advancement in	
  the	
  implementation of	
  the	
  NCJS	
  with	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  92.4%,	
   followed	
  by	
  those	
  
from	
  Nuevo	
  León	
  at	
   74.6%,	
  and	
   Puebla at	
   53.3%. A	
  participant	
   from	
  an	
  in-­‐depth	
  interview	
  in	
  
Chihuahua	
  mirrored	
  the	
  opinions	
  on	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  advancement	
  of	
  the	
  NCJS	
  implementation	
  of	
  
34
survey	
   respondents	
   saying,	
   “Bueno	
   pues	
   ahorita	
   aquí	
   en	
   Chihuahua	
   está	
   al	
   100%	
   o	
   sea	
   está	
  
súper	
  avanzado.	
  Este	
  modelo	
  de	
  Chihuahua	
  ha	
  servido	
  de	
  ejemplo	
  para	
  muchos	
  estados	
  de	
  la	
  
República	
   y	
   bueno	
   faltarían	
   algunos	
   estados	
   que	
   lo	
   acaben	
   de	
   implementar,	
   pero	
   ya	
   sería	
  
prácticamente	
  cubierto	
  casi	
  la	
  totalidad	
  de	
  los	
  estados	
  de	
  la	
  República.”
On	
   the	
   other	
   hand,	
   an	
   in-­‐depth	
   interviewee	
   from	
   Puebla	
   reported	
   less	
   encouraging	
   views	
  
saying,	
   “Pues	
  le	
   podría	
   hablar	
   aquí	
   del	
  Estado de	
   Puebla	
  y	
  está	
  muy	
   atrasado…La	
   cuestión	
  es	
  
que	
  están	
  dejando	
  todo	
  al	
  último,	
  hasta	
  el	
  último	
  día	
  en	
  cuanto	
  a	
  infraestructura	
  y	
  en	
  cuanto	
  a	
  
aplicación.”
Yet,	
   focus	
   group	
   participants	
   from	
   Puebla	
   reported	
   more	
   optimistic	
   opinions	
   regarding	
   the	
  
advancement	
   of	
   the	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
   NCJS than	
   those	
   from	
   the	
   D.F.	
   One	
   participant	
  
argued,	
  
…hemos	
  estado	
   atentos	
   a	
   las	
   reformas	
  en	
  este	
   tema	
   y	
   se	
   ha	
   venido	
   trabajando	
   desde	
  
hace	
   varios	
   años	
   la	
   implementación.	
   Se	
   estuvo	
   enseñando	
   en	
   la	
   parte	
   del	
   sistema	
  
tradicional	
   como	
   del	
   nuevo	
   sistema	
   y	
   poco	
   a	
   poco	
   hemos	
   ido	
   dejando	
   atrás	
   el	
  
tradicional.	
   Digamos	
   este	
   semestre	
   ya	
   se	
   ha	
   disminuido	
   el	
   porcentaje	
   del	
   tradicional	
  
aumentando el	
   porcentaje	
   del	
   nuevo,	
   como	
   un	
   40	
   del	
   tradicional	
   y	
   un	
   60	
   el	
   nuevo, y	
  
bueno	
  a	
  la	
  parte	
  de	
  esto	
  las	
  clases	
  en	
  materia	
  penal	
  pasaron	
  de	
  tres	
  a	
  la	
  semana	
  a	
  seis	
  a	
  
la	
  semana	
  para	
  poder	
  abarcar	
  estos	
  programa.	
  Por	
  iniciativa	
  propia	
  yo	
  se	
  lo	
  propuse	
  al	
  
Vice	
  Rector	
  y	
  al	
  Rector	
  y	
  me	
  lo	
  autorizaron	
  porque	
  esto	
  le	
  representa	
  a	
  la	
  universidad	
  un	
  
gasto	
  extra	
  porque	
  a	
  los	
  alumnos	
  no	
  se	
  les cobró	
  más	
  por	
  esa	
  materia.
While	
  another	
  stated,	
  
Bueno	
  también	
  aparte	
  en	
  la	
  Ibero (Universidad	
  Iberoamericana) a	
  raíz	
  de	
  la	
  reforma	
  se	
  
implementaron	
  dos	
  nuevas	
  materias,	
  una	
  se	
  llama	
  Taller	
  de	
  casos	
  y	
  la	
  segunda	
  es	
  Juicios	
  
Orales,	
  asesoría	
  por	
  parte	
  de	
  una	
  Jueza	
  en	
  oralidad	
  y	
  también	
  a	
  raíz	
  de	
  esto	
  la	
  Ibero	
  creó	
  
un	
   grupo	
   que	
   se	
   llama	
   Litigación	
   Oral,	
   en	
   el	
   cual	
   se	
   capacita	
   a	
   los	
   alumnos	
   para	
   que	
  
aprendan	
  del	
  nuevo	
  sistema	
  acusatorio	
  y	
  se	
  vayan	
  a	
  simulaciones	
  de	
  juicio	
  a	
  diferentes	
  
concursos	
  que	
  organizan	
  para	
  que	
  se	
  puedan	
  ir	
  llenando	
  del	
  nuevo	
  sistema	
  y	
  en	
  la	
  clínica	
  
también	
   nos	
   van	
   enseñando	
   como	
   a	
   raíz	
   de	
   esto	
   el	
   nuevo	
   sistema	
   y	
   a	
   llevar	
   casos,	
  
atender	
  a	
  la	
  gente	
  y	
  dar	
  asesorías.
When we	
  asked	
  survey	
  respondents	
  about	
  the	
  adequacy of	
  approaches	
  to	
  teaching	
  the	
  NCSJ	
  by	
  
law	
   schools	
   in	
   their	
   state	
   area,	
   responses	
   indicate	
   that	
   while	
   over	
   half	
   (53.1%)	
   believe	
  
approaches	
  are	
  at	
  least	
  adequate,	
  another	
  44.8%	
  believe	
  they	
  are	
  a	
  little or	
  not	
  adequate	
  at	
  all.
Nevertheless,	
   the	
  majority	
  of	
   respondents	
   (58.9%)	
   reported	
   that	
   they	
  knew	
  about	
  curriculum	
  
building	
  assistance	
  projects	
  in	
  law	
  schools	
  in	
  their	
  state	
  aimed	
  at	
  improving	
  higher	
  education	
  of	
  
the	
   NCJS.	
   Furthermore,	
   75%	
   of	
   respondents	
   reported	
   those	
   curriculum	
   building	
   projects	
   as	
  
being	
  effective.	
  
35
We	
   also	
   asked	
  survey	
  respondents	
   to	
   evaluate	
   their	
   level	
   of	
   preparedness	
   for	
   practicing law	
  
under	
   the	
  NCJS,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
   that	
   of	
   other	
   key	
  actors	
   of	
   the	
  judicial	
   system.17 According	
   to	
   the	
  
results	
  displayed	
  in	
  Figure	
  11,	
  respondents	
   from	
  Nuevo	
  León	
  seemed	
   to	
  be	
  among	
   those	
   that	
  
feel	
   most	
   prepared	
   for	
   the	
   NCJS,	
   as	
   over	
   half	
   (56.3%)	
   reported	
   feeling	
   very	
   prepared,	
   while	
  
40.6%	
  reported	
  feeling	
  somewhat	
  prepared	
  and	
  3.1%	
  only	
  a	
  little	
  prepared.	
  Respondents	
  from	
  
Puebla	
   perceive	
   themselves	
   as	
   least	
   prepared	
   in	
   comparison	
   to	
   those	
   from	
   other	
   states.	
   An	
  
equal	
   proportion	
   of	
   respondents	
   from	
   this	
   state	
   felt	
   very	
   or	
   somewhat	
   prepared	
   (42%),	
   and	
  
16%	
  reported feeling	
  a	
  little prepared	
  (a	
  rate	
  lower than	
  any	
  other	
  state).	
  A	
  similar	
  proportion	
  
of	
  respondents	
  from	
  the	
  D.F.	
  (43.5%)	
  and	
  Chihuahua	
  (45.5%)	
  reported	
  feeling	
  very	
  prepared	
  to	
  
practice	
   law	
   under	
   the	
  NCJS,	
   while	
   46.8%	
   in	
   the	
  D.F.	
   and	
   54.5%	
   in	
   Chihuahua	
   felt	
   somewhat	
  
prepared.	
  Additionally, 9.7%	
   of	
   respondents	
   in	
   the	
  D.F.	
   felt	
   a	
   little prepared,	
   no	
   respondents	
  
from	
  Chihuahua	
  felt	
  that	
  they	
  were	
  not	
  prepared	
  for	
  the	
  NCJS.	
  
Figure	
  11.	
  Opinions	
  on	
  Level	
  of	
  Preparation	
  for	
  Exercising	
  Legal	
  Profession	
  under	
  
the	
  NCJS	
  by	
  State
When	
  looking	
  at	
  responses	
  by	
  type	
  of	
  activity	
  implementer	
  (see	
  Figure	
  12),	
  participants	
  of	
  ABA-­‐
ROLI	
   or	
   those	
   who	
   participated	
   in	
   both	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   and	
   CEEAD	
   efforts	
   seem	
   to	
   feel	
   more	
  
prepared	
   for	
   practicing	
   law	
   under	
   the	
   NCJS	
   than	
   those	
   that	
   only	
   participated	
   in	
   CEEAD	
  
programs.	
  Over	
  half	
  of	
  participants	
  that	
  received	
  training	
  from	
  either	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  (51.3%)	
  or	
  both	
  
implementers	
   (50.6%)	
   reported	
   feeling	
  very	
   prepared	
   to	
  exercise	
   their	
  legal	
   profession	
   under	
  
the	
  NCJS,	
  while	
  35.5%	
  of	
  CEEAD	
  participants	
   reported	
   the	
   same	
  opinion.	
  At	
   the	
   same	
   time,	
  a	
  
majority	
   of	
   CEEAD	
   participants	
   (54.8%)	
   felt	
   somewhat	
   prepared	
   for	
   the	
   NCJS,	
   while	
   close	
   to	
  
equal	
   proportions	
   of	
   participants	
   from	
   either	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   (51.3%)	
   or	
   both	
   implementers	
   felt	
  
somewhat	
   prepared.	
   A	
   similar	
   number	
   of	
   participants	
   (between	
   7	
   and	
   10%)	
   felt	
   a	
   little	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   17 Law	
  students	
  were	
  not	
  asked	
  to	
  evaluate	
  their	
  level	
  of	
  preparedness	
  for	
  exercising	
  the	
  legal	
  profession	
  under	
  the	
  
new	
  NCJS	
  since	
  they	
  were	
  not	
  yet	
  actually	
  practicing	
  law.	
  
43.5%
46.8%
9.7%
42.0%
42.0%
16.0%
56.3%
40.6%
3.1%
45.5%
54.5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
D.F. Puebla Nuevo
León
Chihuahua
Little
Somewhat
Very
Level of Preparation for Exercising
Legal Profession under NCJS
36
prepared	
  across	
  implementer	
   types.	
  As	
  we	
  noted	
  earlier,	
  it	
  is	
  important	
   to	
  keep	
  in	
  mind	
   that	
  
differences	
  across	
  respondents	
  who	
  experienced	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  only,	
  CEEAD	
  only,	
  or	
  activities	
  led	
  by	
  
both	
  implementers	
  may	
  be	
  due	
  to	
  characteristics	
  of	
  those	
  who	
  selected	
  (or	
  were	
  selected	
  into	
  
these	
   different	
   sets	
   of	
  experiences);	
   that	
   is,	
   without	
   a	
   random	
   assignment	
   impact	
  evaluation	
  
design	
   we	
   cannot	
   rule	
   out	
   that	
   those	
   who	
   were	
   CEEAD	
   only	
   participants	
   were	
   less	
   prepared	
  
prior	
  to	
  their	
  enrollment	
  in	
  the	
  activities.
Figure	
  12.	
  Opinions	
  on	
  Level	
  of	
  Preparation	
  for	
  Exercising	
  Legal	
  
Profession	
  under	
  the	
  NCJS	
  by	
  Implementer
When	
   looking	
  at	
   responses	
   by	
   type	
   of	
   stakeholder	
   (see	
   Figure	
   13),	
   law	
   professors	
  and	
   public	
  
officials	
  report	
  similar	
  levels	
  of	
  preparedness.	
  They	
  seem	
  to	
  feel	
  more	
  prepared	
  than	
  lawyers	
  or	
  
students,	
  as	
  61.3%	
  of	
  law	
  professors	
  and	
  59.1%	
  public	
  officials	
  report	
  feeling	
  very	
  prepared	
  for	
  
practicing	
   their	
   legal	
   profession	
   under	
   the	
  NCJS.	
  On	
   the	
   other	
   hand,	
   40.8%	
   of	
   lawyers	
   report	
  
feeling	
   very	
   prepared.	
   Only	
   two	
   students in	
   the	
   sample responded	
   this	
   telephone	
   survey	
  
questions.	
  Both	
  of	
  them	
  reported	
  feeling	
  only	
  somewhat	
  prepared.	
  
