This measure uses a questionnaire (Form 4.1.1, Questionnaire Regarding the Independence of the Judiciary and Intergovernmental Relationships) to gauge perceptions of the court’s independence and comity held by the steering committee, other judges and court personnel, and noncourt officials who interact with the court either on case-related matters or on administrative matters. Part I of the questionnaire addresses independence of the court and Part II concerns organizational relationships (comity). Some commentators on the measure suggest that Part I can reasonably be eliminated from the survey of noncourt personnel because Part II provides the court with the most useful information from these individuals.

Planning/Preparation. Before undertaking the measure, the steering committee should consider recommendations from the court’s research staff regarding the procedures for administering the questionnaire. Experience with experimental tests of this measure suggests that special care should be taken to emphasize to survey recipients the importance the court places on the survey and on securing responses to it. Without this emphasis, the rate of return on the surveys will be low. There is no point in undertaking this measure unless the numbers of responses will be large and diverse enough to permit meaningful analysis. (See the table of minimum and preferred numbers of survey responses on page 1 of Form 4.1.1.) Therefore, the steering committee’s input into strategies to secure responses is especially important to the researchers. It may be necessary for steering committee members to initiate personal contact with representatives of target groups to encourage their cooperation. Obtaining the personal commitment of several key officials (e.g., the chairperson of the county board of supervisors, the district attorney, the sheriff and chief of police, the president of the local bar association, and directors of social services and community corrections agencies) may be required.

The steering committee should engage in a minimum of two activities for this measure:

1. Assisting in the identification of survey recipients and strategies to secure their cooperation. (This process may result in a decision not to pursue the measure.)

2. Assisting in the analysis and interpretation of the survey data and their significance.

With respect to the former task, the steering committee facilitator should structure the consideration of potential survey respondents by posing the following question:

What criteria will ensure that the survey targets a broad, representative group of respondents who affect, and are affected by, our performance in maintaining independence and comity?

If the steering committee’s consideration of this question suggests that obtaining cooperation from survey recipients will require more work than is warranted by the value of the data, this is itself an important finding. The result could indicate that the court has poor relationships or undeveloped lines of communication or conversely that the community within which the court operates is so close and open that a formal survey of this kind would be superfluous. A decision to forego the survey should be made with careful consideration, however. Conducting the survey has advantages beyond that of the data it yields. Distributing the survey and emphasizing its importance to the court broadens awareness within and outside of the court about the value the court places on judicial independence and comity. Conducting the survey also engages the court in the process of self-improvement. Broadening awareness and expanding participation in problem identification contribute to greater comity in governmental relations.

Data Collection. The steering committee members and other designated judges and court staff first complete Part I of the survey, which probes the respondents’ opinions about matters relevant to the independence of the court. The primary purpose of having the steering committee complete the survey is to allow the members to discover how much they agree or disagree about issues related to independence. Knowing what the court’s own values are in this area (or the range of disagreement within the court) will make it possible to evaluate the survey responses from "outsiders" in a more meaningful and useful fashion. A second purpose of this step is to determine what items may need to be added, deleted, or revised to improve the questionnaire before it is distributed more broadly.

Local court managers know how to distribute the survey most efficiently and reliably inside the court. For employees who may have a concern about expressing their opinions to judges of the court, the surveys should be distributed, returned, and analyzed in a way that protects the anonymity of the respondents.

After initial groundwork to secure cooperation outside the court has been completed, methods for distributing the questionnaires are considered. Two possibilities are mailings and asking key officials representing the respondent groups to distribute the questionnaires personally. The method that is most appropriate will depend on the respondent group and local circumstances. In either case, the questionnaire should be accompanied by a cover letter signed by the key official of the respondent group and by the chief judge.

Regardless of the distribution method used, the research team must: