Page 303 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 303

 Appendix C: Survey Data Considered
The Committee reviewed considerable data in its eval- uation. In addition to the testimony and submissions received as part of its seven public hearings held across the country, the Committee relied on three national sur- veys conducted by the Westat research group, reviewed data compiled by the Defender Services Management Information System (“DSMIS”), and created and fielded two surveys of its own.
The Westat Surveys
In 2014, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts awarded a contract to Westat to revise and administer surveys to three broad groups of respondents, i) fed- eral judges, ii) federal defenders and resource coun-
sel and iii) panel representatives and individual panel attorneys, about the quality of representation provided under the CJA and related statutes, and about the administration of the Defender Services program. The surveys elicited information to assist in evaluating pro- gram performance, including data to measure whether, and to what extent, changes may have occurred since baseline and subsequent surveys were completed ear- lier. Westat is a national research corporation consulting in statistical design, data collection and management, and research analysis.
Westat developed the surveys with input from a variety of sources, including the Defender Services Committee and its Subcommittee on Long Range Planning and Education, DSO staff, members of AO advisory and working groups, the AO Office of the Deputy Director, and Westat’s own staff.
Judge Survey
In the first quarter of 2015, Westat emailed a survey to all 106 chief appeals and chief district court judges and to a randomly selected sample of an additional 582 other cir- cuit, district, and magistrate judges drawn from the 1,222 judges appointed to their positions as full-time circuit, district, or magistrate judges in the 15 months prior to survey administration. Seventy-four percent of all judges who received the survey responded, although district (76%) and magistrate (80%) judges were much more likely to respond than were circuit (49%) judges.
The judge survey consisted of 123 questions, consist- ing of a background section and seven parts, including:
No recommendation presented herein represents
the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United 2 0 1 7 R E P O R T O F T H E A D
Part I: Timeliness of Non-Capital CJA Representations; Part II: Quality of CJA Representations (Non-Capital Cases); Part III: Selection and Retention of Qualified CJA Panel Attorneys (Non-Capital Cases); Part IV: Voucher Administration (Non-Capital Cases); Part
V: Case Budgeting for Non-Capital and Capital Representations; Part VI: Capital Representations (Capital Trials and Appeals and Capital Habeas Corpus); and Part VII: Final Comments. Part VI has two subparts: Part VI-A: Availability of Qualified Counsel for CJA Representations (Capital Trials and Appeals); and Part VI-B: Availability of Qualified Counsel for CJA Representations (Capital Habeas Corpus).
Panel Attorney Survey
The 2015 survey of panel attorneys was based on a similar 2009 survey of the same population to investi- gate program changes that had occurred in the inter- vening six years and to evaluate attorney strategies
and performance measures set forth in the “Defender Services Program Strategic Plan.” The survey of CJA panel representatives consisted of nine parts and 142 questions, whereas the survey of individual CJA panel attorneys had eight parts and 144 questions. Much of the individual panel attorney survey paralleled the dis- trict representative survey, with both containing back- ground questions and survey items asking about the timeliness of CJA appointments, availability of qualified counsel, panel attorney rates, CJA panel management and administration, vouchers, training needs, national training program resources provided by DSO’s Training Division, and panel attorney resources and support.
Surveys were administered over five months to a census of all 94 district representatives, and to a sample of 1,528 eligible individual panel attorneys. Since a nationwide list of panel attorneys did not exist, to develop a panel attorney population from which to draw a sample, DSO generated a list of attorneys from the CJA payment system. This list was made up of more than 8,500 attor- neys who had received at least two voucher payments
in the two years preceding the survey. Attorneys were contacted multiple times to achieve a response rate of 95 percent for the district representatives and 72 percent for individual CJA lawyers. Panel attorneys were given the option of taking the survey on paper or on the web.
States unless approved by the Conference itself.
C O M M I T T E E T O R E V I E W T H E C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E A C T 259

   301   302   303   304   305