35.5%
54.8%
9.7%
51.2%
41.9%
7.0%
50.6%
41.2%
8.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CEEAD ABA-ROLI Both
Little
Somewhat
Very
Level of Preparation for Exercising
Legal Profession under NCJS
37
Figure	
  13.	
  Opinions	
  on	
  Level	
  of	
  Preparation	
  for	
  Exercising	
  Legal	
  
Profession	
  under	
  the	
  NCJS	
  by	
  Stakeholder
Next,	
  we	
  asked survey respondents	
  to	
  evaluate on 1	
  to	
  7	
  scale,	
  which	
  we recoded	
  to	
  a	
  0	
  (not	
  at	
  
all)	
   to	
   100	
   (very),	
   how	
   prepared	
   they	
   thought	
   judges,	
   public	
   prosecutors,	
   lawyers,	
   students,	
  
victim	
  legal	
  advisers,	
  and	
  police	
  officers	
  were	
  for exercising	
  the	
  law	
  under	
  the	
  NCJS.	
  As	
  shown	
  
in	
  Figure	
  14, judges	
  are	
  by	
  far	
  deemed	
  the	
  most	
  prepared	
  in	
  the	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS	
  with	
  an	
  
average	
  score	
  of	
  66.1,	
  while	
  police	
  officers	
  are	
  perceived	
   to	
  be	
   the	
  least	
  prepared	
  with	
  a	
  low	
  
score	
   of	
   27.6.	
   We	
   can	
   state	
   with	
   90%	
   confidence	
   that	
   this	
   30-­‐degree	
   gap	
   is	
   statistically	
  
meaningful	
   and	
   reflects	
   true	
   differences	
   in	
   perceptions	
   of	
   the	
   preparedness	
   of	
   these	
   actors.	
  
Participants	
   perceive	
   public	
   prosecutors	
   and	
   lawyers	
   to	
   be	
   equally	
   prepared	
   at	
   nearly	
   52	
  
degrees	
   on	
   the	
   0-­‐100	
   scale.	
   Law	
   students	
   and	
   victim	
   legal	
   advisors	
   are	
   also	
   perceived	
   to	
   be	
  
prepared	
  to	
  the	
  same	
  extent	
  with	
  an	
  average	
  score	
  of	
  44.3	
  and	
  42.6,	
  respectively.	
  These	
  small	
  
differences	
  are	
  not	
  statistically	
  distinguishable.	
  
100.0%
61.3%
25.8%
12.9%
40.8%
51.5%
7.8%
59.1%
31.8%
9.1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Law
Student
Law
Professor
Private
Lawyer
Public
Official
Little
Somewhat
Very
Level of Preparation for Exercising
Legal Profession under NCJS
38
Figure	
  14.	
  Average	
  Level	
  of	
  Preparedness	
  for	
  Key	
  Legal	
  
Actors	
  in	
  the	
  Transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS
In	
  Figure	
  15,	
  we	
  compare	
  average	
  opinions	
  of	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  preparedness	
  of	
  key	
  legal	
  actors	
  by	
  
state.	
  Respondents	
   from	
  Chihuahua	
  consistently	
   reported	
  higher	
  average	
  levels	
  preparedness	
  
of	
  legal	
  actors	
  in	
  comparison	
   to Nuevo	
  León,	
  Puebla,	
  and	
   the	
  D.F.	
  Respondents	
   from	
   the	
  D.F.	
  
and	
  Puebla	
  reported	
  similar lower	
  evaluations	
  of	
  preparedness	
  across actors.	
  The	
  most	
  notable	
  
differences	
   in	
   average	
   evaluations	
   of	
   preparedness	
   are	
   those	
   for	
   judges	
   when	
   we	
   compare	
  
Chihuahua	
  and	
  Nuevo	
  León	
  with	
  Puebla	
  and	
  the	
  D.F.	
  	
  
We	
   also	
   asked	
   respondents	
   about	
   their	
   perceived	
   level	
   of	
   preparedness	
   of	
   law	
   professors	
   to	
  
teach	
  the	
  NCJA	
  and	
  law	
  schools	
  to	
  implement	
  curricula	
  specific	
  to	
  the NCJS.	
  Results	
  show	
  that	
  
respondents	
  perceive	
  that	
  both	
  types	
  of	
  actors	
  still	
  lack	
  some	
  degree	
  of	
  preparation	
  in	
  teaching	
  
the	
  NCJS. Law	
  schools	
  as	
  institutions	
  that	
  create	
  and	
  implement	
  law	
  curricula	
  are	
  perceived	
  to	
  
be	
  more	
  prepared	
   than	
   the	
  law	
  professors	
   that	
   teach	
   this	
  curricula,	
  a	
  noteworthy	
  gap	
   for	
   the	
  
transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS	
  in	
  Mexico.	
  Even	
  more	
  concerning	
  is	
  the	
  overall	
  lack	
  of	
  confidence	
  in	
  the	
  
degree	
  to	
  which	
  law	
  schools	
  and	
  professors	
  are	
  prepared.	
  While	
  22.9%	
  of	
  respondents	
  thought	
  
law	
   schools	
   were	
   very	
   prepared,	
   only	
   12.7%	
   of	
   respondents	
   thought	
   the	
   same	
   of	
   law	
  
professors. Nearly	
   half	
   of	
   respondents	
   thought	
   that	
   law	
   professors	
   (55.12%)	
   and	
   law	
   schools	
  
(47.8%)	
  are	
  somewhat prepared.	
  At	
  the	
  same	
  time,	
  almost	
  a	
  third	
  of	
  respondents	
  reported	
  that	
  
law professors	
   (29.3%)	
  and	
  law	
  schools	
   (32.2%)	
  are	
  a	
  little	
  or	
  not	
  at	
  all	
  prepared	
  teaching	
  the	
  
NCJS.
66.1
51.8
51.6
44.3
42.6
27.6
0 20 40 60 80
Judges
Public Prosecutor
Lawyers
Law Students
Victims' Legal Advisers
Police Officers
Average
 90 % Confidence Interval 
 
39
Figure	
  15. Average	
  Level	
  of	
  Preparedness	
  for	
  Key	
  
Legal	
  Actors	
  in	
  the	
  Transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS by	
  State
Some	
   differences	
   in	
   opinions	
   about	
   the	
   level	
   of	
   preparedness	
   of	
   law	
   professors	
   and	
   schools	
  
exist across	
  states.	
  Respondents	
   from	
  Chihuahua perceive	
   their	
  law	
  professors	
  and	
  schools	
   to	
  
be	
   the	
  most prepared	
  in	
   comparison	
  to respondents	
   from	
  the	
  D.F.,	
  Nuevo	
   León,	
  and	
  Puebla.
Respondents	
   from	
  Puebla,	
  on	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  perceive	
  their	
  law	
  professors	
  and	
  schools	
  to	
  be	
  
the	
  least	
  prepared.	
  Those	
  from	
  the	
  D.F.	
  and	
  Nuevo	
  León	
  report	
  perceptions	
  that	
  are	
  similar	
  to	
  
one	
  another	
  and	
  rank	
  somewhere	
  in	
  between	
  those	
  from	
  Puebla	
  and	
  Chihuahua.	
  While	
  20.8%	
  
of	
  respondents	
  in	
  Chihuahua	
  reported	
  that	
  law	
  professors	
  in	
  their	
  state	
  were	
  very	
  prepared	
  for	
  
teaching	
  the	
  NCJS,	
  14.3%	
  in	
  the	
  D.F.,	
  14.3%	
  in	
  Puebla,	
  and	
  5.1%	
  in	
  Puebla	
  reported	
  the	
  same.	
  
Similarly,	
  33.3%	
  of	
  respondents	
  in	
  Chihuahua	
  reported	
  that	
  law	
  schools	
  in	
  their	
  state	
  were	
  very	
  
prepared	
  to	
  implement	
  a	
  curriculum	
  that	
  teaches	
  the	
  NCJS,	
  23.4%	
  in	
  the	
  D.F.,	
  28.6%	
  in	
  Puebla,	
  
and	
  13.6%	
  in	
  Puebla	
  shared	
  this	
  view.
Perceived	
  Impact	
  of	
  Legal	
  Education	
  Activities
With	
   regard	
   to	
   the	
  impact	
   of	
   CEAAD	
  and	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  activities	
   on	
   the	
   transition	
   to	
   the	
  NCJS	
  in	
  
Mexico,	
  the	
  evaluations	
  of	
  survey	
  respondents	
  are	
  generally	
  positive.	
  Some	
  of	
  our	
  key	
  findings	
  
include:
77.4
84.0
59.4
59.9
49.4
44.4
69.3
58.7
50.2
68.0
51.2
46.3
46.8
41.9
54.2
40.7
54.0
38.7
41.4
44.6
38.7
25.8
25.2
26.3
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F.
Puebla
Nuevo León
Chihuahua
0 20 40 60 80 100
Judges
Public Prosecutor
Lawyers
Law Students
Victims' Legal Advisers
Police Officers
Average
 90 % Confidence Interval 
 
40
• Survey	
  respondents	
  and	
  focus	
  group	
  participants	
  report	
  overall	
  positive	
  impacts	
  of	
  their	
  
participation	
  in	
  legal	
  education	
  activities	
  for	
  their	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS.	
  
