in the Federal Courts: A R

199

STUDYING THE 

Federal Judicia
Studying the Role of Gender

in the Federal Courts:

A Research Guide

Federal Judicial Center 1995

Studying the Role of Gender

in the Federal Courts:

A Research Guide

Molly Treadway Johnson

Federal Judicial Center 1995

The Board of the Federal Judicial Center adopted this resolution on February 3, 1995

The Board, mindful of (a) the Center’s statutory charge “to conduct research and st

of the operation of the courts,” “to stimulate and coordinate such research” by others 

U.S.C. § 620(b)(1)) and to provide education and training for judicial branch person

and others (§ 620(b)(3)); (b) the provisions of §§ 40421–40422 of the Violent Cr

Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 relating to gender bias studies in the fed

courts; and (c) the March 1993 resolution of the Judicial Conference of the United St

encouraging such studies, resolves, after discussion, that:

(1) The Board takes no position with respect to the desirability of the appointmen

gender bias task forces in the various circuits;

(2) This resolution does not preclude the Center from responding to requests f

circuit councils or courts for technical assistance (including this research guide

help ensure the integrity of the results of studies by such task forces; and

(3) The Board does not believe that such assistance should extend to analysis of j

cial decisions from the perspective of gender bias.

Contents

About This Guide vii

Acknowledgments ix

Preface by the Honorable William W Schwarzer xi

Foreword by the Honorable Diana E. Murphy xiii

Foreword by the Honorable J. Clifford Wallace xv

Part I: Organizing the Task Force and Formulating Its Inquiry

Chapter 1—Introduction 3

Chapter 2—Establishing a Gender Task Force 9

Chapter 3—Areas for Study 15

Part II: Studying the Role of Gender in the Courts

Chapter 4—Overview: Data Sources and Research Approaches 25

Chapter 5—Public Hearings 29

Chapter 6—Focus Groups 33

Chapter 7—Analysis of Existing Records and Databases 43

Chapter 8—Mail Questionnaires 51

Chapter 9—Interviews 69

Chapter 10—Observational Studies 77

Chapter 11—Drawing Conclusions from Research 83

Part III: Resources Available to Task Forces

Chapter 12—Resources for Conducting Gender Studies 93

Part IV: Recommendations and Implementation

Chapter 13—Formulating Recommendations and Writing the Report 105

Chapter 14—Implementing Recommendations and Monitoring Changes 1

Appendices

Appendix A—Summaries of Gender Task Force Reports 115

Appendix B—Calls for Gender Studies 149

Appendix C—Sample Research Instruments 155

Bibliography 201

About This Guide

In July 1992, the Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force released its Prelimin

Report, documenting its findings, up to that point, on the role of gender in 

courts of the Ninth Circuit. This report stimulated other circuits’ interest in su

studies. Interest was further heightened when, in March 1993, the Judicial C

ference of the United States endorsed the provision of the then-pending Viole

Against Women bill (now incorporated in the Violent Crime Control and L

Enforcement Act of 1994) that encourages the federal circuits to undertake st

ies of various aspects of gender bias in their courts.

As interest in conducting studies of gender in the courts increased, individu

within the courts began asking the Federal Judicial Center about how to carry 

studies of gender issues and where to find relevant resources. In response 

these queries, and to maximize the assistance we could give to each circuit, 

Center decided to prepare this guide, drawing on our experience with both 

cial-science methods and the federal courts. The guide provides suggestions 

task-force operation, based on the experiences of groups in place, and descri

the range of methods that might be used. Its purpose is not to advocate creat

of task forces or to encourage any particular approach. Rather, its purpose is 

help ensure, where task forces have been created, that they have the benefi

others’ experiences and that they avoid the dangers that come from ill-advised 

search approaches.

We assembled an advisory panel to make suggestions about guide content 

to review drafts. The panel included judges, court staff, social scientists, and r

resentatives from court and executive branch agencies with relevant data, in

mation, and experience in studies of gender in the courts.

We hope this guide helps those who appoint task forces, the task-force m

bers themselves, and those working with the task forces in determining w

questions to ask, how best to answer them, and what to do with the answers. 

though the Center does not have the resources to provide continuing hands

assistance to every task force, its staff stands ready to assist with specific que

on an ad hoc basis, consistent with the Center’s other responsibilities to Judi

Conference committees and the courts.

Acknowledgments

Scott Gilbert, Susan McCoin, Donna Stienstra, and Elizabeth Wiggins c

tributed to the drafting of various sections of this guide. The guide benefi

greatly from the input of Prof. Judith Resnik, of the University of Southern C

fornia Law School, and Lynn Hecht Schafran, Esq., of the National Judicial E

cation Program to Promote Equality for Women and Men in the Courts. In ad

tion, we are greatly indebted to the following individuals for their contributi

to the project:

The Honorable Rosalyn B. Bell

Associate Judge (Retired)

Maryland Court of Special Appeals

The Honorable Celeste F. Bremer

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Southern District of Iowa

Mr. David Cook

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Ms. Geraldine J. Crockett

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Northern District of Indiana

The Honorable Lisa Hill Fenning

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Central District of California

Ms. Linda Finkelstein

Circuit Executive

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Dr. Susan Fiske

University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Dr. Gerald Gaes

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Prisons

Katherine Garrett, Esq.

D.C. Circuit Task Force on Gender,

Race, and Ethnic Bias

Professor Valerie Hans

Division of Criminal Justice

University of Delaware

Dr. Deborah Hensler

Director, RAND Institute for Civil

Justice

Ms. Kathryn Hogan

Administrative Office of the U.S. Co

Tova Indritz, Esq.

Federal Public Defender

District of New Mexico

Dr. Christopher A. Innes

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Prisons

Ms. Susan Katzenelson

U.S. Sentencing Commission

Ms. Sue Kline

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Prisons

The Honorable Elizabeth Kovachevich

U.S. District Judge

Middle District of Florida

The Honorable Phyllis Kravitch

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleven

Circuit

Robert Loesche, Esq.

Administrative Office of the U.S. Co

Ms. Kristine M. Marcy

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Marshals Service

Katharyn Marks, Esq.
x

Mr. Mark Mendenhall

Assistant Circuit Executive

Ninth Circuit

The Honorable Diana E. Murphy

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth

Circuit

The Honorable Brenda Murray

Securities and Exchange Commission

Ms. Phyllis Newton

U.S. Sentencing Commission

Ms. Townsend Robinson

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Dr. Steven Schlesinger

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

The Honorable Norma L. Shapiro

U.S. District Judge

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Ms. Myra Howze Shiplett

Administrative Office of the U.S. Co

The Honorable J. Clifford Wallace

Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals f

the Ninth Circuit

Mr. Michael D. Webb

Clerk, U.S. Bankruptcy Court

Southern District of Ohio

Dr. Russell R. Wheeler

Deputy Director, Federal Judicial Ce

Mr. Maurice White

Administrative Office of the U.S. Co

Mr. Phill Wise

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Prisons

Finally, we thank Steven Breckler, Jane Ganz, Denise Glover, Cynthia Harris

Douglas Johnson, Barry Kreiswirth, Patricia Lombard, Judith McKenna, Mel

Pecherski, Brendon Wen, and Carol Witcher for their assistance.
Preface

At its meeting in March 1993, the Judicial Conference of the United States 

solved that there was “great merit” in the provision of the then-pending Viole

Against Women bill, “encouraging circuit judicial councils to conduct stud

with respect to gender bias in their respective circuits.” Even before that time, 

Center was receiving numerous requests for advice on how to undertake surv

and analyze data in support of such studies, and such requests have continu

Further, in September 1994, the Conference added support by authorizing t

porary positions in circuits conducting such studies. Also in 1994, the Viol

Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, including as Title IV the Viole

Against Women provisions, became law. That act further encourages circ

councils to conduct gender bias studies and encourages the Federal Judicial C

ter to include gender bias issues in its training programs and to prepare supp

ing materials.

As the judicial branch agency charged with the obligation “to conduct resea

and study of the operation of the courts . . . and to stimulate and coordinate s

research and study on the part of other . . . agencies” (28 U.S.C. § 620(b)(1)), 

Center prepared this guide to respond to the many requests for assistance it 

ceived. The guide can help ensure that task forces understand the various f

gathering and research techniques that are available to them and the streng

and weaknesses of each. In addition to assessing these techniques, the gu

highlights practical considerations involved in conducting such studies, con

erations that may seem obvious but that we know from experience tend to 

overlooked.

Our goal is to help task forces do their work effectively and efficiently and 

reach conclusions that use appropriate modes of analysis and use them correc

so that the integrity of the findings can hold up to intense scrutiny.

The Honorable William W Schwarzer

Director, Federal Judicial Center

Foreword

This research guide should be invaluable for anyone interested in studying 

role of gender in the courts. I only wish it had been available in August 19

when Chief Judge Richard S. Arnold asked me to organize and appoint a gen

task force in the Eighth Circuit. This guide covers a broad range of topics i

concise and useful format.

Forming a task force and gaining acceptance for it to study and report on g

der fairness in the courts are not simple undertakings. Some believe gender b

does not exist in the courts to any significant extent and that any study is unn

essary. Others believe that earlier studies from federal or state courts provide 

the information needed, and that resources should be directed toward imp

menting educational programs and other changes to eliminate bias, rather th

studying it.

Without undergoing some self-examination, however, a court or circuit lo

the opportunity to hear about the issues of greatest concern to those who inte

with the judicial system. Courts and circuits would also lose the opportunity 

identify specific areas, if any, in which changes are needed. Self-study is a pro

that not only helps gather information, but also helps direct attention to pract

and perceptions that may otherwise be overlooked. Each circuit has its o

unique characteristics. Federal courts vary widely with respect to population 

mographics, geography, type and size of caseload, and other features that mi

affect the role gender plays and the extent of any problems relating to gend

Those organizing a study will want to consider such factors.

When appointing a task force for the Eighth Circuit, I began by talking wi

variety of people in the seven states of our circuit—some of whom had alre

worked on state studies. I also consulted leaders in the field, such as Lynn He

Schafran and Professors Judith Resnik and Laura Cooper. Those experienced 

previous projects advised that a large percentage of the task force should 

composed of judges—this ensures that the courts would credit the project 

any resulting recommendations.

Because of the significant differences among the seven states, it was impor

to represent them all. It was also important to have gender balance and repres

tatives of the various courts, the private and public bars, both prosecution 

defense, and court employees. Leadership is critical in conducting studies and 

announcing and implementing any recommendations, so the most import

single appointment was the chair. That position is ably filled by Chief Judge L

Strom, who is liked and respected by his colleagues and not perceived as hav

any special interest to pursue.

Size, focus, and scope are threshold issues. Our circuit task force has ninet

members, as well as a council and special consultants to assist its work. The g

was to maintain a deliberative size while still involving significant numbers. 
xiv

formation from those who have simultaneously considered questions of race a

gender led me to believe that it would be most effective in our circuit to begin 

focusing primarily on one area. The role of race in the federal courts needs to 

addressed as soon as possible, however, and the impetus of completed gen

studies leads in that direction. Resolution of organizational issues will depend 

regional characteristics and concerns, but the entire process will be simplified 

the availability of this guide.

It is of historic importance that courts are now willing to embark on such p

grams of self-examination and to commit themselves to making sure that eq

opportunity and fair treatment characterize the judicial system.

The Honorable Diana E. Murphy

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Foreword

Procedural fairness has been a hallmark of our judicial system. It is something 

which we aspire, for which we work, and by which we are motivated. Therefo

it should not come as any surprise when judges, lawyers, court administrat

and academics join forces to identify and to eradicate the effects of bias and p

udice based on gender in our federal justice system.

We in the Ninth Circuit concluded that, in order for our effort to be wo

while, a task force was essential. Data needed to be secured and analyzed

specifics needed to be identified. We could not rely on generalities and pl

tudes.

We are justifiably proud of the accomplishments of the Ninth Circuit Gen

Bias Task Force. The effort was pathbreaking for us. With limited staff and fin

cial resources, countless days of work were donated by the task-force memb

and those who assisted. Somehow the task was completed—and done well.

But our work is not finished. As I see it, our work has really just begun. W

articulated findings and dozens of specific recommendations in the final rep

cry out for further action. Through a call for ongoing education, district-by-

trict implementation with circuit oversight, revisions to the codes of condu

guidelines governing judges and lawyers, and proposals for a national agen

our task-force report has furnished us with a road map to our final destinatio

justice system that assures gender fairness to all those who work in it and w

come before it.

Is all of this effort worth it? Martin Luther King, Jr., correctly stated: “Injus

anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Without doubt, this road we h

chosen is a long one. But it is one that we must take if we are to fulfill our 

sponsibility to ensure a fair and equitable federal forum, one that litigan

lawyers, our employees, and the public have a right to expect in the courts of 

United States. The following material will be helpful to those who join in 

journey.

The Honorable J. Clifford Wallace

Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

I

Organizing the Task Force and

Formulating Its Inquiry

Chapter 1—Introduction

Each federal circuit has confronted, or soon will, whether and how to undert

a study of how gender, or attitudes about gender, may affect that circuit’s cou

Several bodies have encouraged such studies. Congress placed in the Viol

Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322, 108 Stat. 17

1944 § 40421(a)) a provision that encourages the circuit judicial councils 

conduct studies of gender bias in their respective circuits.1 In March 1993, 

Judicial Conference of the United States, acting on a recommendation of its 

Hoc Committee on Gender-Based Violence, adopted a resolution endorsing t

provision. In 1991, the American Bar Association adopted a resolution supp

ing studies of “the existence, if any, of racial, ethnic and gender bias in the fed

judicial system and the extent to which bias may affect litigants, witnesses, at

neys and all those who work in the judicial branch.” In addition, a recommen

tion in the 1993 report of the National Commission on Judicial Discipline a

Removal calls on the federal circuits to conduct studies of “judicial miscond

involving bias based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnic or 

tional origin, including sexual harassment . . . .”2

Others have cautioned against such studies. The Federal Courts Study Com

tee, in 1990, concluded they were unnecessary, and some federal judges h

expressed considerable skepticism about the propriety of studies undertaken 

date.

Purpose of This Guide

The purpose of this guide is not to encourage or discourage such studies b

rather, with respect to circuits that have decided to conduct studies of gende

sues in the federal courts, to help them perform the task effectively and com

tently.3 The guide provides assistance in a number of areas: it helps frame 

questions to be addressed in these studies, it helps develop methods of select

topics, and it helps carry out the studies. It provides those charged with overs

ing a study a general understanding of social-science research methods and w

they can contribute. In addition, we hope the guide will help give those who 

vise on research methods, who may not be familiar with federal-court operatio

an idea of how gender issues might arise in courts and how they might be st

1. See Section 40421, reproduced in Appendix B-4.

2. Report of the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal 126 (1993).

3. Several states and circuits have chosen to study other aspects of diversity, such as rac

ethnicity, in addition to gender.
4—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

ied. Finally, the guide provides information about various agency resources 

personnel who can help conduct gender studies. There is also a bibliography 

suggested reference materials at the end of the guide.

The guide will be most useful if readers understand it as a source for sugg

tions and information about research approaches, not as a blueprint to prod

studies conforming to a single model. Although we usually refer to “the t

force,” we do not necessarily mean that the task force per se will be the bo

likely to carry out the suggestion—for example, drawing a statistically va

sample of attorneys to survey. We direct the text at the task force as a convent

because different work patterns will prevail in different task forces and beca

the task force is ultimately responsible for work carried out on its behalf.

A task force’s initial study should not be viewed as the only occasion on wh

to consider issues and problems. After the first study, when recommendations 

made and implementation is underway, follow-up research may be needed a

when appropriate, additional or deferred projects taken up. Thus, this stu

guide is relevant and should serve as a resource not only when circuits undert

a study initially but also on subsequent occasions.

Development of Gender Task Forces in the State and

Federal Courts

By early 1994, more than forty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

several federal circuits had created task forces on gender issues in the courts. T

effort started in 1980, when the National Judicial Education Program to Prom

Equality for Women and Men in the Courts (NJEP) 4 stressed the importanc

each state and circuit developing information about the existence, nature, 

consequences of gender bias in its own court system with the intention that 

information be used in judicial education programs.5

State Courts

New Jersey’s Chief Justice Robert Wilentz established the first state task force 

gender issues in 1982, in response to New Jersey Superior Court Judge Mari

Loftus’s request for the appointment of a committee to assist in developing lo

information on the subject for use in an educational program. The task for

presentation of its findings at the state’s judicial college and its subsequent rep

received national attention and spurred the development of gender task force

states across the country. As of May 1994, task forces in twenty-nine states h

4. The NJEP is a project of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund in cooperation with 

National Association of Women Judges.

5. Lynn Hecht Schafran, Eliminating Gender Bias in the Courts: An Emerging Focus for Judicia

form, 21 Ariz. St. L. J. 237 (1989).
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURT

published final reports.6 All of these task forces have concluded that gender 

fects the opportunities and treatment of litigants, lawyers, judges, court emp

ees, and others who interact with the courts. The task-force reports include r

ommendations for specific ways to eliminate the problems identified. Most sta

have established committees to implement these recommendations.

Federal Courts

Task forces to examine gender issues in the federal courts are a more recent 

velopment, stemming indirectly from the 1990 report of the Federal Cou

Study Committee (FCSC), created at the direction of Congress to study the f

eral courts and make recommendations about their future. Witnesses at 

FCSC hearings encouraged it to recommend study of gender bias at the fed

level. The committee did not recommend a study of gender bias in the fed

courts:

State studies on bias in the courts provide considerable knowledge of this subject. Rather than another study, the committee proposes means of preventing

and dealing with bias in federal court proceedings and operations . . . . We believe education is the best means of sensitizing judges and supporting personnel to their own possible inappropriate conduct and the importance of curbing

such bias when shown by attorneys, parties, and witnesses.7

Despite the FCSC’s view that studies were unnecessary, in 1990 two fed

circuits created task forces. The Judicial Council for the District of Columbia 

cuit created a Task Force on Gender, Race, and Ethnic Bias, to determ

whether and to what extent gender, race, and ethnicity affect the operations a

proceedings of the federal courts of the D.C. Circuit. That task force presente

preliminary report to its judicial council in June 1994.

In August 1990, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, in response to a requ

from its Lawyer Representatives Coordinating Committee, called for a study 

gender bias in the federal courts of that circuit. The conference’s execut

committee established the Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force and charge

with “conducting a study of gender in the Ninth Circuit, reporting to the Con

ence about its findings, and making recommendations to respond to any pr

lems identified.”8 In July 1993, the Ninth Circuit’s task force issued its final 

port. Recently, other federal circuits have begun forming or considering form

gender task forces.

6. Appendix A lists final task-force reports, as well as a summary of the questions addressed 

methods used, and it provides information about how to obtain a copy of each report.

7. Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee 169 (April 2, 1990).

8. See The Effects of Gender in the Federal Courts: The Final Report of the Ninth Circuit Ge

Bias Task Force 3 (July 1993) [hereinafter Ninth Circuit, The Effects of Gender]. This repo

reprinted in 67 S. Cal. L. Rev. 745 (1994). The Executive Summary of the Preliminary Rep

along with related papers and commentary, is published in 45 Stan. L. Rev. 2143 (1993). See 

bibliography at the end of this study guide for citations to specific papers in the Stanford volum
6—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Organization of This Guide

This guide is organized into four parts: Part II (Chapters 4–11) is the core of 

guide. It discusses the details of conducting task-force studies and is desig

primarily for those who are actually charged with carrying out the studies—

cluding some task-force or committee members, as well as social-science advis

working with the task force.

Other parts are Part I: Organizing the Task Force and Formulating Its Inqu

(Chapters 1–3); Part III: Resources Available to Task Forces (Chapter 12); 

Part IV: Recommendations and Implementation (Chapters 13 and 14). Th

parts are primarily for those involved in establishing a task force, as well as 

members of a task force (and its committees) once established.

Part I

Chapter 2 deals with assembling a task force (including task-force approa

composition, and scope) and dealing with the courts, bar, and other member

the legal and judicial communities.9 Chapter 3 was developed to help task fo

chart their particular research agenda.

Part II

Chapters 4–10 contain information about various research methods by which 

examine the role of gender in the federal courts. In Chapter 4 we briefly descr

each approach and discuss combining information from multiple metho

Chapters 5–10 feature the mechanics of using and analyzing information 

tained from each of the research methods. For example, we offer general gui

lines for analyses of existing computerized databases as well as information ab

questionnaire design and administration. Chapter 11 provides general infor

tion about drawing conclusions and reporting results from data obtained by ta

force researchers.

Part III

Chapter 12 describes resources available to assist with various aspects of the 

cuit studies, including data, services, and other resources that might be obtai

from the FJC, Administrative Office, U.S. Sentencing Commission, and ot

agencies, organizations, or individuals, including social-science advisors. 

9. Although we touch on these issues here, several excellent publications already exist that 

with the formation and operation of a task force. Particularly useful is Lynn Hecht Schafran 

Norma Juliet Wikler’s Operating a Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts: A Manual for Ac

(1986). This manual can be obtained from the Women Judges’ Fund for Justice, 733 15th St

N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005. The bibliography at the end of this study guide iden

other useful resources.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURT

have also provided names of contacts at various agencies and identified the ty

of information they can provide.

Part IV

In Chapter 13 we discuss developing effective recommendations for change, 

actual writing of reports and implementation plans, and the dissemination a

use of findings from gender studies. In Chapter 14 we address monitoring 

evaluation of changes implemented as a result of the task force’s recommen

tions.

Chapter 2—Establishing a Gender Task Force

Courts have established gender task forces for a number of reasons: to expl

whether and in what ways gender plays a role in the courts of the jurisdiction

propose changes; to recommend mechanisms and measures to achieve th

changes; and to design or oversee implementation. One of the first question

circuit will face is whether to undertake its own study, rather than rely on ta

force reports from state courts or other federal circuits and to design educatio

programs or make recommendations based on those findings. There are obvi

benefits in time and money in not beginning a new study. On the other hand

circuit that relies on others’ research loses the opportunity to identify the iss

of greatest importance in the circuit. It also risks having circuit members cl

that problems exist only in other courts or other circuits but not in their own, 

conversely, that problems documented elsewhere must also exist in their cou

or circuit.

Self-studies can be, or can appear to be, self-serving, so those who establish 

task force and give it official imprimatur should also give it and its subcomm

tees or advisors substantial independence to determine the direction and cont

of the study. The task force and its subcommittees must also adhere to the h

est professional standards with respect to information collection, analysis, 

reporting.

A task force might be established by the chief judge, the circuit council, 

circuit conference, or by some combination. Depending on the structure of a 

cuit’s judicial conference, discussion and resolutions by the conference in sup

of a task-force effort might be appropriate.10 A circuit conference inclu

lawyers, and its involvement in creating the task force could help to negate 

ceptions that the study will solely serve the interests of the judiciary. In additi

any inquiry about the role gender plays in the courts of a circuit is likely 

examine the experiences of lawyers; having lawyers involved from the beginn

could encourage cooperation from the rest of the bar and also may make it ea

to involve nonlawyers.

Scope of the Task Force

An issue likely to arise when the gender task force is being established is whet

to launch at the same time studies of other areas of diversity (e.g., race, ethnic

religion, age, sexual orientation). Courts may reasonably be concerned t

10. For example, see the resolutions of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference in support 

gender task force and study. These resolutions are reproduced in Appendix B-5.
10—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

forming a task force focused exclusively on one topic will suggest that it is 

only one that matters to them.

Since the 1980s, a number of states have formed task forces to study aspect

diversity other than gender, and most of the federal circuits that have formed 

forces are also doing this. Although studying several aspects of diversity simu

neously may be appropriate, the roles of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, han

cap, sexual orientation, and age each have distinct histories and expressions a

may call for differing remedial responses. In addition, a study that covers eve

thing—from parental leave policies to court employment opportunities for ra

minorities to accessibility of courthouse facilities to those who are disabled—m

not cover any topic in appropriate depth, heightening the risk of an unfocu

and confusing report.

The “umbrella” approach, in which a task force oversees subgroups that stu

separate areas of diversity, has been adopted by several federal circuits. W

this approach is used, inquiries from the different subgroups should be coo

nated so that respondents do not receive a persistent stream of surveys, requ

for interviews, and so forth. On the other hand, combined research efforts m

lead potential respondents to say, for example: “I’ll provide one hour of 

time—ask all of your questions then.” That kind of response shortchanges b

inquiries, and the task force would be better served by selecting different in

view respondents for each topic (e.g., race, gender) and limiting each interview 

questions about one topic. Subgroup members should be aware of these poten

problems and communicate with each other in determining when combined 

separate research approaches are appropriate.

The Task-Force Mandate

A mandate is important to define the work of the task force. Some task for

have had very specific mandates (e.g., setting forth the questions to be 

dressed), while other task forces have had extremely broad mandates. A fa

broad mandate is usually preferable, because it allows for flexibility as the t

force’s work progresses. For example, the mandate might direct the task force 

explore whether gender plays a role in the courts of that circuit; to determine 

nature, extent, and consequences of any gender-related problems in the circ

to make recommendations for changes and education; and to monitor progres

eliminating any problems identified.

Task-Force Structure and Composition

Several task-force models exist, but they differ primarily in two ways: exten

official court involvement and size. Under some models, the court (through 

chief judge, circuit judicial council, circuit conference, or committees) is invol

heavily in shaping and guiding the task force’s work as it evolves. With ot
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

models, those who create the task force give it authority to explore iss

through advisory committees or working groups and report back.

Another variant in task-force structure is size. There is no “right” task-fo

size: some task forces have been relatively large (25–35 members), while oth

have been small (5–10 members). Generally, small groups are more efficien

reaching decisions. The federal circuit task forces established thus far gener

have had a small number of members who oversee the work of advis

committees or working groups—these committees and groups have m

members, and they focus on particular aspects of the task force’s inquiry.

The unique dynamics of a circuit will play a significant role in determin

who should be on the task force and who can be on committees or work

groups created by the task force, but some generalizations are possible. First, 

judicial leadership may not be in the best position to identify all of the most 

propriate appointees. It may be helpful to solicit input from those with inte

and expertise in gender issues and those who interact regularly with the court

the circuit, such as members of state task forces who have studied the relevan

sues, court administrators who may know of court staff knowledgeable abou

interested in these issues, or university faculty members from relevant social-

ence disciplines.

Second, a task force is likely to have maximum effectiveness and credibility 

includes members, committee members, or advisors with diverse experien

backgrounds, and viewpoints, including circuit, district, magistrate, a

bankruptcy judges; lawyers from the public and private sectors, from solo, lar

and small firm practices, and from different substantive areas of practice; co

staff; nonlawyers who can provide the vantage point of litigants, witnesses, 

rors, or the general public; law professors; and social scientists. These individu

should (and perforce will) differ in their knowledge of gender studies, the effe

of gender in the federal courts, and the structure of federal adjudication.

Third, it is important not to stack the deck, or appear to do so. A task fo

dominated by people who have already concluded that gender bias is widespr

in the circuit, or by individuals who are hostile to the possibility that it exist

all, will probably produce questionable research and have little credibility. 

cluding individuals openly hostile to the possibility that bias exists in the cou

or in related institutions or people convinced that gender bias permeates all 

pects of the courts’ functioning may create a task force whose intragroup dyn

ics quickly break down.

Fourth, it is important to consider other dimensions of diversity when selec

members of the task force or its committees. Women and men with differ

ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds can bring varying perspectives to 

discussions; if they have ties to other specific legal communities, such as the F

eral Bar Association, women’s or minority bar associations, or civil rights grou

they may also encourage input and cooperation from a diverse group of lawy

In addition, racial and ethnic diversity will help ensure that the task fo
12—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

identifies and examines the unique issues involved in the combinations of gen

and race or gender and ethnicity. Including members from all of the circu

components—for example, including at least one representative from each 

trict or each state in the circuit—is useful both because of the variety of persp

tives that will be brought to the task-force process, and because these represen

tives can be spokespersons and points of contact for the task force in their c

munities.

Having a wide range of ages represented on the task force will help to av

perceptions that younger and older generations view gender-bias issues dif

ently—a perception that was refuted by aggregate data from the Ninth Circ

study.

Because social-science expertise will be in great demand throughout the stu

it will be useful to have at least one social scientist with a broad research ba

ground (i.e., one who understands the full range of research methods likely to 

considered by the task force) involved from the beginning of the task-force p

cess. This individual can provide perspective and information about how bes

approach a study of the topics the task force chooses to examine. In turn, beca

most social scientists are not expert in federal courts and law, having one on 

task force from the beginning will help that person become more familiar w

relevant court-related and law-related issues and should thus maximize the ut

of his or her technical advice.

At least some members of the task force itself should be willing to devote t

to carrying out some of the work of the task force—for example, supervisin

particular research project. The contributions of other members will include t

high credibility and visible support of the task force effort throughout the stu

and implementation processes, even if those members are not involved directl

carrying out the study.

A final issue is selecting the chair. In most task forces the chair has bee

judge, and this approach is preferable for enhancing credibility and encourag

cooperation from the circuit’s judiciary. Although chairs have most frequen

been women, both women and men have been successful task-force chairs. O

approach is to have co-chairs, one woman and one man, who can themselves 

emplify the point that women and men must join together in creating or m

taining a fair court process.

Among existing task forces, some chairs have been people already known 

their deep commitment to gender equity. In other situations, chairs have b

open-minded people who were not previously identified with gender-fairnes

sues, but who learned about and became committed to gender fairness throu

the task-force process.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Task-Force Advisory Committees or Working Groups

Many task forces establish advisory committees or working groups, which 

clude non-task force members; each committee or group addresses a different 

pect of the task force’s inquiry. For example, advisory groups and researchers 

the Ninth Circuit task force carried out intensive studies on specific topics—s

as procedures for selecting magistrate judges within the circuit and the comp

tion of Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA) advisory groups in the circuit. Th

groups and researchers produced working papers that the task force used in p

ducing its preliminary and final reports.11

Advisory committees or working groups allow focused inquiry on particu

topics and help ensure more diverse representation while preserving the t

force as a compact, decision-making group. When appointing members to co

mittees, which are often substantially larger than the task force itself, the sa

factors of diversity and expertise are relevant as when appointing task-fo

members.

Educating Task-Force Members About Gender Issues

Because task-force members will come to the process with varying levels 

knowledge about gender issues, some may want background reading materia

orient them to the ways in which gender issues can arise in the courts and v

ous approaches to studying them. They may consult materials cited at the end 

each chapter and in the bibliography to this guide.

11. See the bibliography for a list of working papers of the Ninth Circuit task force.

Chapter 3—Areas for Study

The first job for a task force is to determine what specifically it should study. T

chapter treats three aspects of that determination: whether to analyze gender b

per se, or a broader phenomenon; the extent to which it will analyze percepti

as well as other types of information; and what specific topics it should resear

Studying “Gender Bias”

Both of the federal circuit task forces that have undertaken studies have cho

not to define “gender bias” for purposes of their study and not to frame their 

quiries in terms of whether gender bias can be found in their courts. The t

forces in the Ninth and D.C. Circuits framed their inquiries in terms of whet

gender (as opposed to bias) appears to play a role or have effects in various 

pects of the courts’ operations and, if so, what the nature of that role is. The 

vantage of formulating the inquiry in this way is that it is nonaccusatory 

broad enough to accommodate a wide range of situations in which gender m

play a role, including those in which differences based on gender may be app

priate. In addition, use of the word gender, rather than a word or phrase that 

cuses on women, allows for examination of situations in which men as wel

women are affected by gender-based biases or stereotypes.

Studying Perceptions

The perceptions of various groups or individuals, based on their experience

the court system, are as important as other indicators of problems. If percepti

of unfairness are well founded, the court will obviously be concerned with do

what it can to rectify the problem. If the task force finds the perceptions are 

well founded, it can state that finding but also determine why the percepti

arose and consider what can be done to change them.

Topics for Research

Appendix A lists all task-force reports, state and federal, completed to date 

the specific areas examined in each.

If the task force’s mandate designates particular areas for attention, it alre

has at least a minimum agenda. The task force may also wish to consider whet

it will take up any of the specific areas of research recommended in the Viol
16—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, whether or not it was crea

in direct response to the legislation.12

Task forces have used other means to identify areas appropriate for their wo

For example, some have convened discussion groups of judges, lawyers, co

employees, litigants, and others, to learn their views about topics that should 

examined. Some have also conducted surveys to determine which areas to stu

Surveys, however, generally are not useful in situations where inquiries are r

tively unfocused and categories of responses are hard to anticipate. At the e

stages of the process, more open-ended methods of inquiry, such as discuss

groups, public hearings, and review of relevant statistics, provide more infor

tion and are less costly than surveys.

To identify areas about which some may want to know more, though, is 

the same as defining the specific areas that the task force will study. First, 

task force should satisfy itself that it has the minimum resources to study the a

adequately. As stressed in Chapter 4, a study that consists only of gather

anecdotal evidence may be worse than no study at all. The minimum requ

ments for reliable information gathering will differ for particular research top

but before it embarks on studying a particular topic, the task force should ass

itself that it can present an accurate picture of that topic.

Second, the task force should also consider whether the results of its st

could lead to change, depending on what the data reveal. Whether change mi

come about depends on two factors:

• Does the body (or bodies) to which the task force reports have 

administrative authority to direct remedial action? For example, a study 

employment practices in the offices of clerks of court could lead the cou

to implement different personnel practices.

• Is the area of study one in which research could reveal patterns of beha

that, although not subject to administrative action, could nevertheless l

participants to change behavior? For example, a study of forms of add

used by judges with male and with female attorneys could alert judge

behaviors that they may wish to change.

This is not to say that task forces will not find it valuable to include in their 

ports historical and demographic analyses that provide context for recommen

tions.

Third, the task force should consider whether the proposed objects of anal

are appropriately undertaken by an administrative body within the federal ju

ciary. This consideration has arisen especially with respect to analyses of subs

tive law and analyses of nonjudicial government bodies and private organ

tions. Some task forces, including the majority of state task forces (see Appen

A), have chosen to examine gender effects in areas of substantive law and c

12. Section 40421(b) lists eleven specific areas of possible study; see P.L. 103-322, 108 

1796, at 1944-45. Subsection b also incorporates by reference nineteen other topics.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

outcomes; the legislation encouraging creation of federal-circuit task forces l

such analyses among the topics that task forces should consider studying. (T

forces, for example, have examined relationships between gender of plaintiffs 

civil damages awards in various types of cases, and a number of state-court t

forces explored the role of gender in custody determinations or other family 

issues.) There is a great deal of controversy over whether substantive decisi

are an appropriate area of inquiry for a court-sponsored task force. Some th

inquiries regarding gender effects in substantive law are among the most imp

tant for a task force to undertake, while others think such inquiries intrude in

propriately on judicial independence in decision making.

Similarly, some task forces have chosen to examine gender issues in entitie

agencies that interact with or are ancillary to the courts, such as U.S. attorn

offices, the U.S. Marshal’s service, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or even 

firms. This is another controversial area; those who advocate such inquiries ar

that, although such agencies are not a part of the courts, they are integral part

the justice process and might be perceived by the public as a part of the cou

and are therefore a proper object of analysis by an administrative body within 

courts. Others assert that a task force should devote its time and energy to iss

regarding which the task force or the body to which it reports can directly ef

change. They also argue that many types of bias in public and private agen

fall within the federal courts’ judicial jurisdiction and thus are improper obj

for analysis by such a task force. The task force should consider the context 

particular agency’s activity. For example, it is one thing for a task force to be c

cerned if court security officers treat women offensively, even though the offic

are not employees of the court. It is arguably something else for the task forc

inquire into the hiring practices of private law firms. If a task force chooses no

examine ancillary agencies, any issues that arise incidentally during the task-fo

study that are relevant to such agencies might be referred to these agencies 

that the agencies may take any action they deem appropriate, including, for 

ample, undertaking their own independent investigations.

Discussed below, with the three aspects listed above in mind, are several c

gories of study and specific examples within each that have been the subjec

examination by task forces. The sections do not exhaust all gender issues t

could be studied—they give an idea of possible areas of inquiry, including th

that other task forces have addressed, and they can stimulate ideas about ad

tional topics. Task forces have emphasized that not all women’s experiences 

similar, nor are all men’s. Gender-related treatment varies depending on the 

tersection of gender with other characteristics such as race, ethnicity, age, so

economic status, and sexual orientation. Even if a circuit with a gender task fo

has task forces on other issues, it is important to include these issues within 

context of a gender study.
18—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Court Employment and Appointment

Courts employ clerks and deputy clerks of court, courtroom deputies, law cle

court interpreters, court reporters, law librarians, staff attorneys, probation 

pretrial services officers, federal public defenders, secretaries, intake cler

docket clerks, and many other staff members. Circuit judges appoint bankrup

judges, and district court judges appoint magistrate judges. Courts also m

discretionary appointments in individual cases (e.g., court-appointed expe

special masters, counsel for indigent litigants) and to entities concerned w

court management (e.g., federal practice committees and special court comm

tees, such as the CJRA advisory groups). Some of these appointments gene

fees. Most confer recognition or status on the appointees. In light of the scop

the courts’ role as employer, a number of gender task forces have chosen to 

amine whether gender has an effect on courts’ employment and appointm

practices.

Because of the large number of employees and appointees and the vari

functions they serve, task forces wishing to study the effects of gender on e

ployment or appointment may find it more manageable to study separately v

ous types of appointment or employment in various offices. For example, 

Ninth Circuit task force conducted separate analyses concerning the composit

of CJRA advisory groups, the appointment of special masters, and the comp

tion of Criminal Justice Act panels in the circuit.

Some task forces, including the Ninth Circuit and D.C. Circuit task for

have also studied the gender composition of the Article III judiciary in the circ

and how gender imbalance on the bench might affect the public’s perception

the courts.

Examples of questions a task force might ask about demographics and the 

of gender in court employment and appointment include the following:

• What recruiting efforts, if any, are made to ensure that men and wom

have equal opportunities to become informed about available position

appointments?

• In what proportions are men and women represented in each of the p

tions or appointments? How do these proportions compare with the p

portions of each in the pool of qualified applicants?

• Does gender play a role in hiring or appointment practices in certain p

tions? If so, what is the nature of that role?

• Does gender play a role in promotion practices? If so, in what way?

• Does gender play a role in employee retention in various positions? If so

what way?

• Are salaries for positions in which women dominate similar to those 

male-dominated positions, assuming comparable skills and education 

required for both sets of positions?
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

• Do the courts’ personnel policies (e.g., leave policies) affect men 

women employees differently?

• Do court employees or appointees report having experienced sexual 

rassment?

• Does the court, or its particular units, have a written policy on gender 

and sexual harassment, and a procedure for handling claims of gender b

or sexual harassment (in addition to the court’s EEO plan)?

• Do both male and female employees and appointees feel safe in the cou

house (before, during, or after normal working hours) or traveling to 

from the courthouse?

• Are the courts’ physical facilities (e.g., offices, restrooms) adequate for b

men and women?

• Do the courts provide child-care facilities?

• Does the court have an adequate grievance procedure?

The answers to these questions will help a circuit or court determine any n

for revising recruitment, hiring, and personnel policies, and any need for train

programs for judicial and nonjudicial employees, management, and staff. In 

dition, exploring these questions can help a court determine how it might 

perceived by litigants, witnesses, attorneys, jurors, and others. For example, if 

personnel information reveals a court system in which those in visible and p

erful positions tend to be white males, while less prominent positions tend to 

held by members of other groups, the circuit can consider how this composit

might affect perceptions about access to justice in those courts on the par

those who use the courts.

Other Court Administration Issues

In addition to studying employment issues, court task forces have examin

other court administration issues, particularly as they relate to the relations

between the courts and the public. Examples include jury administration and 

lection and whether gender-biased language appears in official court documen

Jury Administration and Selection

There are several stages in the jury-selection process at which gender could c

ceivably have an effect, even if the process is free of the discrimination based 

sex that is prohibited under the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, as 

plemented by each district’s plan for random jury selection.13 For example:

• Does gender play a role in the questions the court asks of prospective 

rors (in addition to questions on the standard juror qualification form)?

• Are exemptions from jury duty related to gender?

13. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1862, 1863 (1994).
20—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

• Are prospective jurors asked different questions at voir dire depending 

their gender?

• Does gender, or the intersection between gender and race or ethnicity, 

pear to play a role in the composition of grand or petit juries?

• Does gender appear to play a role in the selection of petit and grand j

forepersons?

Review of Court Documents for Gender-Biased Language

Attorneys, litigants, jurors, and the public read and refer to many kinds of co

documents. Gender-biased language in court forms, local rules, jury instructio

and other court-produced documents can lead to a perception that the cour

not a forum for equal justice, and it may even produce biased outcomes. The 

force can review these documents for gender-biased language and, if the nee

found, recommend that they be revised. These revisions, which may take a l

time to implement (e.g., if local rules need to be changed), are among chan

that can be started before the task force has completed its report.

Interactions Within the Court System

Many task forces have examined what can be described generically as inter

tions. As the questions below demonstrate, these interactions are some of 

more visible types of behavior in which gender may play a role—for exampl

judge addresses a female witness differently from male witnesses, or presides o

a jury proceeding in which a male attorney consistently uses demeaning term

characterize his female opponent. Most of these issues in some way touch 

whether gender affects the treatment or experiences of attorneys, litigants, w

nesses, jurors, and others who come into contact with the court. The follow

are examples of some of the many interactions that task forces have explored:

• between judges and litigants, witnesses, jurors, attorneys, and court s

(e.g., law clerks);

• among attorneys;

• between attorneys and litigants, witnesses, jurors, and court staff;

• among jurors;

• among court staff;

• between court staff and litigants, witnesses, attorneys, jurors, and staf

ancillary government agencies (e.g., U.S. marshals); and

• among judges.

In addition, these interactions take place in different settings: in the courtro

in chambers, and at depositions, for example. If a task force decides to exam

the role of gender in interactions, it will first have to make decisions about wh

relationships and interactions are most critical and most appropriate for study

it is very difficult and time-consuming to try to study them all. Furthermo
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

there are several ways in which gender might play a role in interactions. The 

lowing are examples of questions that have been asked by other task forces:

• Does the gender of litigants, attorneys, or witnesses affect the crede

given to them by judges and jurors?

• Does gender affect the form of address used for litigants, attorneys, w

nesses, or judges? (E.g., do judges address male attorneys as “Mr.” w

addressing female attorneys by their first names?)

• Do perceptions of competence of judges or attorneys vary according to 

judge’s or attorney’s gender?

• Are unwanted remarks about the personal appearance (e.g., cloth

physical characteristics) of attorneys, judges, litigants, or witnesses mad

jury trials, in other courtroom proceedings, or in off-the-record proce

ings?

• Are attorneys, judges, litigants, witnesses, or staff subjected to sex

comments by those with whom they interact?

• Are litigants, judges, attorneys, witnesses, or staff subjected to unwan

sexual advances?

• Do judges intervene when inappropriate behavior constituting gender 

or harassment occurs in their presence? If so, how do they intervene? D

their intervention vary depending on the gender of the judge? Does it v

depending on whether the behavior is in front of a jury?

• What are judges’ perceptions of their responsibilities to intervene in th

situations?

• Does gender play a role in whether or how often counsel’s arguments 

interrupted by the judge?

• How does gender-biased treatment of litigants, witnesses, jurors, or co

staff by judges affect the public’s perception of the courts?

II

Studying the Role of Gender

in the Courts

Chapter 4—Overview: Data Sources and

Research Approaches

A number of different research approaches are available for studying gende

sues in the courts. These approaches vary in numerous ways, including the t

and reliability of information they provide, the extent to which special exper

is required for their use, their cost, and the amount of time they take. The m

effective and informative studies will use a combination of research methods

that areas of convergence and divergence in results can be identified and 

plored. This chapter provides a brief overview of different methods for study

gender issues (see Table 1). The subsequent chapters contain more detailed 

formation about using these various methods.

Three important caveats, discussed in more detail in Chapter 11, must be k

in mind when carrying out these methods.

First, a number of these methods yield anecdotal information rather than 

tematic evidence. By “anecdotes” we mean stories or examples that people 

about their own or others’ experiences. While anecdotes often present true sto

and illustrate problems very powerfully, the experiences related may be atypi

perhaps seriously so. Therefore, anecdotes are not an adequate basis for draw

conclusions about the overall effects of gender in the circuit and may be seriou

misleading. More systematic data analysis—for example, from existing reco

and mail questionnaires—can be expensive, but the alternative may be to 

questionable data. Thus, before it begins its research effort, the task force sho

be certain it has the minimum resources necessary to gather reliable, system

information to supplement the anecdotal information that will come to it at 

cost.

Second, the task force must be cautious about inferring causation based 

simple statistics such as frequencies or correlations, which can mask more co

plex underlying patterns that may provide alternative explanations for the resu

It is a fundamental principle of quantitative analysis that solely because two 

tors are related to one another does not mean that one causes the other. Consi

a (hypothetical) finding that judges employ men much more frequently th

women as court-appointed experts. A conclusion some would draw from thi

that judges are biased against women experts, but such a conclusion would 

unwarranted, or at least premature. If the task force bases this conclusion on 

number of male and female experts appointed during a particular time period

fails to take into account other potentially relevant variables that may or may 

be gender related. It may be, for example, that the scientific or technical field

which expert testimony is most often needed are fields occupied predominan
26—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

by men, particularly at the most senior levels. Thus, in drawing conclusions 

task force must be careful not to overlook other possible explanations for a p

ticular pattern of results.

Finally, methodological errors can occur in designing and analyzing res

from any research method. They severely undermine the credibility of resea

results. Task-force members should be alert to potential problems even if they 

not the ones to recognize and correct specific problems, especially the arc

ones.

Table 1—Overview of Methods

Method Chapter Brief Description

Public Hearings 5 Public hearings involve asking people from various perspecti

to comment on a particular topic. Public hearings serve as a

public statement to the community of the task force’s existen

and interest. Also, although witnesses’ views may not be repr

sentative of the whole population, hearings can help identify

salient issues.

Focus Groups 6 Focus groups are group interviews in which a group leader o

moderator elicits participants’ views on one or more issues.

This approach is particularly suited to obtaining detailed information about processes or about multifaceted issues. Agai

though, views may not be representative.

Analysis of

Existing

Records or

Databases

7 Information available in court or agency records and files, in

cluding computerized databases, is rarely directly about the

role of gender in the courts, but these sources may neverthel

be highly relevant to a task-force inquiry. Analysis of informa

tion in computerized databases may answer a number of que

tions at relatively low cost.

Mail

Questionnaires

8 Mail questionnaires can inform the task force about the rang

of perceptions and reported experiences from a large numbe

people on a variety of topics. Writing questions that elicit use

ful information is much more difficult than it may appear.

Interviews 9 One-on-one interviews, which vary in terms of how structur

they are, can be used to explore particular aspects of gender

and the courts in more detail than most other methods.

Observational

Studies

10 Observational studies can provide information on the role of

gender that is not dependent on reports from others. They ar

however, quite resource- and time-intensive and may be sus

ceptible to biases of the observers.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Obtaining Information Through Multiple Approaches

Task forces need both quantitative and qualitative information. Quantitative 

formation is data that can be summarized and reported in terms of numbers 

percentages. Some of the information sources mentioned here, such as compu

ized databases and mail questionnaires, generally provide quantitative infor

tion. Qualitative information provides more detail and depth about individ

human experiences, but is generally not capable of being assigned numer

value. Some of the information sources already mentioned, such as focus grou

unstructured interviews, and open-ended questions on questionnaires, yi

qualitative information.

Quantitative and qualitative methods can complement and build on each ot

For example, a public hearing early in the task force’s inquiry can identify ar

of concern. Then, to determine whether specific concerns or observations rai

in the public hearings are widespread, the task force might ask about the iss

on a questionnaire sent to a representative group.

Similarly, questionnaire results might reveal that a particular type of interact

occurs frequently (e.g., male attorneys commenting on female attorneys’ phys

appearance during a proceeding in front of a jury), but leave the task force w

out an understanding of exactly what occurs in these interactions. The task fo

might then obtain specific examples and descriptions of events through fo

groups or interviews to enhance its understanding of the nature of such inte

tions. This qualitative information can also be obtained by adding open-en

questions to a questionnaire that primarily seeks quantitative data.

Chapter 5—Public Hearings

Task forces use public hearings to identify the most salient issues, which can t

be studied more systematically using other methods. They provide task-fo

members with first-hand descriptions of the ways in which gender can affect 

courts in the circuit; engage task-force members actively in the issues by prov

ing them an opportunity to ask questions rather than just read reports; and id

tify problems unique to particular regions or courts in the circuit. Public heari

can be used to seek testimony from specific people and organizations; they 

also provide an opportunity for others who wish to come forward to share th

experiences or information.

Public hearings also have disadvantages. One is the substantial time required 

prepare, publicize, and organize hearings. Second, those who testify at pu

hearings are unlikely to represent the full range of views in the circuit, nor e

the most prevalent views; 14 instead, they are likely to be people with a spec

interest in making their views known to the task force. This lack of represen

tiveness means that information obtained at public hearings cannot generally 

used to support claims about overall views and experiences of those who inte

with the courts. In addition, people generally will be reluctant to testify ab

extremely sensitive issues at a public hearing (e.g., a former law clerk testify

that she was harassed by a judge), so testimony at public hearings cannot be 

pected to identify all of the problems that may exist within the circuit.

Resources needed for scheduling and conducting public hearings include 

following: staff or volunteers to schedule the hearing(s) and handle adminis

tive matters; photocopying equipment; equipment to record the proceedings; 

resources for publicizing the hearings.

Guidelines for Planning and Conducting Public Hearings

Organizational skills are particularly important in scheduling and publiciz

hearings. To maximize the information obtained and to learn about potential 

gional differences, the task force should hold public hearings in various locati

throughout the circuit, including urban and rural localities. Therefore, you m

need to recruit staff help in each of the areas where a hearing will be held.

14. This problem can be addressed to some extent by careful solicitation of testimony f

individuals and groups known to have a range of views.
30—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Witnesses15

Soliciting Testimony

Invite testimony from those who are likely to have specific information. Th

people may include leaders of bar associations, leaders of civic and commun

organizations, members of other professional associations, and law professor

Contact them with a letter or telephone call that explains the purpose of 

public hearing and why they are being asked to testify.

Notify litigants and other members of the public who might want to testify 

posting notices in courthouses and distributing press releases or other 

nouncements. The press will want to attend the hearings and should be acco

modated.

Form of Testimony

Invitations and announcements should instruct those testifying to submit writ

testimony and bring copies of this testimony for each member of the task fo

for the press, and for others attending the hearings. To avoid confusion and 

cessively lengthy testimony, provide witnesses with guidelines for preparing th

oral and written testimony, including information about how much time t

will have to testify. Allow time for a presentation by the witness and questi

from task-force members—perhaps ten minutes for the witness and five minu

for questioning. In addition, ask witnesses to complete a registration form w

their name, phone number, organization represented (if any), and times availa

to testify (for an example, see Appendix C).

Task forces have found that some people want to testify on a confidential ba

and some witnesses or potential witnesses inquire about protection from repr

based on their testimony. The task force should decide in advance how it w

handle these issues and should make people aware of any opportunity to tes

on a confidential basis.

Accommodating Needs of Witnesses

It is useful to schedule some hearings to continue into the evening to accom

date witnesses who cannot testify during normal working hours. In addition, 

task force should identify and provide for more specific needs, such as in

preters for the deaf or non-English speaking witnesses.

15. We use the word witnesses to refer to all who testify at public hearings.

16. For example, the Task Force of the District of Columbia Circuit on Gender, Race, and Et

Bias sent notices to the following groups: bar associations; legal and professional associations 

ties to the judiciary or legal community; deans of law schools in the circuit; law school clinics; 

political figures; and the media. See Appendix C for examples of the notices and other mate

distributed by the D.C. Circuit task force.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Administrative Details

Allow at least ninety days for planning and advertising a public hearing. S

should reserve hearing rooms well in advance. Ideally, the sites selected 

hearings will be accessible to public transportation, will be physically access

to individuals who are handicapped, and will have photocopying capabilities 

extra copies of written testimony can be made if necessary. Staff should a

make arrangements for the recording and transcription of the proceedings.

A table should be set up outside the hearing room with a sign-in sheet, ad

tional registration forms, a brief description of the task force, and copies of w

ten statements submitted to the task force prior to the hearing. A staff per

should be at this table to greet people when they arrive, answer questions, a

register unscheduled witnesses, for whom time should be allowed at the end 

the hearing.

The Role of the Task Force at Hearings

Because of the educational function served by public hearings, task-force m

bers should try to attend as many hearings as possible. For each hearing, de

nate a task-force member as chair; the chair should explain the purpose of 

hearings, introduce witnesses, and ensure that witnesses stick to their schedu

time allotments. The chair and other task-force members can ask questions 

witnesses.

After each hearing, copies of written testimony and transcripts of any oral 

timony not accompanied by written testimony should be distributed to e

member of the task force. In reading over the testimony, the task-force memb

should look for patterns in the problems identified and consider what iss

might be appropriate for follow-up with more rigorous research methods.
32—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

For Further Reference

Edna Wells Handy et al., National Center for State Courts/State Justice Institu

Establishing and Operating a Task Force or Commission on Racial and E

nic Bias in the Courts (1993).

Lynn Hecht Schafran & Norma J. Wikler, The Foundation for Women Judg

Operating a Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts: A Manual for Act

(1986).
Chapter 6—Focus Groups

A number of task forces have used small-group discussion sessions, often refe

to as “focus groups,” to collect information on issues and problems pertaining 

gender. Focus groups allow the constituent groups of the court to expl

specific topics and provide richer and more detailed examples and illustration

problem situations than hearings, questionnaires, or analysis of court statist

Focus groups are particularly suited for studying processes (such as courtro

interactions) or multifaceted issues (such as employee working conditions).17

The term focus group has been used to refer to several different approaches

its basic form, however, a focus group is a group interview in which the in

viewer, referred to as a moderator, uses a topical interview guide or protoco

lead a group of about six to ten people in a one- to two-hour discussion o

limited number of topics. Focus groups have been used by gender task force

interview judges, court employees, lawyers from various practice areas, prison

litigants, and members of bar groups. Task-force members generally do not 

tend or participate in the focus groups but receive summaries of the results fr

the committee members or researchers involved.

