This measure compares the number of names on a court’s juror source list(s) with the number of age-eligible persons in the jurisdiction’s population. The more closely the numbers match, the better the court is performing on this measure.

Planning/Preparation. The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, publishes the population statistics of all counties in the County and City Data Book.⁶ More detailed data for each State can be found in General Population Characteristics, also available from the Bureau of the Census.⁷ (The latter is PC 80–1–BXX where XX is the State volume number.) This volume contains the age, race, gender, and national origin composition of each county as reported by the census every 10 years. Extrapolations of these data for the period between the census years are prepared by the Bureau of the Census and by local units of government such as planning commissions. In addition, a Census Data Center in each State (usually at one of the major universities) provides access to and assistance with census data and other statistics or data sources.

The eligible population for these calculations are citizens 18 years old and over, or whatever age stratification is defined for the State. Excuses granted for the elderly do not reduce the eligible limits unless individuals over a certain age are prohibited from serving on jury duty. Courts may wish to adjust the eligible population by excluding those who are hospitalized or incarcerated, or who are nonresidents (e.g., military personnel). However, these adjustments are usually beyond the accuracy of the measurement.

Data Collection. The source list may be one or more combined lists from which names are selected. Typical lists are the voters list, the drivers list, the merged voters and drivers list, or other single or merged lists. The size of the source list is determined by summing the number of names on the list(s).

Inclusiveness is measured by dividing the size of the list by the size of the eligible population. For instance, if the size of the source list is 1,439,066 and the size of the eligible population is 1,541,050, the calculation of inclusiveness would be .9338 or 93.4 percent.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. An absolute standard of inclusiveness has not been adopted. ABA’s Standards Relating to Juror Use and Management states that courts should determine inclusiveness and evaluate if improvement is needed. The national rate of voter registration and the percentage of drivers (including only those persons over 18 years of age), 64.3 and 86.6 percent, respectively, in 1986, suggest some guidelines.⁸

A problem with all lists is the inclusion of noneligible persons, which gives a false sense of inclusiveness. The drivers list may include out-of-State residents or persons under the age of 18. Merged lists may contain persons who appear on both original lists and were not recognized as duplicates.⁹ Inclusiveness in excess of 100 percent is often seen with merged lists due to these situations. The extent of the inflation can be estimated from the response to the first mailing sent to the names selected and from those found to be disqualified for reasons such as noncitizenship or nonresidence. The level of undeliverables is also a measure of how up-to-date and inclusive the list may be. High levels of nonresponse should be pursued not only to establish system integrity (i.e., are citizens recalcitrant or simply not there?) but to further refine the inclusiveness measure. While questioning the inclusiveness measure in these courts, they do attest to the good faith effort to broaden the coverage to the maximum extent possible.

A standard of 85 percent inclusiveness has been suggested for any list, which would require a good single source list or the merging of several lists.¹⁰ Although an 85 percent inclusive list could completely exclude a minority that constituted 15 percent of the population, such a result is highly unlikely.