• Survey	
  respondents	
  reported	
  that	
  activities	
  had	
  the	
  greatest	
  impact	
  on	
  improving	
  their	
  
personal	
  professional	
  development.	
  They	
  also	
  reported	
  an	
  important	
  impact	
  of	
  activities	
  
on	
  facilitating	
  their	
  personal	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  new	
  NCJS,	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  face	
  the	
  demands	
  
and	
  challenges	
  of	
  the	
  NCJS,	
  and	
  improving	
  the	
  legal	
  profession	
  in	
  the	
  state	
  as	
  a	
  whole.
• Professors	
   that	
  attended	
  CEEAD	
  activities	
  attribute	
  updates	
  in	
   their	
   teaching	
  style,	
  use	
  
of	
  teaching	
  materials,	
  and	
  bibliography	
  referenced	
  to	
  the	
  training	
  received.
Figure	
  16 below	
  displays	
   the	
   results	
  of	
  respondents’	
  evaluations	
  of	
   the degree	
   to	
  which	
   their	
  
participation	
  in	
  activities	
  impacted	
  their	
  legal	
  profession	
  and	
  transition to	
  NCJS	
   on	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  
dimensions on	
   a	
   scale	
   from	
   1	
   to	
   7,	
   which	
   we	
   recoded	
   from 0	
   (not	
   at	
   all)	
   to	
   100	
   (a	
   lot).	
  No	
  
dimension	
   received	
   an	
   average	
   score	
   below	
   76.6	
   degrees,	
   representing	
   an	
   impressive	
  
evaluation	
   of	
   the	
   positive	
   perceptions	
   respondents	
   have	
   of	
   the	
   contribution	
   that	
   their	
  
participation	
   in	
   CEAAD	
   and	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   activities	
  had	
   on	
   their	
   ability	
   to	
   practice	
   law	
   under	
   the	
  
NCJS.	
  On	
  average,	
   respondents	
   reported	
   that	
  activities	
  had	
   the	
  greatest	
  impact	
  on	
  improving	
  
their personal	
  professional	
  development with	
  a	
  score	
  of	
  86.9	
  degrees.	
  This	
  finding	
  is	
  statistically	
  
significant,	
   indicating	
   that	
   we	
   can	
   say	
   with	
   90%	
   confidence	
   that the	
   difference	
   between	
   this	
  
evaluation	
  and	
  the	
  perceived	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  activities	
  on	
  all	
  other	
  dimensions is	
  not	
  random. In	
  
fact,	
  one	
  participant	
  from	
  an	
  in-­‐depth	
  interview	
  in	
  Nuevo	
  León	
  argued	
  that	
  the	
  model	
  of	
  ABA-­‐
ROLI	
   techniques	
  is	
  a	
  near	
  perfect	
  match	
   for	
   the	
  legal	
   statutes	
   that	
  legal	
  actors	
  must	
  learn	
  an	
  
implement	
  in	
  the	
  NCJS,	
  saying,
Mira,	
   nosotros	
   hicimos	
   una	
   comparación	
  entre	
   los	
  estatutos	
   nuestros	
   y	
  el	
  modelo	
   que	
  
plantea	
   ABA	
   ROLI,	
   yo	
   creo	
   que	
   hay	
   un	
   90%	
   que	
   coincidimos,	
   porque	
   bueno	
   nuestros	
  
estatutos ya	
   habían	
   sido	
   reformados	
   antes.	
  Este	
  mismo	
   año	
   se	
   reformaron	
   pero	
   fue	
   a	
  
principios	
  de	
  año,	
  sin	
  tomar	
  en	
  cuenta	
  lo	
  de	
  ABA	
  ROLI	
  y	
  llegamos	
  a	
  esa	
  coincidencia.
According	
  to	
  the	
  results	
  in	
  Figure	
  16,	
  respondents	
  also	
  reported	
  feeling	
  that	
  their	
  participation	
  
in	
   activities	
   had	
   an	
   important	
   impact	
   in	
   facilitating	
   their	
   personal	
   transition	
   to	
   the	
   new	
  NCJS	
  
(81.8),	
  and	
  just	
  slightly	
  less	
  of	
  an	
  impact	
  on	
  making	
  that	
  transition	
  any	
  faster	
  (78.8).	
  They	
  also	
  
reported	
   that	
  activities	
   had	
  more	
   of	
  an	
   impact	
   on	
   their	
   personal	
  ability	
   to	
   face	
   the	
   demands	
  
and	
   challenges	
   of	
   the	
  NCJS	
   (80.1)	
   in	
   comparison	
   to	
   the	
   impact	
   of	
  activities	
   on	
   improving	
   the	
  
legal	
  profession	
  in	
  the	
  state	
  as	
  a	
  whole	
  (76.6).
41
Figure	
  16.	
  Average	
  Perceived	
  Impact	
  of	
  Activities on	
  
Legal	
  Profession	
  and	
  Transition	
  to	
  NCJS
Similar	
   to	
   results	
   discussed	
   thus	
   far	
   regarding	
   differences	
  across	
   states,	
  Figure	
   17 shows	
   that	
  
respondents	
   from	
   Chihuahua	
   and	
   Nuevo	
   León	
   report	
   higher	
   average	
   evaluations	
   of	
   the	
  
perceived	
  impact	
  of	
  activities	
  on	
   the	
  0-­‐100	
  scale,	
  while	
   those	
   from	
   the	
  D.F.	
   report	
   the	
  lowest	
  
and	
  those	
  from	
  Puebla	
  stand	
  somewhere	
  in	
  the	
  middle.	
  The	
  most	
  significant	
  gaps	
  in	
  evaluations	
  
across	
   states	
   include	
   the	
   evaluated	
   impact	
   of	
   activities	
   on	
   the	
   legal	
   profession	
   and	
   the	
  
transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS.
Across	
  most	
   dimensions,	
   survey	
   respondents	
   did	
   not	
  exhibit	
   significant	
   differences	
   on	
  impact	
  
scores	
   when	
   comparing	
   them	
   across	
   different	
   activity	
   implementers.	
   The	
   only	
   meaningful	
  
difference	
  we	
  found	
  when	
  disaggregating	
  respondents	
  by	
  type	
  of	
  implementer	
  corresponds	
  to	
  
the	
   higher	
   score	
   that	
   participants	
   of	
   activities	
   carried	
   out	
   by	
   both	
   CEEAD	
   and	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
  
reported	
   in	
   comparison	
   to	
   those	
   that	
   only	
   participated	
   in	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   activities	
   for	
   the	
   impact	
  
activities	
  had	
  on	
  facilitating	
  personal	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS.
86.9
81.8
80.1
78.8
76.6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Impact of activity on personal professional development
Impact of activity on facilitating personal transition to NCJS
Impact of activity on abilities to face demands and challenges of NCJS
Impact of activity on accelerating personal transition to NCJS
Impact of activity on legal profession in my state
Average
 90 % Confidence Interval 
 
42
Figure	
  17.	
  Average	
  Perceived	
  Impact	
  of	
  Activities on	
  Legal	
  
Profession	
  and	
  Transition	
  to	
  NCJS	
  by	
  State
Similarly,	
  comparison	
  of	
  average	
  perceived	
  impact	
  of	
  activities	
  across	
  types	
  of	
  stakeholders	
  did	
  
not	
   return	
   significant	
   differences.	
   The	
   only	
   difference	
   worth	
   noting	
   is	
   law	
   students’	
   lower	
  
perceived	
  impact	
  of	
  activities	
  on	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  face	
  the	
  demands	
  and	
  challenges	
  of	
  the	
  NCJS	
  in	
  
comparison	
  to	
  lawyers	
  and	
  law	
  professors.	
  	
  	
  
Beyond	
  asking	
  respondents	
  about	
  the	
  general	
  impact	
  of	
  activities	
  on	
  different	
  aspects	
  of	
  their	
  
transition	
   to	
   the	
  NCJS,	
  we	
  also	
  included	
  questions	
  to	
  assess	
  in	
  more	
  detail	
   the	
  impact	
  CEEAD	
  
training	
   activities	
   may	
   have	
   had	
   on	
   law	
   professors’ teaching	
   of	
   the	
   NCJS.	
   According	
   to	
   our	
  
survey,	
  the	
  vast	
  majority	
  (81.4%)	
  of	
  law	
  professors	
  interviewed	
  report	
  having	
  modified	
  the	
  way	
  
they	
   teach	
   classes	
  after	
   having	
   participated	
   in	
  a	
   training	
   by	
   CEEAD. A	
   participant	
   from	
  an	
   in-­‐
depth	
  interview	
  in	
  Coahila	
  expressed	
  reported,	
  “Es	
  definitivo,	
  instituciones	
  como	
  el	
  CEEAD,	
  han	
  
sido	
  grandes	
  apoyos	
  para	
  instituciones	
  como	
  la	
  (Universidad	
  )Autónoma	
  de	
  Coahuila.” A focus	
  
group	
  participant	
  from	
  the	
  D.F.	
  expressed	
  a	
  similar	
  opinion	
  saying,	
  
A	
  mí	
  las	
  técnicas	
  porque	
  me	
  encantaba	
  la	
  ponente	
  que	
  decía	
  … ‘este	
  es	
  el	
  tema	
  y	
  ustedes	
  
pueden	
  llegar con	
  sus	
  alumnos	
  de	
  esta	
  manera’.	
  O sea	
  si	
  te	
  planteaban	
  el	
  objetivo	
  y	
  sin	
  
embargo	
  también	
  te	
  daban	
  herramientas	
  para	
  que	
  tú	
  como	
  maestro	
  pudieras	
  conducir	
  
al	
  alumno	
  para	
  llegar	
  al	
  mismo	
  punto,	
  eso	
  sí	
  fue	
  muy,	
  muy	
  práctico	
  con	
  una	
  dinámica.
Table	
  2 shows	
  which	
  aspects	
  of	
   their	
   teaching	
   these	
  professors	
   report	
  having	
  modified.	
  Most	
  
responses	
  are	
  concentrated	
  on	
  either	
  efforts	
  to	
  update	
  teaching	
  materials	
  and	
  bibliography,	
  or	
  
the	
  style	
  of	
  teaching	
  a	
  class.	
  In	
  sum,	
  professors	
  that	
  attended	
  CEEAD	
  activities	
  attribute	
  updates	
  
94.4 90.5
80.5 88.9
77.682.5
67.4
90.5
74.4
90.5 87.8 82.5
79.5 73.8
89.7 85.7
77.8 84.988.1
72.5
D.F. Puebla Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F. Puebla Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F. Puebla Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F. Puebla Nuevo León
Chihuahua
D.F. Puebla Nuevo León
Chihuahua
0 20 40 60 80 100
Impact of activity on personal professional development
Impact of activity on legal profession in my state
Impact of activity on facilitating personal transition to NCJS
Impact of activity on abilities to face demands and challenges of NCJS
Impact of activity on accelerating personal transition to NCJS
Average
 90 % Confidence Interval 
 
43
they	
  have	
  made	
  to	
  their	
  teaching	
  techniques	
  to	
  the	
  training	
  received.	
  In	
  fact,	
  over	
  91%	
  of	
  them	
  
report	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  “very	
  important”	
  for	
  law	
  professors	
  to	
  use	
  pedagogical	
  techniques	
  and	
  didactic	
  
materials	
  to	
  teach	
  classes	
  on	
  the	
  NCJS.
Table	
  2.	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Responses	
  about	
  Law	
  Professors	
  Reported	
  Changes	
  in	
  Teaching	
  Approaches
Aspects	
  of	
  Teaching	
  that	
  Law	
  Professors	
  Have	
  Changed
Teaching	
  style 10	
  (29.4%)
Materials	
  and	
  bibliography 8	
  (23.5%)
Other 8	
  (23.5%)
Course	
  formats 5	
  (14.7%)
Incorporation	
  of	
  case	
  studies 3	
  (8.8%)
Student	
  exams	
  and	
  evaluations 0	
  (0%)
4. Primary	
  Constraints	
  for	
  Providing	
  Quality	
  Services	
  and	
  Support	
  for	
  the	
  Legal	
  Profession’s	
  
Transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS
The	
  findings	
  discussed	
  so	
  far show	
  that	
  study	
  participants	
  report	
  generally	
  positive	
  experiences	
  
with	
  and	
  evaluations	
  of	
  USAID-­‐supported	
  legal	
  education	
  programs	
  carried	
  out	
  by	
  CEEAD	
  and	
  
ABA-­‐ROLI.	
  Yet,	
  the	
  overhauling	
  of	
  a country’s	
  judicial	
  system presents	
  extensive	
  challenges	
  for	
  
law	
  practitioners	
   despite	
   having	
   the	
  availability	
   of	
  assistance	
   programs	
   for	
   the	
   transition	
   to	
  a	
  
new	
   criminal	
   justice	
   system.	
   As	
   a	
   one	
   focus	
   group	
   participant	
   from	
   the	
   D.F.	
   explained,	
  
“…nuestros	
  operadores	
  del	
  sistema	
  de	
  justicia	
  están	
  absolutamente	
   rebasados	
  y	
  hasta	
  que	
  no	
  
haya	
   quizás	
   un	
   cambio	
   generacional	
   no	
   tendremos	
   mejora	
   o	
   sea	
   por	
   más	
   que	
   cambiemos	
   el	
  
sistema	
  no	
  tenemos	
  mejora…” Some	
  of	
  the	
  key	
  findings	
  discussed	
  in	
  this	
  section	
  include:
• Survey	
   respondents	
   point	
   to difficulties	
   with	
   key	
   actors,	
   such	
   as	
   police,	
   public	
  
prosecutors	
  and	
  local	
  government,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
   resistance	
   or	
  lack	
   of	
  knowledge	
   of	
   state	
  
authorities	
  and	
  lawyers	
  as	
  the	
  most	
  significant	
  obstacles	
  in	
  their	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS.	
  