Advantages and Limitations of Focus Groups

Some advantages of using focus groups are:

• They are an efficient and relatively inexpensive way to gather detai

anecdotal information.

• They can be used to identify topics for a questionnaire.

• Group discussion is an effective mechanism for prompting participant

describe their experiences and views about the effects of gender. Part

pants may recall and be encouraged to describe their own experiences 

result of hearing about the experiences of others.18

• Participants do not have to be adept at expressing their views in wri

form.

• Participants have an opportunity to respond to others’ comments, and 

interaction provides more valid and richer information on a topic than 

methods relying on a standardized set of responses.

17. Ninth Circuit, The Effects of Gender, supra note 8, at B-9.

18. See Deborah Hensler, Studying Gender Bias in the Courts: Stories and Statistics, 45 Stan. L. 

2187 n.2 (1993).
34—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

• Focus groups require a less complex interview format than face-to-face 

terviews because fewer topics are covered and questions can be more op

ended.

There are also some limitations or caveats in using focus groups to collect 

formation. These include the following:

• Because focus groups involve a small number of participants and gener

yield only qualitative, anecdotal data, the information obtained is not r

resentative and cannot be used to draw overall conclusions about the in

dence of gender problems in the circuit. For this reason, focus gro

should not be used as the sole means of data collection but as a supplem

that provides more detail about information obtained through ot

methods.

• Invitees may refuse to participate in focus groups or not be forthcoming 

the discussion if they fear repercussions in the workplace or in their p

fessional lives, or if they do not trust the moderator and other participan

• The extent of interaction between the moderator and participants provi

an opportunity for the moderator’s assumptions or biases to affect par

pant responses.

• It may be difficult to maintain confidentiality in situations where many 

the participants know or are familiar with each other.

• Analysis of information gathered in focus groups is complex.

Resources Required

Focus groups require, at a minimum, a moderator to lead the discussion, an 

sistant to the moderator, and a means of recording and transcribing the foc

group session.

The task force may find it helpful to obtain the services of a social scien

skilled in working with focus groups and in observing and analyzing small-gro

interactions. This person can help develop a moderator’s topical guide or pro

col, draft guidelines for conducting the groups, set up groups, and train mod

tors. He or she may also moderate some of the groups.

Moderators should be familiar with the issues being discussed and be abl

elicit group members’ participation. Ideally, each moderator will have an assis

who observes the session, takes notes, and tape-records the session, freeing 

moderator to concentrate on the discussion. Often, a social scientist will hav

pool of researchers from which to select assistants and will be willing to tr

them. Assistants can also be found among task-force volunteers, law stude

and graduate students from local colleges and universities.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Audiotaping focus-group sessions facilitates accurate and complete collect

of information. 19 If resources are unavailable for audiotaping, or if participa

object to audiotaping, detailed notes of the discussion must suffice.

Transcribing tapes is very time consuming; care must be taken to budget pr

erly for this process or to locate professional transcribers willing to volunteer 

service. The task force may be able to locate volunteers from the court or fr

the legal or business communities.

Guidelines for Focus Groups

This section provides more detailed information on how to use focus groups 

how to minimize some of the disadvantages. The list of references at the end 

this chapter provides suggestions for those who want to read more about us

focus groups.

Planning Focus-Group Sessions

Planning focus-group sessions involves choosing topics for each group to disc

selecting participants and composing groups; constructing the moderat

guides; selecting and training moderators and assistants; selecting and reserv

sites for the sessions; and making arrangements for audiotaping and other lo

tics.

Choosing Topics

The task force, perhaps in consultation with social-science advisors, can cho

topics for focus-group sessions in a variety of ways. The basic areas of inqu

chosen by the task force for study will provide general guidance. In addition, 

sponses to a questionnaire may highlight issues the task force will want to 

plore in greater depth, particularly if the questionnaire results are unexpected 

ambiguous. Issues identified at public hearings or in complaints made to jud

or supervisors can also be followed up in focus groups. Finally, the first few 

cus-group discussions might reveal issues that could be considered for inclus

in later focus-group discussions.

Forming Focus Groups

The number of groups convened by any given task force is determined by 

task force’s budget and objectives, the number of constituent groups the t

19. Focus-group sessions can be videotaped instead of audiotaped, but we do not recomm

this because the equipment is more intrusive, the audio quality of videotapes is often p

(defeating the goal of acquiring an accurate transcript of the discussion), and confidentiality is m

difficult to maintain.
36—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

force wishes to cover in its inquiry, and the geographical size of the circuit.20 

following are some general guidelines in making this determination:

• How homogeneous are the populations you wish to study?21 If they 

homogeneous, fewer focus groups may be needed.

• How unique is a particular population? The general rule is unless a part

lar category of person (e.g., employee or litigant) has singular characte

tics or is small in number (e.g., thirty or fewer members), one focus gro

will not yield enough information.

• Are there distinct groups among the persons who make up the court 

legal community, such as ethnic or racial groups? If so, it is a good ide

have enough focus groups to reflect these differences.

The objective is to form groups of individuals who are similar in some way 

who will also have experience relating to the topics the task force wants 

cussed. For example, if the task force is interested in a discussion of the effect

gender on bankruptcy practices, groups of bankruptcy attorneys might 

formed. If the task force wants to learn about perceptions of the courts’ sex

harassment policies, researchers might compose groups of nonmanagerial 

ployees. In addition, discussion may be enhanced if participants are placed 

groups with others who have similar ethnic, race, and gender characteristics 

discussion on moderators below). It is important not to include supervisors 

managers in a group with employees, or judges in groups with lawyers, as 

would most likely inhibit discussion on the part of one or both groups. Plac

them in separate groups promotes a fuller airing of issues.

The way participants are selected will affect the strength of conclusions the t

force can draw from the results of focus-group discussions. If participants are 

lected randomly from a population of interest (e.g., bankruptcy attorneys), 

results will be more generalizable than from groups composed of volunteers 

cruited at a bar meeting (see Chapter 11). This consideration may not be of 

mary importance, because focus groups are generally not the sole source 

data—they instead provide ideas about topics to study more rigorously or p

vide richer information about situations identified through other methods. H

ever, to the extent the task force will want to draw any general conclusions fr

focus-group results, the groups should be composed in an objective manner 

not “stacked” to yield particular results.

Whether selected randomly or having volunteered, prospective participants 

be contacted by mail or telephone and invited to participate in a specific fo

group. Telephone contact is preferable because it gives an opportunity for pot

20. The Ninth Circuit Task Force conducted 19 focus-group interviews with 139 people 

ticipating from 4 districts and 3 states (Ninth Circuit, The Effects of Gender, supra note 8, at B-

21. In making this assessment, the task force should be careful to consider whether its 

sumptions about homogeneity are warranted.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

tial participants to ask any questions they might have about the process or p

pose of the focus group.

Selecting and Training Moderators

The most important quality for a moderator is the ability to listen. Good mod

tors promote greater participation of employees and court users in focus-gro

interviews, provide greater assurance of confidentiality, and acquire better in

mation about the discussion topics. Although a social scientist working with 

task force might be available to moderate some of the sessions, a number 

moderators will likely be needed. The D.C. Circuit task force, for example, 

used volunteer attorneys as moderators, many of whom are with firms or orga

zations that are capable of recording or transcribing the discussion. The t

force should be careful to select moderators who will ask questions in a neu

way and not force their views on focus-group participants.

To lessen the possibility that participants will not speak candidly, moderat

should not be court employees or affiliated with the courts. The moderat

should, however, be familiar with the structure of the court system and the v

ous groups that interact with it. If the task force must use moderators with tie

the courts, select those least likely to inhibit a group’s discussion. For example

would not be advisable for an assistant U.S. Attorney to moderate a criminal 

fense group or for a court manager to moderate a group of court employees.

Research has shown that people are less likely to respond favorably in a 

search setting when they are uncomfortable with the gender, ethnicity, or rac

the researcher. Thus, try to select moderators who reflect, to the extent possi

the gender, racial, and ethnic composition of the participants. Pairing up mod

tors with participants having similar characteristics is likely to maximize part

pation and lend credibility to the task-force inquiry. The overall goal is to cre

an atmosphere of trust between the moderator and participants.

The moderators should be given written guidelines that describe the purpos

the focus group and how the sessions should be structured. These guidelines 

be developed in consultation with a social scientist working with the task fo

drawing on information in this chapter.

Drafting the Moderator’s Discussion Guides

Six to ten basic questions, along with follow-up questions, should be prepar

These questions typically are ranked in order of priority for discussion durin

session. The moderator can begin discussion of each topic with an open quest

(e.g., “Have you ever observed differences in how judges treat attorneys, app

ently because of the attorneys’ gender?”) and follow up with more specific qu

tions once the contours of the discussion have been established (e.g., “How w

the attorney treated differently? Were there verbal comments? Was there nonv
38—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

bal behavior?”). The goal is to encourage participants to tell their stories in th

own words.

In generating topic areas and questions for a discussion guide, it will be us

to speak with one or two people experienced in the subject being addressed 

the group. For example, researchers for the D.C. Circuit task force spoke w

several bankruptcy practitioners in developing a topic list for bankruptcy fo

groups.

Selecting Sites

Focus-group discussion sites should be convenient for participants; private

that the discussion will not be overheard by passersby; and quiet, to facilit

taping. Possible sites include local law schools, colleges, and universities; 

firm conference rooms; and conference rooms in local businesses. In gene

participants will be less forthcoming at a location, such as a courthouse, that t

associate with the issues being discussed or where they might fear being o

heard. If it is necessary to have the sessions at a courthouse, consider using j

rooms.

An appropriate location must be quiet and have adequate electrical outlets 

physical arrangements that accommodate the use of a tape recorder and mic

phone. There should also be a table around which participants can sit and ple

of space for them to sit comfortably.

Conducting Focus-Group Sessions

Beginning the Session

Usually the moderator will sit at one end of the table. To put participants at e

and give them an idea of what to expect, the moderator should begin by in

ducing himself or herself and his or her note-taking assistant and by explain

the “ground rules” of the group discussion. For example, participants should 

asked to speak one at a time and should be told they can direct their comme

to each other and to the moderator. The moderator can then explain the purp

of the audiotaping equipment (i.e., to make sure the discussion is recorded ac

rately) and assure participants that names will not be associated with any co

ments when the tapes are transcribed. Participants should also be asked to 

spect each other’s privacy by not sharing information from the discussion w

anyone outside the group. Similarly, we recommend that focus-group sessions 

closed to outside observers and task-force members, as their presence may 

hibit the group discussion.

Order of Discussion

As noted, the moderator begins the discussion with an open-ended quest

about the most important issue to be discussed by the focus group. After the 

cussion on this issue begins, the moderator can follow up with more spec
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

questions. Next, the moderator asks an open-ended question about the seco

topic, followed again by more specific questions. This general process contin

until all issues on the discussion guide have been covered. If the time allotted 

the session has been used up and not all issues have been covered, the modera

can either end the session or tell participants that there are a few more questi

and ask if they would be willing to stay longer.

Maintaining Confidentiality

It may be difficult to achieve anonymity or confidentiality in a court or le

community where people often know or are familiar with each other, and wh

group participants have been selected based on shared characteristics. Some p

sible approaches to dealing with this problem include the following:

• emphasizing to participants the importance of keeping focus-group d

cussions confidential;

• using a transcriber who is not affiliated with the court; and

• removing names and identifiers from final transcripts and reports.

All notes, tapes, and transcripts should be kept in a secure place and destroy

when the task-force inquiry is completed. In addition, the participants the

selves must reach an understanding that they will not reveal the contents of 

discussion.

Analyzing the Data

Focus groups yield information in two forms: transcripts of group sessions a

notes taken during sessions by the moderators and assistants. Those who w

analyze the information should begin as soon as the first few groups are co

pleted. This will keep them from being overwhelmed with information and 

allow for modification of the interview process if recurrent problems 

identified.

Begin by consolidating all of the information gathered from the focus-gro

discussions. These materials include the following:

• the moderator’s discussion guide(s);

• notes and summaries made of each session;

• transcripts of the audiotapes; and

• any other materials generated during the course of the data-collect

stage, including demographic information about participants.

The objective of the analysis is to identify themes and patterns in the respon

After reading the transcripts and other materials, the researchers can constru

classification scheme for the major topics relevant to the task-force inquiry. 

example, they may find that three major topics emerge from focus groups w

intake clerks: (1) sexual harassment by lawyers, (2) a desire for more flexi

working hours to accommodate day-care needs, and (3) a concern about safet

the courthouse. The group can code the information by identifying and mark
40—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

sections of the transcripts relevant to each of the major topics or categories. Al

the information relating to a particular category can then be placed together a

analyzed. One approach is to write for the task-force members a summary rep

of the materials relating to each category. This summary report can include 

interpretation of the data and supporting evidence in the form of representa

statements made during the discussions. The information obtained in fo

groups can also be compared with questionnaire results and other statist

analyses to see if the focus groups provide greater insight into phenomena und

lying these results.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

For Further Reference

Alfred E. Goldman & Susan S. McDonald, The Group Depth Interview: Pri

ples and Practice (1987).

Richard A. Krueger, Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Resea

(1988).

Robert K. Merton et al., The Focused Interview: A Manual of Problems and P

cedures (2d ed. 1990).

David L. Morgan, Focus Groups as Qualitative Research (1988).

David L. Morgan, ed., Successful Focus Groups (1993).

David W. Stewart & Prem Shamdasani, Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. 

Applied Social Research Methods Series (1990).

