This measure complements the previous two measures by looking at clarity from a different perspective. While Measures 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 provide quantitative data concerning details of orders that are presumed to be necessary, this measure assesses the extent to which lack of clarity is seen as problematic by various individuals who are called on to read, interpret, and enforce orders. The measure allows the court to discern whether problems in the clarity of orders are related more to certain types of judgments or relief and to explore how these might be addressed.

Planning/Preparation. The first step for completing this measure is to compile a list of individuals who regularly read and interpret court orders. The list should include up to 10 individuals in each of the following groups: judges, probation officers, criminal and civil attorneys, clerk’s office staff who regularly record terms of judgments, and employees of title companies or other private agencies who regularly search judgment dockets. If a court employs more than 10 persons in any of these categories, a random selection of at least ten from each group is desirable. A total of 50 individuals should be included.

Data Collection. Form 3.4.3, Illustrative Questionnaire Form/Experience in Interpreting Orders and Judgments, can be used to collect data through a telephone or in-person interview of the individuals identified above.³⁸ The data collection form contains questions to determine the respondents’ views about clarity of orders in general as well as questions that target specific areas in which clarity may be a problem. The specific questions are broken into two parts, covering criminal and civil cases, respectively. The data collection form instructs interviewers to skip those sections that are not relevant to the respondent’s experiences.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. Responses to the questions can be averaged to obtain an overall indication of the respondents’ views. The fewer the number of individuals who state that they never or rarely have difficulties understanding court orders, the better the court is performing on this measure. The distribution of the responses also needs to be examined because different spreads in the responses indicate different problems. For example, a survey in which 41 of the respondents say they never experience problems with clarity of court orders but 9 say they often do calls for a different interpretation than a survey reporting that 15 say they never and 35 say they almost never have problems, although the average scores would be nearly the same.

More importantly, however, the responses of different groups of respondents should be compared to discern whether some groups experience problems that are not experienced by others. Judges who are called upon to rule on alleged violations of orders in criminal cases may experience different problems more frequently than do probation officers or lawyers; judgment clerks may experience problems frequently that attorneys do not encounter at all. Finally, responses to the questions in Parts II and III should be examined to determine whether there are particular practices that regularly cause problems; these practices may indicate areas that can be improved systematically.