Focus	
  group	
  and	
  in-­‐depth	
  interview	
  participants	
  reiterate	
  some	
  of	
  these	
  points.	
  
• Survey	
  respondents	
  view	
  the	
  capabilities	
  and	
  willingness	
  of	
  private	
  institutions	
  and	
  
students	
  as	
  lesser	
  obstacles	
  in	
  the	
  transition.
• For	
  law	
  professors,	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  teaching	
  materials	
  and	
  the	
  need	
  for updating	
  law	
  degree	
  
curricula	
  are	
  among	
  the	
  most	
  significant	
  challenges	
  for	
  teaching	
  the	
  NCJS
• For	
   lawyers,	
   the	
   transition	
   to	
   the	
   NCJS	
   is	
   most	
   challenged	
   by	
   the	
   transition	
   to	
   oral	
  
litigation,	
   new	
   procedures	
   for	
   criminal	
   investigation,	
   and	
   new	
   intermediate	
   hearing	
  
rules.	
  Focus	
  group	
  participants	
  also	
  highlighted	
  these	
  challenges,	
  but	
  also	
  indicated	
  their	
  
concern	
  over	
  ethical	
  concerns	
  in	
  breaking	
  from	
  the	
  old	
  judicial	
  system.	
  
44
In	
   an	
   effort	
   to	
   better	
   understand	
   the	
   types	
   of	
   constraints	
   faced	
   by	
   law	
   practitioners	
   in	
   their	
  
transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS	
  in	
  Mexico,	
  we	
  asked survey respondents	
  to	
  evaluate the degree	
  to	
  which	
  
certain	
  aspects	
   of	
   the	
   judicial	
   system	
   were	
   obstacles	
   for	
   the	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
  NCJS.	
  To	
  
answer	
  these	
  questions,	
  respondents	
  used	
  a	
  scale	
  from	
  1	
  to	
  7,	
  which	
  we	
  recoded	
  from	
  0	
  (not	
  
an	
  obstacle)	
  to	
  100	
  (great	
  obstacle)	
  scale. Average	
  evaluations	
  are	
  displayed	
  on	
  Figure	
  18.	
  
Figure	
  18.	
  Average	
  Evaluations	
  of	
  Possible	
  Obstacles	
  for	
  
Implementation	
  of	
  and	
  Transition	
  to	
  NCJS
Respondents	
   report	
   difficulties	
   with	
   key	
   actors,	
   such	
   as	
   police,	
   public	
   prosecutors	
   and	
   local	
  
government,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  resistance	
  or	
  lack	
  of	
  knowledge	
  of	
  state	
  authorities	
  and	
  lawyers	
  as	
  the	
  
most	
  significant	
  obstacles	
  in	
  their	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS. Differences	
  in	
  average	
  evaluations	
  for	
  
these	
  types	
  of	
  obstacles	
  range	
   from	
  61.1	
  to	
  65.2,	
  but	
  are	
  not	
  statistically	
  distinguishable	
   from	
  
one	
   another.	
   That	
   is,	
   respondents	
   evaluate	
   them	
   as	
   obstacles	
   on	
   the	
   0-­‐100	
   scale	
   with	
   equal	
  
magnitude.	
  A	
  participant	
  from	
  an	
  in-­‐depth	
  interview	
  in	
  Saltillo (state	
  of	
  Coahuila) noted	
  that	
  at	
  
times	
  training	
  focus	
  more	
  on	
  state	
  authorities	
  and	
  less	
  on	
  lawyers	
  saying,	
  	
  ”Se	
  han	
  enfocado	
  a	
  
capacitación	
   solamente	
   a	
   los	
   empleados	
   del	
   gobierno,	
   al	
   Poder	
   Judicial	
   y	
   al	
   Poder	
   de	
  
Procuración	
  e	
  Implementación	
  de	
  Justicia y	
  se	
  han	
  olvidado	
  de	
  los	
  abogados	
  litigantes.”
A focus	
  group	
  participant from	
  the	
  D.F.	
  commented	
  on	
  the	
  resistance	
  by	
  key	
  legal	
  actors	
  in	
  the	
  
transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS	
  saying,	
  
65.2
62.2
61.1
59.3
59.3
58.7
57.6
52.4
45.4
0 20 40 60 80
Difficulties with key actors (Police, Public Prosecutor, local gov't)
Resistance or lack of knowledge of state authorities
Resistance or lack of knowledge of lawyers
Deficiencies of the current legal framework
Difficulty meeting the reform timeline
Financial capacity of institutions
Knowledge capacity of institutions
Lack of interest/disposition of institutions
Resistance or lack of knowledge of students
Average
 90 % Confidence Interval 
 
The following have been obstacles for law bars and schools (0-100 scale)
45
Vi	
  mucha	
  resistencia…	
  en	
  la	
  implementación	
  del	
  NSJP…	
  sobre	
  todo	
  en	
  la	
  cuestión	
  dentro	
  
del	
   Poder	
   Judicial	
   de	
   muchos	
   compañeros,	
   incluso	
   dentro	
   de	
   la	
   maestría	
   de	
   Procesal	
  
Penal	
  y	
  una	
  especialidad	
  en	
  Juicios	
  Orales.	
  Esa	
  resistencia	
  de	
  que	
  se	
  iba	
  a	
  dar	
  o	
  no	
  este	
  
cambio,	
   pero	
   también	
   era	
   como	
   una	
   cuestión	
   negativa	
   y	
   de	
   cuestión	
   cultural	
   de	
  
resistirnos	
   a	
   ese	
   cambio	
   cuando	
   sabemos	
   que	
   también	
   estamos	
   en	
   una	
   cuestión	
  
económica	
   globalizada	
   y	
   que	
   vamos	
   hacia	
   allá	
   y	
   que	
   realmente	
   es	
   precisamente	
   esta	
  
nueva	
  (realidad) y	
   tener	
   todos	
  esos	
   niveles	
   de	
   competencia.	
  Entonces	
   por	
   parte	
   de	
   los	
  
abogados	
  si	
  había	
  como	
  que	
  los	
  abogados	
  que	
  están	
  dentro,	
  que	
  conocen	
  el	
  derecho	
  de	
  
México	
  y	
  muy	
  pocos	
  el	
  internacional.
Regarding	
   difficulties	
   with	
   key	
   actors,	
   such	
   as	
   police	
   and public	
   prosecutors,	
   a	
   focus	
   group	
  
participant	
  from	
  the	
  D.F.	
  argued,	
  
…si	
  el	
  Ministerio	
   Público	
   no	
  mejora	
  junto	
   con	
  la	
   Policía	
  Investigadora	
  incluso	
  la	
   Policía	
  
Preventiva	
  que	
  es	
  la	
  que	
  llega	
  primero	
  a	
  ciertos	
  tipos	
  de	
  escenario	
  de	
  delito,	
  si	
  ellos	
  no	
  
saben	
  custodiar	
  estas	
  pruebas,	
  si	
  no	
  saben	
  interrogar	
  a	
  las	
  personas	
  que	
  estaban	
  ahí	
  y	
  
tomar	
  las	
  imágenes,	
  eso	
  al	
  ser	
  llevado	
  al	
  juicio	
  se	
  va	
  a	
  echar	
  abajo	
  la	
  sesión	
  entonces	
  los	
  
índices	
   de	
   acusaciones	
   que	
   prosperan	
   van	
   a	
   bajar	
   si	
   no	
   paralelamente	
   se	
   eleva	
   la	
  
capacitación	
  del	
  Ministerio	
  Público.
Similarly, a	
   participant	
   from	
   a	
   focus	
   group in	
   Puebla	
   summarized	
   the	
   challenges	
   to	
   law	
  
practitioners	
  by	
  saying,	
  
…	
  el	
  abogado	
  porque	
  pareciera	
  fácil	
  pero	
  no	
  lo	
  es porque	
  no	
  se	
  lleva	
  un	
  juicio.	
  No	
  es	
  que	
  
te	
   tengas	
  que	
  aprender	
  un	
  alegato	
  de	
  apertura	
  y	
  ya	
  y	
  un	
  interrogatorio	
  y	
  ya,	
  sino	
  que	
  
está	
  llevando	
  diferentes	
  asuntos.	
  Entonces	
  es	
  como	
  un	
  gran	
  reto	
  adquirir	
  esa	
  habilidad	
  
de	
   poder	
   memorizar	
   alegatos	
   y	
   nombres	
   porque	
   te	
   tienes	
   que	
   saber	
   los	
   nombres,	
   las	
  
fechas,	
  incluso	
  si	
  en	
   tu	
   teoría	
  del	
  caso	
  vas	
  a	
  utilizar	
  algún	
  peritaje	
  el	
  nombre	
  científico	
  
que	
  va	
  a	
  utilizar	
  el	
  Perito	
  que	
  va	
  a	
  ser	
  el	
  punto	
  clave	
  en	
  tu	
  teoría	
  del	
  caso.	
  Entonces	
  si	
  es	
  
uno	
   de	
   los	
   grandes	
   retos	
   también	
   para	
   el	
   abogado	
   hoy	
   en	
   día,	
   tener	
   esa	
   habilidad	
  
incluso	
  de	
  improvisar	
  en	
  el	
  momento	
  de	
  hacer	
  el	
  interrogatorio	
  y	
  al	
  momento	
  de	
  hacer	
  el	
  
alegato	
  de	
  clausura.
According	
  to	
  the	
  results	
  in	
  Figure	
  15,	
  survey	
  respondents	
  gave	
  similar,	
  middling	
  scores	
  on	
  the	
  0
(not	
  an	
  obstacle)	
  to	
  100 (great	
  obstacle) scale	
  to	
  meeting	
  the	
  reform	
  implementation	
  timeline,	
  
deficiencies in	
  the	
  legal	
  framework,	
  financial	
  capacity	
  of	
  institution,	
  and	
  knowledge	
  capacity	
  of	
  
institutions	
   as	
   obstacles	
   to	
   the	
   transition	
   to	
   the	
   NCSJ.	
   These	
   factors	
   are	
   reported	
   as greater	
  
challenges	
  than	
  lack	
  of	
  interest	
  or	
  disposition from	
  institutions.	
  On	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  respondents	
  
believe	
   that the	
   resistance	
   or	
   lack	
   of	
   knowledge	
   of	
   law	
   students	
   was	
   the	
   least	
   problematic	
  
constraint	
  in	
  the	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS.	
  The	
  average	
  score	
  given	
  to	
  this	
  dimension as	
  a	
  possible	
  
obstacle	
   is 45.4	
   degrees	
   and	
   is	
   significantly	
   different	
   from	
   all	
   other	
   evaluations,	
   statistically	
  
speaking.	
  