Chapter 7—Analysis of Existing Records

and Databases

The task force is likely to find that some of the questions it asks can be answe

through analysis of information that courts, government agencies, and other 

stitutions collect, either routinely or for special purposes. This chapter descri

two types of analyses task forces could undertake that rely on such informati

(1) analyses using original written records, and (2) analyses using exist

databases (which are usually computerized).

In the normal course of their work, courts, government agencies, and other 

stitutions generate and record in databases vast amounts of information. This 

formation usually provides public information and accountability and he

make internal administrative and other regulatory decisions. For example, 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) routinely collects informat

about civil, criminal, bankruptcy, and appellate cases that are filed in the fed

courts; the Bureau of Prisons maintains information about inmates’ experien

in prison (e.g., conduct violations, program participation, health problems, a

care received); and many U.S. Attorneys offices have computerized records t

contain information about patterns of prosecutorial decisions. Other governm

agencies collect information of general interest. For example, the Bureau of 

Census of the U.S. Department of Commerce collects and publishes basic sta

tics about the population and economy of the nation.

Such information may help a gender task force, even though little of the in

mation was amassed for the purpose of examining the role of gender within 

federal court system. For example, court data could be used to examine the r

tionship between gender and the selection, retention, and promotion of co

employees. Or the task force could use Census Bureau information, along w

information maintained by the courts, to compare the demographics of job-

plicant pools or jury pools with the demographics of the surrounding populat

In addition to databases, courts maintain records and files that may be relev

to a task-force inquiry—for example, case files, presentence reports, jury reco

transcripts of proceedings, or records of appointments to fee-generating p

tions.
44—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Advantages and Disadvantages of Analyses of Existing

Records and Databases

Advantages to using existing records and databases include the following:

• Analyses of existing computerized databases may be less expensive 

time consuming than collecting and transcribing information.

• Because of the size of many data sets, the task force may be able to perfo

more sophisticated data analyses and therefore answer more comp

questions.

• Analyses of records and databases can provide quantitative information 

complement information obtained through qualitative methods (e.g., fo

groups).

Analyses of existing records and databases also have some disadvantages:

• The source and purpose of maintaining the records or databases may af

the information’s accuracy. For example, a prospective juror completin

juror qualification form might provide some inaccurate information in 

hope of avoiding jury duty.

• Existing records or databases may not contain the precise information—

all the information—that the task force needs, requiring the task forc

make assumptions when drawing inferences from the data, or to use s

plemental information.

• Information in databases may not be organized in the form needed by 

task force.

• Databases may be outdated by the time they are made available to the t

force.

• Analyses based on existing records, such as case files, can be time consu

ing and costly compared with other types of research methods (e.g., in

views, surveys, focus groups, and studies based on existing databases).

Analyses of Records

The two types of studies (analyses using records and analyses using databas

differ in how a researcher must access the existing information. Analysis of or

nal written records requires the researcher to transcribe information from writ

documents. After extracting the information, the researcher must then put it i

a format for analysis. This often involves putting the information into a comp

erized database. Consulting with a social scientist from the outset will help 

task force understand the kinds of questions that can and cannot be answe

from the available records. After the task force has formulated the specific qu

tions it wants to ask, a study based on written records will entail several steps

1. Select a representative subset of records to examine (see Chapter 1

Often, collections of written records will be too voluminous to allow 
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

task force to examine each record in-depth. The social scientists work

with the task forces should be able to provide information about the v

ous strategies for selecting representative subsets of cases or other record

2. Devise a coding form to use in transcribing the information. The so

scientist(s) and those with knowledge of the substantive questions to 

answered and the possible relevant variables should work together in 

signing this form. The coding form indicates what information should 

extracted from the record and should be structured so that anyone tr

scribing the information to the coding form will record the same inform

tion. Before the form is finalized for use in the study, it should be pretes

with a small number of records to identify problems in its coverage and 

ganization. Appendix C provides an example of a coding form.

3. After designing and testing the coding form, transcribe the information 

interest from the written files onto the coding form, or train others to 

so. Often, researchers must make judgment calls about how to code p

ticular information. It is important that these judgment calls be made c

sistently across records and by the various coders who are transcribing 

information. Thus, provide coding instructions—some guidelines to fol

when transcribing the information. In addition, identify one person a

contact to answer questions and resolve inconsistencies found in transcr

ing the information.

4. If a great deal of data has been gathered, have the information ente

into a computerized database for analysis.

5. Finally, analyze the information and interpret the results.

It requires time and resources to select a sample for study, develop the cod

form and instructions, transcribe the information from the original records, en

the information into a computerized database, and then analyze the informati

On the other hand, this approach can provide quantitative information tha

likely to be more complete and specific to the task-force inquiry than that 

tained using other methods.

Analyses of Existing Computerized Databases

By comparison, using existing computerized databases can be relatively inexp

sive. Because the information is in a form directly accessible by computer, 

costs and time associated with conducting the study are substantially reduc

The following are basic steps and resources needed to conduct a study using 

isting computerized data:

1. Identify a source of relevant computerized data and assess the adequ

of the data for addressing the questions of interest. It is very importan

have a clear understanding at the outset of the kind of information m

tained in the database.
46—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

2. Make arrangements to obtain an electronic copy of the database 

portions thereof on magnetic tape or computer diskette, or make arran

ments with the custodian22 of the database to extract and provide summ

information. Which of these two approaches to take depends, in part, 

(a) whether the task force has access to the computer and the hum

resources needed to undertake the analyses; (b) whether the custodian 

the database is willing and able to provide the electronic database to 

task force; (c) the extent to which the custodian of the data is willing 

has the resources to undertake the analyses; and (d) whether the t

force’s information needs can be met with a one-time request or whet

follow-up analyses will be needed. If follow-up analyses will be needed, 

custodian of the data may prefer to provide an electronic copy of 

database to the task force rather than provide extracted summaries of 

desired information.

3. If an electronic copy of the data has been obtained, arrange for the co

puter and human resources needed to analyze it. Some relevant qu

tions are: How large is the database in terms of the number of record

length of individual records, and overall use of computer space? Is it 

large to process effectively on a personal computer, making access t

larger multiuser computer system necessary? Is the database in a form 

can easily be used by a relatively inexperienced person or will the serv

of someone with more advanced computer skills be needed? Social sci

tists or computer personnel working with the task force should be abl

provide direction regarding these issues.

Compared with information obtained from an analysis based on writ

records, the information obtained from computerized databases may be mu

more limited. For example, many court databases do not contain informat

about the gender of employees, jurors, or litigants. Further, the codes used i

database may not be sufficiently specific to answer the task force’s questions. I

likely that some of the more specific information could be obtained if the 

searcher examined the written files themselves.

In addition, it is important to remember that the information in a computer

database is only as accurate and complete as the information supplied to 

agency that maintains the database. Much of the information maintained by 

Administrative Office about civil cases, for example, is drawn from the civil co

sheet, which is completed by the plaintiff’s attorney at the time a case is fil

Most of the rest is supplied by clerical personnel in the courts. In addition to 

possibility of errors by the attorney or court personnel, many of the “nature 

suit” codes are very broad and do not permit refined analysis.

22. The custodian of the database is the person responsible for maintaining the database 

authorizing its release.

23. A record is a collection of information about an entity, such as an individual or a case.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Identifying Relevant Records and Databases

Chapter 12 describes various government agencies that may have informati

including databases, useful to a task force. Chapter 12 also gives the name 

agency contacts who can provide more information. The agencies’ published 

ports may contain the information a task force needs, thus eliminating the n

to request additional information. On the other hand, the agency may be able 

provide information that goes well beyond that summarized in published repo

The reports can help the task force determine the type of information an age

possesses and therefore what specialized requests for data are likely to pr

fruitful.

In identifying sources of relevant data, it is important not to overlook wha

being collected within the circuit—either routinely by the computerized dock

ing systems or on an ad hoc basis for special projects. Remember that when 

taining information from a court’s computerized docketing system, it is imp

tant to understand that particular court’s docketing practices. The standard v

sion of the Integrated Case Management System (ICMS) for civil docketing, 

example, has the capability to use certain codes to denote the occurrence of 

ticular case activities (e.g., the filing of a particular type of motion).24 In c

ducting research using the computerized docketing system, it is important to 

termine whether a court uses these codes when docketing case informati

Those working on these studies should meet with court systems and docket

staff to learn how the courts in the circuit use their systems.

Considerations When Using Existing Records and Database

Once a promising source of information has been located, the task force must 

sess how useful the information will be. Some relevant considerations include 

following:

1. Why and from whom was the information collected? How might 

source of and purpose for collecting the information affect its accuracy?

2. Does the database contain the precise information needed or will the t

force have to make some additional assumptions? Suppose, for exampl

task force is interested in the relationship between gender and hiring 

employees, and this task force has decided to rely on applicant data r

tinely collected and maintained by the court. These data do not incl

information about the gender of the applicants. They do, however, con

the names of the applicants. If the task force assumes that applicants w

feminine names are women and those with masculine names are m

some conclusions about the relationships between gender and hiring m

24. The ICMS is a set of computerized docketing products in use in many federal courts. ICM

described in more detail in Chapter 12.
48—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

be drawn, particularly if this information can be supplemented by infor

tion from other methods. However, there may be some problems class

ing unisex names (e.g., Pat, Lynn).

The assumptions a task force may make in linking names with gender 

quite straightforward compared with other assumptions the task force m

contemplate making when using existing data. For example, a task fo

may have access to no information about the prevalence of sexual hara

ment among court employees except for information contained in for

complaints that have been brought. The task force therefore may cons

assuming that the amount and type of sexual harassment that exists wit

the court are reflected in the number and type of formal complaints 

are brought. This, however, may not be a legitimate assumption, as co

plaints may over- or underreport the incidence of sexual harassment. F

thermore, a review of complaints will not indicate which were found to 

valid. Thus, the task force probably would want to supplement the inf

mation contained in the formal complaints with other information obtai

through surveys, interviews, or focus groups.

3. Is there a reason to believe that, since the data were collected, conditi

have changed in such a way as to limit the data’s applicability?

4. Does the database contain all pertinent information, or will suppleme

information from other sources be needed? Will it be useful or necessar

use information from multiple databases (e.g., data on criminal cases fr

both the Administrative Office and the Sentencing Commission)? Will 

gregated information from each database be sufficient, or will it be nec

sary to match records on a case-by-case basis? What information wil

used to match records? What constitutes a perfect match? What constitu

an acceptable, although perhaps imperfect, match? (For example, crimi

case records from multiple databases can be matched almost perfe

based on information regarding district, office, docket number, defend

number, filing date, and origin. The task force might consider matc

based on less information to be adequate.) Will the matching be done 

hand? By computer program?

5. Is the information in the database organized in the form needed by the t

force? If not, can the information in the database be reorganized into 

form needed by the task force?

6. Does the database include extraneous information? If so, the task force m

wish to investigate whether it is possible to obtain a subset of the datab

containing just the information of interest.

7. Has the nature of the information compiled under a given label chan

over time? For example, the Administrative Office routinely collects in

mation about petty offenses. A cursory examination of this informat

suggests that the frequency of petty offenses has gone down over time, 

in fact Congress has periodically changed the definition of a petty offen
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Thus, there may be no actual change in criminal activity per se, on

change in how it is classified.

8. Does the task force have the computer resources needed to analyze 

data? The social scientists working with the task force may have acces

the needed resources, or the resources may be available from within 

court. In addition, the agency supplying the data may be willing to und

take the analyses for the task force.

9. A final note of caution: All existing databases have their idiosyncrasies. 

therefore important to work closely with someone who knows the d

well before drawing any conclusions from the data.

Chapter 8—Mail Questionnaires

Most task forces will not be able to obtain all of the information they want fr

existing reports, records, and databases. For example, existing records are 

likely to include information about perceptions of the relationship between g

der and various aspects of the court’s operations. Conversely, although pu

hearings, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews can provide important in

mation about perceptions and personal experiences, these methods generally w

not yield reliable information about the frequency of different types of inte

tions or experiences. Therefore, without the more systematic data available fr

mail questionnaires, the task force’s conclusions will be of questionable relia

ity. Mail questionnaires to survey attorneys, court personnel, litigants, jur

judges, and others will often be necessary to supplement the information 

tained through other methods.

Response rates can be enhanced by using an easy-to-read questionnaire w

carefully worded questions and by sending follow-ups to remind recipients to 

turn the survey. The purpose of this chapter is to help task forces obtain accu

representative information through mail questionnaires. We suggest you r

through the whole chapter to get an idea of the range of issues to consider bef

focusing on particular aspects of questionnaire design and administration.

A questionnaire is the actual research instrument sent to participants; the w

survey refers to this method of data collection.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Mail Questionnaires

Mail questionnaires have many advantages, in addition to their ability to col

nonanecdotal information:

• They allow the task force to obtain information on a number of issue

direct relevance and from a large number of people.

• Responses can be obtained from a widely dispersed group of people, s

as attorneys or litigants throughout a circuit.

• Because mail questionnaires have been used by a number of gender t

forces, questions developed by others can be included so responses can 

compared with those obtained in other jurisdictions.

• Respondents have time to give thoughtful answers to questions.

• A mail questionnaire allows for more privacy than such methods as pu

hearings or focus groups, and therefore may lead to more candid 

sponses.
52—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

• Compared with telephone surveys or in-person interviews of a large nu

ber of people, mail questionnaires require minimal staff and facilities 

administer.

Of course, mail questionnaires have some disadvantages that limit their use

ness in certain situations:

• They do not allow for probing or full exploration of the complexities o

subject, as can be done with focus groups or unstructured interviews.

• Because the written question is the only stimulus a respondent has, qu

tions must be written with expertise and great care.

• Mail questionnaires are impersonal and may look difficult to fill out, eve

they are not—this can produce a low response rate, which will underm

the credibility of the questionnaire results.