46
In	
  sum, the	
  factors	
  that	
  have	
  most	
  constrained	
  the	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS	
  in	
  Mexico	
  stem	
  from	
  
the	
  demands	
  and	
  challenges	
   that	
  public	
  authorities	
  and	
  lawyers	
  have	
  had	
   to	
   face	
  in	
  acquiring	
  
sufficient	
   knowledge	
   and	
   training	
   to	
   implement	
   new	
   laws	
   and	
   criminal	
   procedures.	
   On	
   the	
  
other	
   hand, respondents	
   view	
   the	
   capabilities	
   and	
   willingness	
   of	
   private	
   institutions	
   and	
  
students	
  as	
  lesser	
  obstacles	
  in	
  the	
  transition. These	
  results	
  seem	
  to	
  suggest a need	
  for	
  further	
  
assistance	
   in	
   the	
   legal	
   education	
   among	
   actors	
   that	
   are	
   most	
   essential	
   in	
   the	
   short-­‐term	
   for	
  
accomplishing	
  a	
   successful	
  implementation	
   of	
   the	
  NCJS:	
   public	
  authorities	
   such	
  as	
   the	
   police,	
  
public	
   prosecutors,	
   local	
   government,	
   and	
   other	
   state	
   authorities. At	
   the	
   same	
   time,	
  
respondents’	
  evaluations	
  also	
  point	
  to	
  a	
  need,	
  and	
  a	
  desire,	
   for	
  more	
  emphasis	
  placed	
  on	
  the	
  
training	
  of	
  lawyers	
  for	
  practicing	
  law	
  under	
  the	
  NCJS.
We	
   also	
   asked	
   respondents	
   who	
   are	
   law	
   professors	
   and/or	
   lawyers	
   a	
   series	
   of	
   additional	
  
questions	
  about	
  what they	
  considered	
  are	
  the primary	
  constraints	
  and	
  challenges	
  in	
  providing	
  
support	
   to	
   law	
   schools	
   and	
   law	
   practitioners	
   in	
   the	
   transition	
   to	
   the	
   NCJS. We	
   asked	
   law	
  
professors	
   an	
   open-­‐ended	
   question	
   for	
   which	
   results	
   are	
   displayed	
   in	
   Table	
   3.	
   Responses	
  
indicate	
   that	
   the	
  lack	
  of	
  materials	
  was	
  one	
  of	
   the	
  most	
  significant	
  challenges	
   for	
   teaching	
   the	
  
NCJS.	
  As	
  reported	
  above,	
  91%	
  of	
  law	
  professors	
  report	
  that	
  pedagogical	
  techniques	
  and	
  didactic	
  
materials	
  are	
  essential	
  for	
  teaching	
  courses	
  on	
  the	
  NCJS. Furthermore,	
  we	
  previously	
  reported	
  
that	
  compared	
  to	
  other	
  key	
  legal	
  actors,	
  law	
  schools,	
  professors,	
  and	
  schools	
  are	
  perceived	
  to	
  
still	
   lack	
   a	
   sufficient	
   level	
   of	
   preparedness	
   in	
   the	
   transition	
   to	
   the	
   NCJS.	
   Hence, efforts	
   to	
  
provide	
  assistance	
  to	
  law	
  schools	
  should	
  ensure	
  that	
  professors	
  not	
  only	
  have	
  sufficient	
  training	
  
on	
   what	
   courses	
   to	
   teach,	
   but	
   also	
   have	
   the	
   adequate educational	
  materials	
  to	
   facilitate	
   the	
  
task.	
   Law	
   professors	
   also	
   pointed	
   to	
   the	
   importance	
   of	
   updating law	
   degree	
   curricula and,
among	
   “other”	
   responses,	
   the	
   need	
   to	
   emphasize	
   the	
   teaching	
   of	
   oral	
   litigation	
   and	
   trial	
  
argumentation	
  skills.
Table	
  3.	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Responses	
  for	
  Most	
  Significant Challenge	
  in	
  Teaching	
  the	
  NCJS
Most	
  significant	
  challenge	
  for	
  teaching	
  the	
  NCJS is…
Lack	
  of	
  materials 12	
  (27.3%)
Lack	
  of	
  changes	
  to	
  law	
  degree	
  curricula 4	
  (9.1%)
Lack	
  of	
  training	
  for	
  law	
  professors 3	
  (6.8%)
Lack	
  of	
  resources/money 3	
  (6.8%)
Deficient	
  or	
  insufficient	
  modification	
  to	
  law	
  degree	
  curricula 2	
  (4.6%)
Lack	
  of	
  support	
  by	
  authorities 2	
  (4.6%)
Lack	
  of	
  clarity	
  in	
  the	
  functioning	
  of	
  the	
  NCJS 1	
  (2.3%)
Other 17	
  (38.64%)
We	
   then	
   asked	
   lawyers	
   to	
   choose	
   from	
   a	
   list	
   which	
   aspect	
   of	
   the	
   new	
   laws	
   for	
   criminal	
  
procedure	
  were	
  the	
  most	
  complex	
   for	
  lawyers	
  in	
  litigation.	
  As	
  displayed	
  in	
  Table	
  4,	
  responses	
  
47
point	
   to	
   three	
  main	
   challenging	
  areas:	
  oral	
  litigation,	
   criminal	
  investigation,	
  and	
  intermediate	
  
hearing.	
  It	
  is	
  not	
  surprising	
  that	
  these	
  are	
  considered	
  the	
  most	
  challenging	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  new	
  
systems	
   criminal	
   procedure	
   as	
   they	
   represent	
   some	
   of	
   the	
   most	
   significant	
   deviations	
   from	
  
Mexico’s	
  previous	
  judicial	
  system.	
  In	
  fact,	
  these	
  challenges	
  can	
  be	
  interpreted	
  as	
  being	
  closely	
  
related	
  at	
  the	
  perceptions	
  respondents	
  have	
  regarding	
  difficulties	
  in	
  the	
  preparedness	
  of	
  public	
  
authorities	
  and	
  lawyers	
  as the	
  most	
  difficult	
  obstacles	
  in	
  the	
  implementation	
  of	
  the	
  NCJS	
   (see	
  
Figure	
  15).	
  
Table	
  4.	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Responses	
  for	
  Most	
  Complex	
  Challenge	
  for	
  Lawyer	
  in	
  Litigation
Most	
  complex	
  aspect	
  of	
  criminal	
  procedure	
  is…
Oral	
  trial 32	
  (24.2%)
Investigation	
  for	
  the	
  public	
  prosecutor 28	
  (21.2%)
Intermediate	
  hearing 28	
  (21.2%)
Initial	
  hearing 13	
  (9.8%)
“Amparo	
  Penal” 9	
  (6.8%)
Judicial	
  review 8	
  (6.1%)
Other 6	
  (4.6%)
Execution 3	
  (2.3%)
As	
   a	
   Puebla focus	
   group	
   participant	
   explained	
   regarding	
   challenges	
   related	
   to	
   criminal	
  
investigation,	
  
Pues	
  lo	
  que	
  pasa	
  es	
  que	
  se	
  desconoce	
  mucho	
  lo	
  que	
  es	
  la	
  investigación	
  científica	
  y	
  es	
  más	
  
complicado	
   de	
   lo	
   que	
   uno	
   cree.	
   El	
   Juicio	
   Oral	
   a	
   lo	
   mejor	
   sobre	
   el	
   procedimiento	
   ya	
   lo	
  
entienden	
   más	
   fácil,	
   el	
   problema	
   es	
   que	
   vienen	
   arrastrando	
   graves	
   problemas	
   en	
   el	
  
proceso	
  de	
  investigación.	
  Por	
  eso	
  es	
  que	
  en	
  la	
  gran	
  mayoría	
  de	
  los	
  juicios	
  si	
  usted	
  checa	
  
cuantos	
   juicios	
   han	
   habido	
   y	
   cuantos	
   se	
   han	
   ganado,	
   cuantos	
   se	
   han	
   perdido,	
   se	
   ha	
  
perdido	
  más	
  a	
  nivel	
  nacional,	
  pero	
  es	
  por	
  el	
  procedimiento	
  de la	
  investigación	
  que	
  es	
  una	
  
etapa	
  que	
  la	
  han	
  dejado.
Others	
  discussed	
  more	
  practical	
  or	
  logistical	
  challenges	
  that	
  the	
  new	
  system	
  presents	
  given	
  new	
  
litigation	
   procedures.	
   A	
   participant	
   from	
   one	
   of	
   the	
   groups	
   in	
   the	
   D.F. gave	
   the	
   following	
  
example,	
  
…	
  y es	
  importante,	
  digo	
  yo	
  creo	
  que	
  es	
  importante	
  que	
  sepamos	
  cómo	
  se	
  aplica	
  porque	
  
muchas	
  veces	
  la	
  cuestión	
   teórica	
  no	
  enlaza	
  con	
  la	
  cuestión	
  práctica.	
  Por	
  ejemplo	
  en	
  el	
  
CEEAD	
  nos	
  decían	
  algunas	
  cuestiones,	
  algunas	
  técnicas	
  para	
  litigar	
  y	
  una	
  de	
  ellas…	
  por	
  
ejemplo	
  en	
  (los	
  juzgados)	
  Neza	
  Bordo	
  está	
  un	
  micrófono	
  aquí,	
  esta	
  fija	
  la	
  pastilla	
  pero	
  se	
  
puede	
  trasladar,	
  si	
  yo	
  me	
  levanto	
  y	
  me	
  pongo	
  de	
  pie	
  para	
  darle	
  mayor	
  relevancia	
  a	
  mi	
  
48
argumento,	
   toda	
   la	
   importancia	
   automáticamente	
   yo	
   mismo	
   estoy	
   negándome	
   la	
  
posibilidad	
  de	
  que	
  el	
  audio	
  sea	
  debidamente	
  grabado	
  o	
  sea	
  el	
   recurso	
   tecnológico	
  aún	
  
no	
  está	
  acorde…
Beyond	
   those	
   displayed	
   in	
   Table	
   4,	
   focus	
   group	
   participants	
   also	
   highlighted	
   additional	
  
challenges	
   for	
   practicing	
   law	
   under	
   the	
   NCJS.	
   Some	
   shared concerns	
   over the	
   need	
   to	
   break	
  
from	
  questionable	
  ethical	
  behaviors	
  that	
  were	
  characteristics	
  from	
  the	
  old	
  judicial	
  system.	
  As	
  a	
  
participant	
  from	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  focus	
  group	
  conducted	
  in	
  the	
  D.F. explained,
…tú	
   tienes	
   que	
   alinearte	
   conmigo	
   eso	
   ya	
   no,	
   ya	
   no	
   debe	
   de	
   operar	
   ese	
   sistema.	
   Sin	
  
embargo, encontramos	
  ese	
   tipo	
  de	
  anomalías	
  o	
  casos	
   tan	
  irrisorios	
  por	
  ejemplo	
  donde	
  
uno	
  no	
  puede	
  ingresar	
  a	
  un	
  juzgado,	
  a	
  una	
  sala	
  de	
   Juicio	
  Oral	
  con	
  un	
  portafolio,	
  ya	
  no	
  
digamos	
   con	
   un	
   celular,	
   con	
   una	
   computadora	
   cuando	
   digo	
   finalmente	
   el	
   recurso	
  
tecnológico	
   está	
   para auxiliarnos	
   y	
   para	
   ayudarnos.	
   Porque	
   a	
   diferencia	
   del	
   MP	
  
(ministerio	
   público/fiscal)	
   y	
   del	
   Defensor	
   el	
   Juez	
   ingresa	
   con	
   su	
   computadora,	
   tiene	
  
acceso	
  a	
  marcar	
  cierto	
  tipo	
  de	
  cosas	
  y	
  nos	
  coloca	
  en	
  un	
  punto	
  de	
  desventaja	
  a	
  quienes	
  
también	
  estamos	
  o	
  somos	
  parte	
  del	
  sistema…
A	
   focus	
   group	
   participant	
   from	
   Puebla,	
   also	
   expressed	
   concern	
   about	
   lawyers’ ethical	
  
considerations	
  when	
  handling	
  cases	
  under	
  the	
  new	
  system,
…pero	
  mientras	
   haya	
   abogados	
   que	
   prefieran	
  irse	
   a	
   un	
  juicio	
   para	
   alargar	
  el	
   asunto	
   y	
  
sacar	
  más	
  dinero	
  en	
  lugar	
  de	
   solucionarle	
  al	
  cliente	
  inmediatamente	
  el	
  problema	
  pues	
  
esto	
  no	
  se	
  va	
  a	
  lograr.	
  Volvemos	
  al	
  punto, es	
  cuestión	
  de	
  los	
  valores	
  de	
  las	
  personas	
  y	
  si	
  
los	
   valores	
   son	
   subjetivos	
   depende	
   a	
   diferencia	
   de	
   los	
   principios	
   los	
   valores	
   dependen,	
  
van	
  de	
  una	
  familia	
  a	
  otra	
  y	
  cambian	
  por	
  completo.
A	
  participant	
  from	
  an	
  in-­‐depth	
  interview	
  in	
  Nuevo	
  León also	
  shared	
  the	
  view	
  that	
  the	
  training	
  of	
  
legal	
  actors	
  must	
  emphasize	
  the	
  need	
  to	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  ethics	
  of	
  the	
  NCJS,	
  saying,	
  “Recalcar	
  los	
  
valores	
   porque	
   el	
   hecho	
   de	
   hacer	
   las	
   cosas	
   sin	
   un	
   valor	
   de	
   ética,	
   de	
   entusiasmo,	
   de	
  
perseverancia	
  pues	
  entonces	
  pues	
  se	
  echa	
  a	
  perder	
  todo.”
At	
  the	
  same	
  time, other	
  participants	
  also	
  warned	
  against	
  new	
  types	
  ethical	
  dilemmas	
  that	
  can	
  
arise	
  during	
   this	
   transition	
   to	
  a	
  new	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system.	
  For	
  example,	
  another	
  participant	
  
from	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  groups	
  in	
  the	
  D.F. explained,	
  
…	
  yo	
  en	
  lo	
  personal	
  he	
  litigado	
  en	
  Juicio	
  Oral	
  en	
  el	
  Estado	
  de	
  México.	
  Como	
  pertenezco	
  al	
  
Sistema	
  Penitenciario	
  del	
  Distrito	
  Federal	
  no	
  sería	
  prudente	
  litigar	
  casos	
  penales	
  porque	
  
habría	
  un	
  poquito	
  de	
  interés, vamos	
  trabaja	
  uno	
  para	
  una	
  institución	
  del	
  Poder	
  Ejecutivo	
  
y	
  al	
  mismo	
  tiempo	
  está	
  uno	
  litigando	
  en	
  contra	
  no	
  de	
  la	
  institución	
  propiamente,	
  pero	
  sí
del	
  Gobierno	
  del	
  Distrito	
  Federal	
  pero	
  en	
  el	
  Estado	
  de	
  México	
  donde	
  no	
  hay	
  conflicto	
  de	
  
intereses	
  porque	
  no	
  tendría	
  razón	
  de	
  ser	
  que	
  uno	
  tuviera	
  cierta	
  influencia	
  o	
  aprovechara	
  
algún	
  grado	
  de	
  confianza	
  con	
  alguna	
  persona...
49
These	
   results	
   could	
   be	
   interpreted	
   as	
   indicating that	
   in	
   order	
   for	
   key	
   legal	
   actors,	
   such	
   as	
  
lawyers,	
  public	
  prosecutors,	
  judges	
  and	
  the	
  police,	
  to	
  overcome	
  the	
  challenges	
  of	
  implementing	
  
the	
   NCJS,	
   assistance	
   programs	
   should	
   continue	
   to	
   focus	
   training	
   activities	
   on	
   the	
   aspects	
   of	
  
criminal	
   procedures	
   that	
   these	
   actors	
   find	
   the	
   most	
   challenging:	
   criminal	
   investigation,	
   oral	
  
litigation,	
  and	
  ethical	
  norms	
  of	
  the	
  NCJS.
5. Suggested	
  Changes	
  (Methods/Techniques	
  and	
  Activities)	
  for	
  Future	
  Legal	
  Education	
  
Activities
The	
  quantitative	
  and	
  qualitative	
  findings	
  so	
  far discussed	
  in	
  this	
  report	
  yield	
  generally	
  positive	
  
evaluations	
   of	
   legal	
   assistance	
   activities	
   carried	
   out	
   by	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   and	
   CEEAD.	
   Nevertheless,	
  
participants	
  also	
  reported	
  areas	
  in	
  which	
  future	
  activities	
  can	
  improve. We	
  asked	
  respondents	
  
of	
  the	
  telephone	
  survey	
  to	
  think	
  about	
  the	
  possibility	
  of	
  repeating	
  the	
  most	
  recent	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  or
CEEAD activity	
  they	
  participated	
  in	
  and	
  let	
  us	
  know	
  if	
  they	
  would	
  recommend	
  that	
  any	
  aspect	
  of	
  
the	
   content,	
   method	
   or	
   technique	
   of	
   this	
   activity	
   should	
   be	
   strengthened	
   or	
   given	
   greater	
  
emphasis.	
   Table	
   5	
   lists	
   the	
   top	
   five	
   areas	
   of	
   improvement	
   most	
   frequently	
   reported	
   by	
  
participants:	
   litigation	
   strategies	
   and	
   techniques,	
   more	
   practice/simulation	
   sessions,	
  
interrogation	
  techniques,	
  training	
  presentation	
  of	
  evidence,	
  and	
  longer	
  training	
  times. Related	
  
to	
   litigation	
   strategies,	
   some	
   respondents	
   also	
   highlighted	
   the	
   need	
   for	
   more	
   focus	
   on	
  
argumentation	
  and	
  criminal	
  investigation	
  skills.	
  These	
  findings	
  reinforce	
  our	
  previous	
  discussion	
  
of	
  what	
  participants	
  considered	
  the	
  greatest	
  constraints	
  on	
  transitioning	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS	
  in	
  that	
  the	
  
areas	
  they	
  recommend	
  for	
  greater	
  emphasis	
  and	
  strengthening	
  during	
  legal	
  education	
  activities	
  
correspond	
   to	
   those	
   aspect	
   so	
   of	
   the	
   NCJS	
   that	
   most	
   differ	
   from	
   Mexico’s	
   previous	
   judicial	
  
system.
Table	
  5.	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Responses	
  for	
  Areas	
  of	
  Improvement	
  for	
  Future	
  Legal	
  Education	
  Activities
Recommend	
  improvements	
  regarding…
Litigation	
  strategies	
  and	
  techniques 33	
  (17.2%)
Practice/simulation sessions 28	
  (14.6%)
Interrogation	
  techniques 15	
  (7.8%)
Training	
  on	
  presentation	
  of	
  evidence 11	
  (5.7%)
Longer	
  training	
  times 11	
  (5.7%)
In	
  an	
  effort	
   to	
  measure	
  what	
  other	
   training	
  aspects	
  could	
  be	
  improved,	
  we	
  also	
  asked	
  survey	
  
respondents	
  to	
  tell	
  us	
  what	
  they	
  thought	
  should	
  be	
  the	
  principal	
  priorities	
  in	
  the	
  education	
  of	
  
law	
   students	
   so	
   that	
   they	
   are	
   better	
   prepared	
   for	
   the	
   NCJS.	
   Table	
   6	
   displays	
   the	
   top	
   five	
  
priorities	
   reported. Responses	
   show	
   that	
   participants	
   consider	
   updating	
   law	
   curricula	
   in	
   law	
  
schools	
  as	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  main	
  concerns	
  in	
  preparing	
  law	
  students.	
  Other	
  priorities	
  reported	
  for	
  the	
  
education	
  of	
  law	
  students	
  on	
  the	
  NCJS	
  are	
  related	
  to	
  updating	
  their	
  curricula,	
  including	
  having	
  
professors	
  that	
  are	
  trained	
  and	
  equipped	
  with	
  the	
  right	
  materials	
  to	
  teach	
  the	
  NCJS;	
  emphasis	
  
on	
   training	
   students	
   on	
   the	
   practices	
   and	
   techniques	
   of	
   oral	
   litigation,	
   including	
   greater	
  
50
application	
  of	
  these	
  skills	
  in practice	
  sessions;	
  and	
  a	
  focused	
  effort on	
  making	
  sure	
  law	
  students	
  
understand	
  the	
  theoretical	
  and	
  procedural	
  framework	
  of	
  the	
  NCJS.	
  
Table	
  6.	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Responses	
  about	
  Priorities	
  in	
  Education	
  for	
  Law	
  Students	
  in	
  Transition	
  to	
  NCJS
Priorities	
  in	
  Education	
  of	
  Law	
  Students	
  for	
  NCJS
Updated	
  law	
  curricula	
   36	
  (17.2%)
Trained	
  law	
  professors	
  and	
  updated	
  materials 33	
  (15.8%)
Practices	
  and	
  techniques	
  of	
  oral	
  trials/litigation 32	
  (15.3%)
Case	
  study	
  practice/simulation 21	
  (10.1%)
Theoretic	
  and	
  procedural	
  framework	
  of	
  NCJS 19	
  (9.1%)
Among	
   focus	
   group	
   participants,	
   opinions	
   on	
   the	
   question	
   of	
   how	
   to	
   better	
   educate	
   law	
  
students	
   on	
   the	
  NCJS	
   reflected	
   the	
   views	
   of	
   survey	
   respondents	
  in	
   the	
   need	
   to	
   prioritize	
  law	
  
curricula,	
  trained	
  professors,	
  and	
  application	
  of	
  new	
  litigation	
  skills	
  through	
  practice.	
  One	
  focus	
  
group	
  participant	
  from	
  the	
  D.F.	
  summarized	
  the	
  priorities	
  for	
  educating	
  law	
  students	
  as	
  follows,	
  
Primero	
  modificar	
  los	
  planes	
  de	
  estudio…Segundo	
  asegurarse	
  que	
  los	
  docentes	
  conocen	
  
el	
   modelo, no	
   solo	
   teóricamente	
   sino	
   quizás	
   que	
   hayan	
   tenido	
   práctica,	
   eso	
   es	
   muy	
  
importante.	
  Tercero	
  que	
  haya	
  una	
  base	
   teórica	
  y	
  una	
  base	
  práctica	
  en	
  la	
   formación, o	
  
sea las	
   Clínicas	
   Jurídicas. Las	
   Clínicas	
   Jurídicas	
   tienen	
   que	
   involucrar	
   al	
   alumno	
   en	
  
prácticas	
  reales	
  o	
  bien	
  simuladas	
  pero	
  bien	
  hechas.
Qualitative	
  findings	
  also	
  reflect	
  the	
  urgency	
  for	
  updating	
  of	
  law	
  curricula	
  and	
  emphasis	
  on	
  case	
  
study	
  simulations	
  was.	
  A	
  focus	
  group	
  participant	
  from	
  the	
  D.F.	
  argued	
  for	
  the	
  change	
  in	
  the	
  way	
  
law	
  students	
  are	
  taught	
  to	
  practice	
  law,	
  saying,	
  
Se	
   necesita	
   un	
   cambio	
   radical	
   de	
   la	
   cultura	
   fuente	
   de	
   la	
   forma	
   que	
   enseñamos	
   el	
  
Derecho…Se	
   tiene	
   que	
   trabajar	
   desde	
   las	
   universidades	
   con	
   la	
   gente	
   que	
   estamos	
  
formando, ya	
  sea	
   tanto	
  a	
  nivel	
  licenciatura	
  como	
  a	
  nivel	
  post	
  grado.	
  Y creo	
  que	
  lo	
  que	
  
nos	
   falta	
   de	
   la	
   pedagogía	
   del	
   Derecho	
   es	
   no	
   enseñar	
   la	
   ley,	
   sino	
   enseñar	
   a	
   pensar	
   en	
  
Derecho	
  y	
  que	
  puedas	
  adaptarte	
  a	
  cualquier	
  norma	
  y	
  entenderla	
  desde	
   tu	
  visión	
  como	
  
abogado.
An	
  in-­‐depth	
  interview	
  participant	
  from	
  the	
  D.F.	
  expressed	
  a	
  similar	
  opinion,	
  
Las	
  prácticas	
  profesionales,	
  las	
  simulaciones	
  que	
  se	
  hacen,	
  los	
  concursos	
  de	
  juicios	
  orales	
  
que	
   se	
   implementan	
   para	
   los	
   chicos	
   es	
   una	
  motivación	
  muy	
   grande	
   y	
   una	
   forma	
  muy	
  
buena	
  de	
  capacitar	
   tanto	
  a	
  los	
  alumnos	
  como	
  le	
  digo	
  a	
  las	
  partes	
  en	
  el	
  nuevo	
  Sistema	
  