None of these disadvantages is insurmountable. Most can be addressed 

keeping the questionnaire relatively brief (e.g., by not seeking information av

able through other methods) and by framing the questions so as to reduce am

guity, encourage accurate responses, and reduce respondent frustration.

Resources

One or more social scientists with expertise in survey sampling and questionn

design should assist the task force in selecting the groups of individuals to 

surveyed, designing the overall questionnaire, constructing questio

administering the questionnaire, and analyzing responses. Because most so

scientists do not have extensive knowledge of federal courts and law, they sho

work with task-force members with such knowledge to determine 

appropriate respondents and the substance of the questionnaire.

Other required resources include the following:

• access to sources of respondent names and addresses, as well as resour

for assembling this information into a useful database;

• staff to address and stuff envelopes;

• postage for mailing the questionnaire and self-addressed return envelop

• assistance with creating databases for entry and tracking of the questi

naire responses;

• staff to code questionnaire responses prior to data entry;

• data-entry capabilities for entering the results into the database; and

• statistical expertise for analysis and interpretation of the results.

The following guidelines provide detailed information about designing 

administering a mailed questionnaire. Some steps, such as using printed qu

tionnaires or postcards (for follow-ups), may require considerable lead time.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Guidelines for Mail Questionnaires

Conducting a survey using a mail questionnaire involves several steps: (1) des

ing the survey sample and the questionnaire; (2) administering the questionna

(3) preparing the data; and (4) analyzing the data. This section provides gen

guidelines for carrying out each of these steps.

Designing the Survey

Planning a mail questionnaire involves three tasks at the outset: (1) select

those who are to receive the questionnaire; (2) designing the questionnaire 

cover letter; and (3) creating databases for tracking questionnaires as they 

sent out and returned and for entering questionnaire responses. Most surveys 

quire a fourth task as well—pretesting the questionnaire and the database.

Selecting the Questionnaire Recipients

The survey’s recipients will largely be determined by the specific questions 

task force wants answered. After the task force has identified the group or gro

it wants to survey, the next step is to assemble a comprehensive list of all me

bers of that population, referred to as a sampling frame. For example, the U

Court Directory can provide a listing of almost all current federal judges withi

circuit.

For other groups, such as attorneys who practice in the circuit, generatin

sampling frame may not be as simple. For example, suppose the task fo

wanted to survey attorneys in the circuit about their experiences in federal co

One approach would be to obtain a list of all members of the federal bar in 

relevant jurisdictions, but that could include many attorneys who do not h

experience relevant to the task force’s inquiries (e.g., federal bar members w

do transactional work or practice primarily in state court). Another appro

would be to create a list from the court’s docketing system of the names and 

dresses of attorneys in recent cases in federal courts in the circuit. Although 

approach assures that the attorneys selected have at least some connection w

federal court, it will not capture those attorneys who worked on a case but 

not have their names recorded on the docket. These limitations on various w

of selecting the population must be weighed carefully by the task force, as 

generalizability of survey results will depend largely on how the sampling fra

is selected.

If sufficient resources are available, it may be best to be over-inclusive in cr

ing the sampling frame—i.e., include in the sampling frame respondents w

potentially do not have experience relevant to the task-force inquiry, and as

screening question at the beginning of the questionnaire to determine if the p

son receiving the questionnaire has relevant information and experience. If t
54—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

do not, they need not complete the rest of the questionnaire—but they sho

return it nonetheless so the task force can calculate an accurate response rate.

Population or Sample?

If the population (i.e., all members of the group you are interested in surv

ing) is quite small (e.g., clerks of court or magistrate judges in a circuit), the t

force may need to survey the population to obtain reliable results. With la

populations, the task force may wish to survey a sample or subset of the pop

tion, rather than the full population. A sample should be selected in such a w

that it is representative of the population of interest. This is usually done throu

random sampling (see Chapter 11). The task force’s social-science advisor, or 

expert in survey sampling working with the social scientist, can help the t

force determine the number of respondents needed for purposes of statist

analysis and how to select a representative sample of respondents. Where ther

particular interest in a population subgroup that constitutes a minority—such 

women of color—a social scientist can help design an approach that will yiel

sufficient number of such respondents for analysis. These more complicated 

signs require the advice of a survey-sampling statistician or a social scientist w

survey-sampling expertise.

Designing the Questionnaire

The process of designing the questionnaire involves several stages, includ

constructing the questions, the format of the questionnaire, and the cover le

that will accompany the questionnaire. In this section, we discuss practices t

will help maximize response rate and enhance the accuracy of the responses.

Constructing the Questions

In Appendix C, we provide sample survey questions covering several differ

subject areas. In addition, federal and state gender task forces that have alre

developed mail questionnaires may be willing to share their questionnaires 

identify any questions they found to be poorly constructed. 25 Each task forc

likely to want to obtain some information that is not addressed in the sam

questions or to modify the sample questions to meet its particular interests—

25. See, e.g., Christine L. Carr, Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force Report: The Survey 

struments and the Compilation and Analysis of the Margin Comment Responses (June 1993). 

is a working paper for the Ninth Circuit task force that provides analyses of the margin comm

prompted by different questions in the Ninth Circuit questionnaires and discusses which quest

were found to be worded poorly. This paper also includes copies of the Ninth Circuit’s quest

naires, which other task forces are welcome to draw from. For a copy of the working paper, con

Mark Mendenhall, Assistant Circuit Executive, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, P.O. 

193846, San Francisco, CA 94119-3846.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

therefore provide general guidelines here for constructing questions that are 

derstandable and will yield interpretable responses.

1. Questions may be closed or open-ended. A closed question lists a se

options—or response categories—and invites the respondent to select 

or more of these options. This format is preferable if appropriate respo

categories can be designed. An open-ended question is followed by a sp

where the respondent is asked to write an answer in his or her own wo

This type of question is more burdensome for the respondent and m

difficult for the researchers to analyze but has yielded useful informa

for previous task forces. Because much of the work of a gender task fo

will be exploratory, and you may not yet know enough about the issue

generate appropriate response categories, you are likely to want to hav

least some open-ended questions on your questionnaire. Consider putt

open-ended questions at the end of each topic section so respondents 

share any additional thoughts they have about the topic. Providing resp

dents with this opportunity should also discourage them from scribb

comments in the margins of the questionnaire. Such unsolicited comme

can be very difficult to analyze even if they appear to contain relevant 

formation.

2. Each response category for a closed question should have a code. For 

ample, a set of response categories might be numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4, a

the examples in paragraph 3. Numbers or letters should be used, ne

simply a line or a box, as lines or boxes cannot be tallied or entered i

the computer. If you use lines or boxes alone, you will either have to ap

numeric codes to the responses when the questionnaires are returned

you will have to depend on those who enter the data into the database 

translate the responses into numbers. The first takes a lot of time, the s

ond invites error.

3. Unless the respondent is being asked to check a response on a scale, list 

sponse categories vertically rather than horizontally. Respondents are lik

to mark the wrong choice when categories are presented horizontally

shown below.

Poor:

[ ] 1 Very frequent [ ] 2 Somewhat frequent [ ] 3 Somewhat infrequent [ ] 4 Very infreq

A vertical list, like the one below, will increase accuracy and also lea

more white space on the page, which enhances the overall appearance 

the questionnaire.

Better: [ ] 1 Very frequent

[ ] 2 Somewhat frequent

[ ] 3 Somewhat infrequent

[ ] 4 Very infrequent
56—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

4. Make sure the response categories are balanced. The first example below 

not balanced and is likely to produce—misleadingly—a higher agreem

rate than the second example.

Unbalanced: Balanced:

[ ] 1 Very much agree [ ] 1 Very much agree

[ ] 2 Somewhat agree [ ] 2 Somewhat agree

[ ] 3 Disagree [ ] 3 Somewhat disagree

[ ] 4 Very much disagree

5. Make sure the response categories are mutually exclusive. For example, 

set of response categories “1–2 years,” “2–3 years,” and “3–4 years” is n

mutually exclusive set. A respondent who wants to answer “2 years” 

not know which category to check.

6. To the extent possible, use consistent response codes throughout the qu

tionnaire. If “yes” is represented by “1” and “no” by “2,” try to retain 

meaning throughout the questionnaire.

7. Make questions as specific as possible. For example, avoid general qu

tions such as the example given below. Responses to such a question 

be impossible to analyze because some respondents will not underst

what is meant by “gender bias,” or respondents might assume differ

definitions of the phrase.

Poor: Have you ever experienced gender bias in the courts of this circui

[ ] 1 Yes

[ ] 2 No

This question can be broken down into a series of more specific qu

tions focusing on particular time periods and particular behaviors. 

combination of all respondents’ answers to these questions will give an 

curate picture of the incidence of various situations if a representat

sample has been chosen.

Better: In the past year, has any federal judge before whom you had a c

commented on your physical appearance in an on-the-record proceed

in federal court?

[ ] 1 Yes, more than one judge did this.

[ ] 2 Yes, one judge did this.

[ ] 3 No.

8. Response categories should be ordered so that the response you exp

does not appear first on the list. This will help ensure that responde

read through all of the responses before selecting their answers. That i

you hypothesize that most attorneys have not received comments fr

judges about their physical appearance, your response categories sho

start with the disconfirming choice (that this has occurred with more t
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

one judge) and end with the choice you expect to be most frequent (

this has not occurred).

9. Don’t ask double-barreled questions. For example, respondents who h

had sexually suggestive comments made to them but have not been s

jected to unwanted touching will not be able to answer the following qu

tion:

Poor: In the past year, has a court employee made unwelcome comme

about your physical appearance and subjected you to unwanted touchin

[ ] 1 Yes

[ ] 2 No

You should, instead, write two questions, one asking about comments, 

other about unwanted touching:

Better: In the past year, has a court employee made unwelcome comme

about your physical appearance?

[ ] 1 Yes

[ ] 2 No

In the past year, has a court employee subjected you to unwanted tou

ing?

[ ] 1 Yes

[ ] 2 No

10. Consider for each question whether you should provide a “no opinio

“don’t know,” or “no experience” option. Some respondents may h

given little thought to an issue or may have too little experience to answ

question. They should be given a response choice that lets them ans

correctly.

11. Avoid a long series of questions with the same response categories or sa

format (e.g., a long set of satisfied/dissatisfied or approve/disappr

statements). Such repetition can bore the respondent and result in 

sponse bias and error.26

12. As a check on response bias, consider including toward the end of 

questionnaire a question similar to an earlier one but framed differentl

this will help determine whether respondents are consistent.

13. Avoid agree/disagree statements. Respondents have a tendency to ag

with these statements regardless of their substantive content, especiall

the questionnaire consists of a long series of such questions. Instead, 

forced-choice questions, which make respondents think more carefu

about their choices.

26. Response bias occurs when respondents are led to select a particular response for rea

other than the substance of the response—for example, by its position in a list of responses.
58—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Poor: A judge should intervene when an attorney comments on anot

attorney’s physical appearance in open court.

[ ] 1 Strongly agree

[ ] 2 Somewhat agree

[ ] 3 Somewhat disagree

[ ] 4 Strongly disagree

[ ] 5 No opinion

Better: Do you believe a judge should intervene when an attorney co

ments on another attorney’s physical appearance in open court, or sho

the judge refrain from intervening?

[ ] 1 A judge should always intervene in these situations.

[ ] 2 A judge should intervene only if the comment could have an e

on the proceedings.

[ ] 3 A judge should never intervene in these situations.

[ ] 4 No opinion.

14. If you need to use an open-ended question, make it as pointed as possi

so all respondents are focusing on the same issue. The first example be

will prompt less useful responses than the second one.

Poor: Please comment on the court’s leave policies for employees.

Better: Please describe any ways in which the court’s leave policies for e

ployees unfairly favor some employees over others.

15. Examine each question carefully. For example, words that carry emotio

weight may prompt respondents to answer more negatively or positiv

than would a more neutral word. In the context of a gender study, a lis

words likely to influence respondents would include “gender bi

“discrimination,” and “sexist.” Seek substitutes for these words. For exa

ple, instead of asking about “sexist remarks,” ask about specific types 

behaviors, such as addressing a female attorney as “young lady” while 

dressing a male attorney as “counselor.”

16. Use words with clear, everyday meanings. Avoid sophisticated words w

simple words will do.

17. When you must emphasize a word or phrase, use indicators of empha

such as italics or bold type, sparingly.

18. If instructions for selecting response categories are necessary (e.g., “ch

one” or “check all that apply”), insert them in each question rather t

giving a general instruction at the top of the questionnaire. Rarely do

single instruction apply to all questions. Unless there is absolutely no a

biguity about how a response is to be chosen, include instructions for e

question.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Designing the Questionnaire Format

Once the task force has an idea of the questions it wants to ask on its questi

naire, it will have to determine how best to present those questions in an att

tive and logical format. Here are general guidelines for formatting the questi

naire:

1. The questionnaire should have a logic to it and should not skip arou

from subject to subject. Group together all questions on one subject 

use topic headings to set off each subject.

2. Guide the respondent through the questionnaire. Use sentences to int

duce shifts in topic or to explain complex response categories (e.g., “

next set of questions asks about your experiences with applying for p

motions.”).

3. If you think some of those who receive the questionnaire may not be 

correct recipients (e.g., the questionnaire was sent to the attorney listed 

the docket sheet for a case but a different attorney might have attended 

pretrial events being asked about), begin with a question that screens 

inappropriate respondents. In the example just cited, ask the recipien

write the correct name and address in a space provided on the questi

naire and to return the questionnaire so you can send it to the correct 

torney.

4. Other than the screener question, always start with a question that is in

esting, easy to answer, clearly related to the subject matter of the inqu

and applies to all respondents. Such a question will pull respondents i

the questionnaire, while its opposite is likely to repel them.