Penal.
51
Beyond	
   improvement	
   for	
   the	
   education	
   of	
   law	
   students,	
   we	
   also	
   collected	
   quantitative	
   and	
  
qualitative	
  data	
  on	
  participants’	
  opinions	
  of	
  the	
  future	
  of	
  legal	
  education	
  of	
  lawyers.	
  We	
  asked	
  
survey	
  respondents	
  to	
  tell	
  us	
  what	
  they	
  thought	
  should	
  be	
  the	
  principal	
  priorities	
  in	
  the	
  training	
  
of	
  lawyers	
  so	
  that	
  they	
  are	
  better	
  prepared	
  for	
  the	
  NCJS. Table	
  7	
  displays	
  the	
  top	
  five	
  priorities	
  
reported. By	
   far,	
   what	
   most participants	
   reported	
   that	
   lawyers	
   should	
   prioritize	
   is continued	
  
training	
  and	
  coursework	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS.	
  More	
  specifically,	
  participants	
  believe	
  that	
  lawyers	
  
should	
   prioritize	
   increasing	
   their	
   knowledge	
   and	
   skills	
   of	
   the	
   theoretical	
   and	
   procedural	
  
framework	
  of	
  the	
  CNJS	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  oral	
  litigation	
  skills.	
  However,	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  prioritize	
  
these	
   training	
   goals,	
   lawyers	
   need	
   to	
   have	
   greater	
   access	
   and	
   financial	
   assistance	
   for	
   their	
  
continued	
  education,	
  while	
  also	
  being	
  more	
  accepting	
  of	
  the	
  changes	
  in	
  the	
  judicial	
  system.
Table	
  7.	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Responses	
  about	
  Priorities	
  in	
  Training	
  for	
  Lawyers	
  in	
  Transition	
  to	
  NCJS
Priorities	
  in	
  Training	
  of	
  Lawyers	
  for	
  NCJS
Continued	
  training (in	
  general)	
  and	
  coursework 97 (46.4%)
Accessibility	
  and	
  financial	
  assistance	
  for	
  continued	
  education 18 (8.6%)
Theoretic	
  and	
  procedural	
  framework	
  of	
  NCJS 16	
  (7.5%)
Practice/simulation	
  	
  and	
  strengthening	
  of	
  oral	
  litigation	
  skills 16	
  (7.5%)
Acceptance	
  of	
  change/transition	
  to	
  NCJS 10	
  (4.8%)
Data	
   from	
  our	
  qualitative	
  interviews	
  reflect	
   the	
   findings	
  in	
  Table	
  7.	
  As	
  one	
  professor	
   from	
  
Saltillo	
  argued in	
  an	
   in-­‐depth	
   interview,	
   “Lo	
  mejor	
   sería	
   tener	
   un	
   acceso	
   permanente	
   a	
   la	
  
capacitación.” The	
  need	
  for	
  continued	
  training	
  was	
  also	
  expressed by	
  in-­‐depth	
  interviewees	
  
from	
  Chihuahua.	
  One	
  participant	
  stated,	
  	
  “Pues	
  yo	
  creo	
  que	
  crear	
  centros	
  permanentes	
  de	
  
capacitación…Por	
  parte	
  de	
  instituciones	
  en	
  una	
  colaboración	
  o	
  convenio	
  con	
  la	
  universidad	
  y	
  
colegio,	
   en	
   este	
   sentido	
   prácticamente	
   universidad	
   y	
   colegio,	
   a lo mejor	
   pudiera	
   caber	
  
también	
  la	
  participación	
  del	
  Poder	
  Judicial…”.	
  
As	
  discussed	
  above	
  one	
  step	
  that	
  participants	
  thought	
  is	
  necessary	
  in	
  being	
  able	
  to	
  receive	
  
continued	
   training	
   is	
   easier	
   access	
   to	
   such	
   education	
   activities.	
   However,	
   according	
   to	
  
participants	
   of	
   this	
   study,	
   this	
   access	
   if	
   often	
   limited. An	
   in-­‐depth	
   interviewee	
   from	
  
Chihuahua	
   commented	
   on	
   this	
   issue	
   saying,	
   “Para	
   los	
   abogados	
   que	
   ahorita	
   estamos	
  
ejerciendo	
   [la	
   capacitación]	
   se	
   nos	
   ha	
   convertido	
   también	
   una	
   necesidad	
   eso	
   y	
  
desgraciadamente	
   no	
   hay	
   lugares,	
   no hay	
   lugares	
   para	
   capacitarse.” A	
   professor	
   from	
  
Saltillo,	
   Coahuila, expressed	
   a	
   similar	
   opinion	
  when	
   asked	
   about	
   lawyer	
   training	
   in	
   an	
   in-­‐
depth interview,	
  
[Algunos]	
   han tenido	
  la	
   suerte	
   de	
  entrar	
   a	
   programas	
   de	
   gobierno	
   como	
  … Y los	
   otros	
  
pues	
  han	
  tenido	
  que pagar	
  y	
  otros	
  no	
  pueden	
  pagar.	
  Entonces	
  yo	
  creo	
  que	
  el	
  punto	
  que	
  
se	
   está	
   quedando	
   relegado	
   es	
   el	
   de	
   los	
   litigantes	
   y	
   también	
   el	
   de	
   los	
   asesores	
  
jurídicos…porque	
   hacen	
   muchos	
   diplomados	
   y	
   demás	
   para	
   licenciados	
   públicos,	
   para	
  
52
jueces	
   y	
   para	
   ministerios públicos	
   y	
   para	
   el	
   asesor	
   jurídico	
   uno, desde	
   que	
   tengo	
  
conocimiento	
  uno…”
In	
  terms	
  of	
  why	
  continued	
  training is	
  so	
  important	
  for	
  lawyers,	
  a	
  focus	
  group	
  participant	
  from	
  
Puebla	
  argued,	
  ¿Qué	
  es	
  lo	
  que	
  tenemos	
  que	
  hacer? Ir	
  sobre	
  otras	
  materias	
  también	
  que como	
  
dicen	
  de	
  cuestiones	
  culturales	
  que	
  nos vayan	
  cambiando	
  el	
  chip	
  ¿no?…con	
  talleres	
  de	
  mediación	
  
para	
  que	
  se	
  empiecen	
  a	
  soltar	
  y	
  ver	
  sobre	
  una	
  realidad	
  ya	
  el	
  contexto	
  y	
  entonces	
  si	
  ya	
  configurar	
  
todo	
  un	
  ente.
6. Conclusions
Study	
   participants	
   perceive	
   the	
   NCJS	
   as	
   a	
   necessary	
   and	
   welcome	
   improvement	
   to	
   Mexico’s	
  
judicial	
  system.	
  Although	
  important	
  differences	
  exist	
  across	
  states	
  in	
  respondents’	
  perceptions	
  
of	
   the	
   level	
   of	
   advancement	
   of	
   the	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
  NCJS,	
   judges	
   are	
   perceived	
   as	
   the	
  
most	
  prepared	
  for	
  the	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  NCJS,	
  while	
  police	
  officers	
  are	
  perceived	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  least	
  
prepared.
The	
  vast	
  majority	
  of	
  study	
  participants	
  report	
  their	
  participation	
  in	
  CEEAD	
  or	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  efforts	
  
to	
   be	
   very	
   useful	
   in	
   their	
   transition	
   to	
   the	
  NCJS.	
  Moreover,	
   they	
   give	
  predominantly	
  positive	
  
evaluations	
   of	
   the	
   structure	
   and	
   quality	
   of	
   activities,	
   specifically	
   regarding instructor	
  
preparedness,	
   training	
   facilities,	
   the	
  content	
  and	
   relevancy	
  of	
   training	
   for	
   transitioning	
   to	
   the	
  
NCJS.	
  However,	
  results	
  also	
  indicate that	
  participants	
  feel	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  assistance	
  programs	
  to	
  
include	
   longer	
   training	
   times,	
   more	
   hands-­‐on	
   practice	
   or	
   simulations	
   for	
   learning	
   the	
   trial	
  
procedures	
  of	
  the	
  NCJS,	
  and	
  the	
  participation	
  of	
  foreign	
  instructors.
Study	
   participants	
   report that	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   and	
   CEEAD	
   activities	
   have	
   been	
   comparatively	
  
supportive	
   institutions	
   in	
  the	
   transition	
   process. Participants	
   view	
   their	
   participation	
   in	
   legal	
  
education	
  activities	
  as	
  having	
  an	
  overall	
  positive	
  impact	
  on	
  their	
  professional	
  development	
  and	
  
facilitating	
   their	
   transition	
   to	
   the	
   NCJS. Additionally,	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   and	
   CEEAD	
   activities	
   are	
  
perceived	
   as highly	
   effective	
   in	
   preparing	
   respondents to	
   practice	
   law	
   under	
   the	
   NCJS,	
  
especially	
   in	
   regards	
   to	
   helping	
   them	
   understand	
   the	
   rules	
   of	
   oral	
   litigation,	
   a	
   fundamental	
  
practice	
  in	
  an	
  accusatorial	
  judicial	
  system.	
  On	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  future	
  activities	
  should	
  focus	
  on	
  
areas	
   that	
   respondents	
   perceived	
   activities	
   to	
   be	
   less	
   useful	
   for, such	
   as	
   applying	
   rules	
   of
conditional	
  suspension	
  and	
  techniques	
  of	
  trial	
  and	
  investigation.
Overall,	
   survey	
   respondents	
   from	
   Chihuahua	
   gave	
   consistently	
   more	
   positive	
   evaluations	
   of	
  
both	
  the	
  NCJS’	
  implementation	
  and	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  USAID-­‐supported	
  activities	
  on	
  their	
  transition	
  
to	
   the	
   NCJS,	
   in	
   comparison	
   to	
   survey	
   respondents	
   from	
   Nuevo	
   León,	
   Puebla,	
   and	
   the	
   D.F.	
  
Respondents	
   from	
   the	
  D.F.,	
   on	
   the	
   other	
   hand,	
   consistently	
   reported	
   relatively	
  less	
   favorable	
  
experiences	
   with	
   and	
   evaluations	
   of	
   the	
   NCJS	
   and	
   legal	
   education	
   assistance	
   initiatives.	
  
Respondents	
   that	
   participated	
   in	
   both	
   CEEAD	
   and	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   activities	
   also	
   gave,	
   on	
   average,	
  
more	
  positive	
  reports	
  of	
  the	
  impact	
  their	
  participation	
  had	
  on	
  their	
  abilities	
  to	
  transition	
  to	
  the	
  
NCJS.	
  
53
The	
   demands	
   and	
   challenges	
   that	
   public	
   authorities	
   and	
   lawyers	
   face	
   in	
   acquiring	
   sufficient	
  
knowledge	
  and	
  training	
   to	
   implement	
   new	
   laws	
  and	
   criminal	
   procedures	
  are	
   reported	
  as	
   the	
  
most	
   challenging	
   constraints	
   in	
   the	
   transition	
   to	
   the	
   NCJS	
   in	
   Mexico	
   stems	
   from.	
   Hence,	
  
assistance	
   programs	
   should	
   continue	
   to	
   focus	
   training	
   activities	
   on	
   the	
   aspects	
   of	
   criminal	
  
procedures	
   that	
   these	
   actors	
   find	
   the	
  most	
   challenging:	
   criminal	
   investigation,	
   oral	
   litigation,	
  
hearing	
   argumentation,	
   and	
   ethical	
   norms	
   of	
   the	
   NCJS.	
  Additionally,	
   while respondents	
   view	
  
the	
   capabilities	
   and	
   willingness	
   of	
   private	
   institutions	
   and	
   students as	
   lesser	
   obstacles	
   in	
   the	
  
transition,	
   participants	
  reported	
   that	
   law	
   students,	
   law	
   schools,	
   and	
   law	
   professors	
   still	
   lack	
  
some	
  degree	
  of	
  preparation	
  in	
  the	
  learning	
  and	
  teaching	
  of	
  the	
  NCJS.
VI.	
  Recommendations	
  to	
  USAID	
  Mexico	
  and	
  to	
  other	
  stakeholders
This	
  document	
  constitutes	
  an	
  objective	
  assessment	
  which	
  concludes	
  that	
  the	
  support	
  provided	
  
by	
   USAID	
   trough	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   and	
   CEAD	
   has	
   been	
   positive	
   for	
   the	
   consolidation	
   of	
   education	
  
activities,	
  mainly	
  specialized	
  training	
  and	
  curriculum	
  building,	
  regarding the	
  adversarial	
  criminal	
  
justice	
  system	
  in	
  Mexico.	
  
The	
   authors	
   of	
   this	
   report	
   strongly	
   recommend	
   USAID	
   to	
   continue	
   implementing	
   analogous	
  
activities,	
  especially	
  on	
  those	
  jurisdictions	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  adversarial	
  system	
  is	
  in	
  its	
  first	
  stages	
  of	
  
operation.	
  Future	
  interventions	
  should	
  consider	
  the	
  gathering	
  of	
  more	
  and	
  better	
  data	
  that	
  will	
  
make	
   easier	
   to	
   perform	
   in-­‐depth	
   evaluations	
   and	
   obtain	
   better	
   statistics;	
   at	
   the	
   same	
   time,	
  
better	
   data	
   will	
   also	
   help	
   the	
   Mexican	
   government	
   to	
   recruit	
   and	
   identify	
   participants	
   with	
  
leadership	
   and	
   other	
   positive	
   characteristics	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   strengthen	
   their	
   criminal	
   justice	
  
system.	
  
The	
  assessment	
  also	
  showed	
  which	
  operators	
  of	
  the	
  system	
  have	
  received	
  better	
  training	
  and	
  
which	
   others	
   demand	
   more	
   attention.	
   In	
   the	
   following	
   lines	
   we express	
   a	
   series	
   of	
  
recommendations	
   that	
   will	
   be	
   useful	
   in	
   case	
   USAID	
   decides to	
   perform	
   future	
   activities
regarding	
  legal	
  education	
  in	
  Mexico:
I. MEXICAN	
   LEGAL	
   COMMUNITY	
   DEMANDS LEARNING	
   BY	
   DOING	
   EDUCATION	
   PROGRAMS	
  
INSTEAD	
  OF	
  TRADITIONAL	
  LECTURES.
Users	
   of	
   CEEAD	
   and	
   ABA-­‐ROLI	
   programs	
   revealed	
   during	
   the	
   qualitative	
   research	
   that	
   the	
  
programs	
   that	
  were	
  most	
   valued	
   by	
   participants	
  and	
  are	
  encouraged	
   to	
   continue	
  were	
  moot	
  
court	
  training,	
  and	
  examination/cross	
  examination	
  exercises.	
  
Future	
  interventions	
  should	
   focus	
  on	
  practical	
   training,	
  and	
  include	
   the	
  design	
  of	
  case	
  studies	
  
and	
   trial	
   technique	
  materials.	
  The	
  evaluation	
   revealed	
   that	
  users	
  also	
  demand	
  longer	
   training	
  
sessions	
   and	
   that	
   participants	
   welcome	
   the	
   participation	
   of	
   experienced	
   and/or	
   foreign	
  
trainers.	
  
54
II. FUTURE	
   INTERVENTIONS	
   SHOULD	
   FOCUS	
   ON	
   THOSE	
   ACTORS	
   WITH	
   MAJOR	
   TRAINING	
  
NEEDS	
  IN	
  THE	
  NCJS.
Future	
   actions	
   should	
   also	
   consider	
   police	
   officers	
   as	
   subjects	
   of	
   legal	
   education	
   on	
   the	
   new	
  
criminal	
   justice	
   system,	
   as	
   the	
   rules	
   of	
   the	
   National Criminal	
   Procedure	
   Codes	
   consider	
   new	
  
rules	
   for	
   police	
   investigation	
   that	
   are	
   fundamental	
   for	
   the	
   successful	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
  
system.	
   This	
   recommendation	
   is	
   based	
   on	
   the	
   fact	
   that	
   police	
   officers	
   are	
   perceived	
   by	
  
participants	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  least	
  prepared actors	
  within	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system.	
  Private	
  attorneys	
  
also	
  require	
  support	
  as	
  informants	
  mentioned that there	
  are	
  not	
  enough	
  training	
  programs	
  for	
  
them,	
  and	
  government	
  has	
  not	
  allocated	
  enough	
  funds	
  on	
  the	
  matter.
III.ABA-­‐ROLI	
   AND	
   CEEAD	
   ACTIONS,	
   OR	
   SIMILAR	
   PROGRAMS	
   FUNDED	
   BY	
   USAID	
   SHOULD	
  
CONTINUE	
  UNTIL	
  THE	
  ADVERSARIAL	
  CRIMINAL	
  JUSTICE	
  SYSTEM	
  CONSOLIDATES.
The	
  vast	
  majority	
   of	
   survey	
   respondents	
   reported	
   their	
  experiences	
  as	
   “very	
   useful”	
   for	
   their	
  
transition	
   to	
   the	
  NCJS;	
   no	
   dimension	
   on	
   the	
  evaluation received	
  a	
   score	
   below	
   72.2	
   degrees,	
  
indicating	
  a	
  high	
  mean	
  level	
  of	
  satisfaction	
  with	
   the	
  way	
  CEEAD	
  and	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  activities	
  were	
  
carried	
  out.	
  
Survey	
  respondents	
  perceived	
  their	
  participation	
  in	
  CEEAD	
  and	
  ABA-­‐ROLI	
  activities	
  to	
  be	
  most	
  
effective	
  in	
  helping	
   them	
  understand	
   the	
   rules	
  of	
  oral	
  litigation,	
  learn	
  skills	
   related	
   to	
  witness	
  
interrogation,	
  improve	
  the	
  overall	
  practice	
  of	
  their	
  legal	
  profession,	
  apply	
  of	
  rules	
  of	
  ethics	
  and	
  
legal	
  integrity,	
  and	
  apply	
  of	
  rules	
  for	
  the	
  production	
  of	
  evidence.	
  
Future	
   efforts	
   from	
   USAID	
   must	
   include	
   or	
   strength the	
   curricula on	
   oral	
   litigation strategies	
  
and	
   techniques,	
   criminal	
   investigation, examination	
   techniques, and	
   intermediate	
   hearing, as	
  
well	
   as lawyers’	
   ethical	
   considerations. Foreign	
   instructors	
   were	
   well	
   evaluated	
   by	
   the	
  
participants	
  and	
  their	
  presence	
  is	
  encouraged	
  in	
  future	
  events.
IV. USAID	
   SHOULD	
   CONTINUE	
   PROVIDING	
   TECHNICAL	
   SUPPORT	
   FOR	
   UNIVERSITIES	
   AND	
  
LEGAL	
  TRAINING	
  FOR	
  LAW	
  PROFESSORS.
The	
  overall	
  lack	
  of	
  confidence	
  of	
  the	
  participants	
  regarding	
  the	
  preparation	
  of	
  law	
  schools	
  and	
  
professors	
  is	
  alarming.	
  Almost	
  a	
  third	
  of	
  respondents	
  reported	
  that	
  law	
  professors	
  (29.3%)	
  and	
  
law	
   schools	
   (32.2%)	
   are	
   a	
   little	
   or	
   not	
   at	
   all	
   prepared	
   teaching	
   the	
   NCJS.	
   Nevertheless,	
  
professors	
   who	
   attended	
   CEEAD	
   activities	
   attribute	
   updates	
   in	
   their	
   teaching	
   style,	
   use	
   of	
  
teaching	
  materials,	
  and	
  bibliography	
  referenced	
  to	
  the	
  training	
  received.
Law	
   schools	
   and	
   law	
   professors	
   should	
   continue	
   receiving	
   technical	
   assistance	
   in	
   order	
   to	
  
provide	
   effective	
   criminal	
   procedure	
   courses based	
   on	
   both	
   theoretical	
   and	
   practical	
  
methodologies.	
  Future	
  actions	
  might	
  include	
  the	
  edition	
  of	
  criminal	
  procedure	
  textbooks	
  based	
  
on	
  the	
  National	
  Code	
  of	
  Criminal	
  Procedure,	
  case	
  study	
  material	
  and	
  trial	
  techniques	
  books.	
  
55
USAID	
   should	
   also	
   work	
   with the	
   Mexican	
   federal	
   government	
   in	
   the	
   design	
   of	
   a	
   National	
  
Criminal	
  Procedure	
  Study	
  Plan,	
  with	
  the	
  participation	
  of	
  the	
  National	
  Association	
  of	
  Universities	
  
and	
  Higher	
  Education	
  Institutions	
  (ANUIES)	
  and	
  the	
  Mexican	
  Bar	
  Association	
  (BMA).
V. FUTURE	
   INTERVENTIONS	
   OF	
   USAID	
   SHOULD	
   REQUIRE	
   FROM	
   THEIR	
   PARTNERS	
   THE	
  
INCLUSION	
  OF	
  BETTER	
  EVALUATION	
  FRAMEWORK.
Following	
   actions	
   developed	
   by	
   USAID	
   should	
   consider	
   performance	
   and	
   cost-­‐benefit	
  
measurements	
  that	
  would	
  provide	
  external	
  auditors	
  with	
  sufficient	
  information for	
  the	
  correct	
  
assessment	
   of	
   their	
  actions.	
  USAID	
  must	
  also	
   require	
  implementers	
   to	
  gather	
   comprehensive	
  
contact	
   information	
   of	
   all	
   participants	
   and	
   to	
   obtain	
   form	
   them	
   the	
   permission	
   and	
  
commitment	
   to	
   be	
   contacted	
   later	
   by	
   USAID	
   or	
   an	
   external	
   auditor	
   on	
   behalf	
   of	
   USAID	
   to	
  
evaluate	
  the	
  programs	
  and/or	
  obtain	
  feedback.	
  
Pre-­‐Post	
  evaluations	
  methodologies	
  can	
  help	
  USAID	
  identify	
  results	
  of	
  their	
  actions	
  in	
  a	
  timely	
  
manner	
  and	
  are	
  strongly	
  advised.
VI. USAID	
  SHOULD	
  CONSIDER	
  RECOMMENDING	
  EXAM	
  CERTIFICATION	
  FOR MEXICAN
LAWYERS	
  SIMILAR	
  TO	
  US	
  BAR	
  EXAM,	
  AS	
  WELL	
  AS	
  PROVIDING	
  TECHNICAL	
  ASSISTANCE	
  
FOR	
  THE	
  EXAM’S	
  DESIGN	
  AND	
  IMPLEMENTATION.
The	
   Mexican	
   judicial	
   system	
   currently	
   does	
   not	
   require	
   an	
   exam	
   certification	
   for	
   lawyers	
   to	
  
practice	
  law.	
  Such	
  exam	
  could	
  be	
  a	
   fundamental	
  step	
  toward	
  solidifying	
  the	
  transition	
  toward	
  
the	
  NCJS,	
  as	
  it	
  could	
  act	
  as	
  a	
  tool	
  to	
  certify	
  the	
  preparedness	
  of	
  law	
  practitioners	
  to	
  exercise	
  law	
  
under	
  the	
  system’s	
  new	
  rules,	
  procedures,	
  and	
  required	
  skills.	
  
Approximately	
   half	
  of	
   the	
  law	
   students	
  and	
   professors	
  in	
   our	
   telephone	
   survey	
   reported	
   that	
  
students	
  do	
  take	
  a	
  CENEVAL	
  or	
  SETEC	
  certification	
  exam.	
  This	
  means	
  that	
  the	
  idea	
  of	
  some	
  type	
  
of	
  exam	
  certification	
  would	
  not	
  be	
  completely	
  foreign	
  to	
  current	
  and	
  future	
  law	
  practitioners	
  in	
  
Mexico.	
   In	
   fact,	
   data	
   from	
   both	
   our	
   survey	
   and	
   qualitative	
   discussion	
   also	
   show	
   that	
   most	
  
participants	
  are	
  in	
  favor	
  of	
  such	
  certification	
  requirement	
  under	
  the	
  NCJS.	
  When	
  asked	
  if	
  they	
  
supported	
  the	
  idea	
  of	
  an	
  exam	
  or	
  certification	
  procedure	
  similar	
  to	
  the	
  bar	
  exam	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  
States,	
  87%	
  o	
  survey	
  participants	
  expressed	
  their	
  support.