5. Place sensitive or demanding questions near the end, where they will 

encountered after the respondent has made an investment in the questi

naire. Demographic questions (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, areas of l

practice) should come last.

6. The final item should provide respondents an opportunity to commen

for example, “If you have anything you would like to add regarding th

issues, please use the space below” (or the reverse side, etc.).

7. The questionnaire should be visually friendly and easy. It should be o

in appearance, with plenty of white space. You should minimize the us

boxes and vertical or horizontal lines, which make a questionnaire c

tered and forbidding.

8. Number every question to reduce the chance that respondents will a

dentally skip a question.

9. Try not to place questions calling for written comments at the bottom 

page. In this position, they are easily overlooked by respondents and 

data-entry staff.
60—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

10. When the text of a question takes more than one line, indent the additio

lines so the question number stands out. This will reduce the numbe

questions missed by respondents.

11. The text of a question should not break between pages. Nor should 

sponse categories run from one page to the next. Both make it considera

more difficult for the respondent to choose the right answer and for 

data-entry staff to enter the data accurately.

12. If possible, produce the questionnaire in booklet format rather than 

pling sheets together at the corner. Consider using a graphic on the bo

let. Subsequent use of the graphic in follow-up mailings will incre

recognition and response rate.

13. The questionnaire title and page number should appear on each page. P

numbers are especially important if respondents are directed to go to s

cific pages.

14. A long questionnaire is forbidding, but, if the topic is important to the 

spondents, response rate generally is not affected until a questionn

reaches eleven or twelve pages. In any case, it is always wise to make 

questionnaire as short as possible and to ask only questions that are ess

tial to your project. If you can obtain some types of information from ot

sources, leave those subject areas out of the questionnaire. For example

the task force has a subcommittee that will be sending a questionn

about gender in bankruptcy proceedings, you should not include s

questions on a general attorney questionnaire.

15. End the questionnaire with a thank you, and give the following inform

tion: the name and address of the person to whom it should be return

the deadline for response; and the name and phone number to call if th

are questions. You may also, if appropriate, provide an opportunity, s

as a box to check, by which respondents can let you know if they wo

like to see a summary of the survey results.

Constructing the Cover Letter

1. The cover letter is an essential part of your questionnaire. It should con

several pieces of information, all in a single page if possible. Listed be

are the critical elements of a cover letter, presented in the order in wh

they should appear in the letter:

• Begin by briefly telling recipients who is sponsoring the study, w

the study is about, and why it is important that they take time 

complete the questionnaire. State how the results of the study m

affect respondents personally (e.g., respondents to a court emplo

questionnaire can be told the results may inform courts’ poli

about changing employment policies).
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

• Tell the recipients why it is important that they complete the qu

tionnaire. For example, you might note that only a small sampl

being surveyed and thus each response is essential in order to h

confidence in the representativeness of the findings.

• Make a promise of anonymity, but only if anonymity will be kep

an ID code is used on the questionnaire, the letter should explain 

purpose of the code (i.e., that it is for follow-up purposes only). 

meaning of anonymity and the use of ID codes are discussed be

in the section, Administering the Questionnaire.

• Finally, tell the respondents whom to contact if questions arise 

when to return the completed questionnaire.

2. Decide whether the cover letter will be a personal letter or a form let

Letters addressed to a particular person and individually signed produ

better response rate, but they require more preparation time. Also, if p

sonal letters have to be matched with coded questionnaires, use of perso

letters may make the mailing procedure more complicated.

3. Consider carefully whose signature should be at the bottom of the co

letter, keeping in mind that it can be signed by more than one person. 

ing the signature of someone whom the recipients view with respect 

likely increase the response rate. For example, a general survey of dist

court attorneys can be introduced by a cover letter signed by the cou

chief judge, while a specialized survey of CJA panel attorneys might 

signed by a respected member of the criminal defense bar.

Creating Databases to Enter Responses and Track Questionnaires

Mail questionnaires are generally used to obtain quantitative data from a la

number of respondents. Because of the large amount of information generat

the questionnaire responses will be most efficiently handled and analyzed if t

can be entered into a computer. In addition, use of a database to “track” qu

tionnaires will make it easy to determine who has returned the questionna

who should be sent a reminder, and the overall response rate. Thus, early in 

process of designing a questionnaire project, the task force should consult w

someone who has (1) the computer skills to create a format for entering the d

and (2) some familiarity with the computer capabilities available to the task fo

This person can help the task force determine whether it has adequate data-en

and computer-analysis capabilities, or if it might prefer to have data entry p

formed by an outside data-entry service.

To keep track of the questionnaires as they are mailed out and returned, cr

a tracking database—either on the computer or on paper—to contain at least 

following information for each questionnaire sent:

• code number for questionnaire;

• name of person to whom questionnaire is sent;
62—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

• address of person to whom questionnaire is sent;

• date questionnaire was mailed to respondent;

• date first follow-up was mailed;

• date completed questionnaire or “other response” (see next item) was 

ceived (an entry in this field or column will alert you not to send a seco

follow-up);

• description of any other response received (e.g., a phone call saying the 

spondent is unable to complete the questionnaire);

• date second follow-up was mailed (if applicable); and

• date on which data from questionnaire were entered into computeri

database.

Administering the Questionnaire

Administering a mail questionnaire involves several steps, including track

questionnaires as they are mailed out and returned. The guidelines below w

improve the response rate and the accuracy of the questionnaire data obtained

1. Pretest your questionnaire on a small group of individuals who are sim

to those who will receive the questionnaire. That is, if the questionnair

being sent to attorneys, pretest it on some attorneys who are similar to 

group who will receive the final survey. This will help you identify pr

lematic questions and permit you to revise the questionnaire before us

it. 27 You should give the pretest participants the same instructions y

would give actual participants. In addition, you should tell them that t

are participating in a pretest and request their critical analysis of the qu

tionnaire. You may want to be more specific, asking them to comment 

such things as the wording and order of questions, the completeness or 

dundancy of the questionnaire, the adequacy of response categories, 

the clarity of instructions. You should also analyze responses to as

whether any questions were apparently not understood or were otherw

problematic.

2. Decide at the outset whether you will promise your responde

anonymity. Absolute confidentiality is usually not possible if you intend 

use quotations from your respondents. You can only promise that no at

bution will be made and that the study results will be reported in suc

way that no individual respondent can be identified. Do not promise c

fidentiality or anonymity if you cannot keep the promise. Once the data 

entered into a computer, the task force may wish to destroy the orig

questionnaires to further protect respondents.

27. If the task force is using questions from a questionnaire already used by another task f

and can get information about experiences with those questions, less pretesting may be necessa
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

3. If you plan follow-up mailings, you need to keep track of who has retur

a questionnaire. If you have promised anonymity, it is best not to ask f

name on the questionnaire. Consider using a small box, placed at the e

of the questionnaire, in which you can print or write a unique numeric 

code for each person in the sample. The tracking database, descri

above, will enable you to mark off each number as the questionnaires 

returned, which will permit you to send follow-ups only to those who h

not responded. As noted above, if you promise anonymity, explain in 

cover letter what the ID code is and how it will be used.

4. If you use personalized cover letters and questionnaires with ID code

names on them, take care that these correspond with each other and w

the mail-out envelope. If the ID code on the questionnaire does not ma

the name on the envelope, you may end up sending follow-up remind

to those who already returned questionnaires while failing to send 

minders to those who didn’t—either of which undermines the reliab

and perceived credibility of your study.

5. Give recipients no more than three weeks to respond to the initial mail

the questionnaire will be forgotten if you give too much time. Avoid se

ing questionnaires near holidays or times when many of your recipients 

likely to be on vacation. Include a metered, self-addressed return envel

in the mailing.

6. Follow-up mailings significantly increase the response rate. You should 

at least two follow-ups, the first a simple reminder, the second anot

copy of the questionnaire.

• Time the first follow-up reminder to arrive about the time the qu

tionnaire is due to be returned. We suggest using a postcard for 

follow-up. It can be sent to everyone, saying simply, “Two weeks 

we sent you a questionnaire about the role of gender in the fed

courts. If you have already returned the questionnaire, thank 

very much. If you have not, we hope you will respond soon.” If 

used a graphic on the questionnaire, consider reproducing it on 

postcard to spark respondents’ memories of receiving the questi

naire. If you need to have the postcards professionally printed, 

will need some lead time.

• The second follow-up should include a new cover letter, a sec

copy of the questionnaire, and another return envelope. It should 

mailed about two weeks after the postcard and mailed only to th

who have not yet responded.

7. If the questionnaire asks attorneys or litigants for their views about a 

ticular court, have them return the questionnaire to an office or person 

affiliated with the court (e.g., a social scientist or law professor work

with the task force). Attorneys and litigants will be less likely to return 
64—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

questionnaire if they think their responses might be seen by member

the court.

8. If you survey court staff, try not to send questionnaires to them thro

supervisors. This diminishes staff members’ perceptions of the importa

of their responses and makes it difficult for you to know who has recei

the questionnaire and, thus, what type of response rate you are getting

you must send the questionnaire through supervisors, do not have 

questionnaires returned through the supervisors. The responses to y

questions are likely to be more candid if staff can return the questionna

directly to an outside entity, such as a task-force advisor.

9. Do not distribute the questionnaire by inserting it in a local legal publ

tion or a court-employee newsletter. Although this might seem to b

simpler and less expensive approach than individual mailings, a task fo

using this approach has no way of determining the response rate to 

questionnaire or the representativeness of those responding. In additi

this approach encourages special interest groups to mount campaign

get people who represent the groups’ interests to fill out the questionnai

These shortcomings will severely undermine the reliability of the survey 

sults.

10. If the response rate to the questionnaire is low despite the best effort

the task force, the representativeness of the results will be subject to ch

lenge because there is a possibility that those who responded do not refl

the overall population (see Chapter 11). If possible, we advise intensive 

low up with some of the nonrespondents to encourage them to respond

their responses can be compared with the responses of those who retur

their questionnaires initially. If the responses are similar, the task force 

be more confident that the results obtained are representative of the po

lation surveyed. If they are not similar, the task force will not be able m

generalizations from the responses received to the overall population.

Preparing the Data for Analysis

Coding the Data

Some of the responses will need to be interpreted and coded. For examp

handwritten responses may be difficult to decipher, or a respondent may fai

answer a question. In addition, you may find that responses to an open-end

question fall into patterns, and you will want to assign numerical codes to the 

sponses for ease of data entry and analysis. We suggest someone familiar with 

issues and language (if there are written comments) of your study go throu

each questionnaire before data entry and make the necessary clarifications. 

cause there should be uniformity in decisions and coding regarding the pr

lematic responses, we suggest you limit this task to a small number of people.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Who does the coding depends in part on the complexity of the questionna

but this person should catch—and correct, if possible—response errors. As 

coder goes through each questionnaire, he or she should code unclear respon

with an agreed on code (e.g., 888 for an illegible response, 999 for no respon

This step should be carried out before—and separate from—the data-entry p

cess to ensure greater accuracy for both tasks and greater efficiency during 

data-entry stage.

Entering the Data and Resolving Data-Entry Errors

After coding, information from the questionnaires is entered into a computeri

data set. To ensure that the data set is accurate, the information entered sho

be verified before analyses are conducted. One way to do this is by “double k

ing” the data; that is, one person enters the data into one data file, and a differ

person enters the data into a second data file.

Depending on the nature of your data, the data-verification method may v

For example, double keying cannot effectively or efficiently be performed 

numerous or extensive text entries (e.g., comments by survey responden

These text entries are generally entered only once and then visually proofed 

content and errors. Have someone familiar with the language of the project 

form this check.

Whatever method is used, the result of comparing the two data sets is a pr

out that identifies the differences between them. Someone must then consult 

original questionnaires to determine the correct responses. Once all of the ne

sary corrections have been made, compare the data sets again and review a pr

out of the differences to make sure all of the expected changes have been m

and that no new errors were introduced.

Other reconciliation techniques also are possible, such as visually compar

the original questionnaires with a printout of information entered in a databas

but visual comparison is very difficult for long or numerous surveys. Some d

entry utilities allow the data verifier (i.e., the second data-entry person) to id

tify and correct discrepancies immediately during the second input of the d

This is a much more efficient approach, but it requires a more sophisticated d

entry program. It also requires that the data verifier be capable of and authori

to decide which response is correct.

Using Outside Data-Entry Services

If resources are available, the task force may choose to use a professional data-

try service for entry and verification of questionnaire data. Data entry is a v

time-consuming process and can quickly deplete the time of volunteers. Bef

questionnaires are sent to an outside service, the researchers should review 

sponses for coding and resolution of problems, such as hard-to-read narrative 

sponses.
66—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Analyzing the Data

The social scientist who assists the task force in designing and administering 

questionnaire may have the necessary computer and statistical-analysis skills 

perform the analysis of questionnaire responses. Responses to closed questi

are often analyzed in terms of simple “frequencies” (e.g., a breakdown of 

number and percentage of respondents selecting each response to a question) 

“cross-tabs” (e.g., a breakdown by gender of the responses to each questio

These analyses can be performed using relatively simple statistical-analysis s

ware. Researchers or committee members can then review the results and disc

possible explanations for, or implications of, various response patterns. Infor

tion from the questionnaires can also be compared with information gathered 

ing other methods to determine areas of consistency and inconsistency.

Narrative responses are analyzed qualitatively, unless they have been assig

numerical codes during the review and coding process. In general, response

open-ended questions are entered verbatim and then grouped according to 

subjects they address. Researchers can then review at one time all comments 

lating to a particular topic, making it easier to discern patterns or consisten

across responses. Responses should also be cross-referenced to other related t

ics.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

For Further Reference

Jean Converse & Stanley Presser, Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standa

ized Questionnaire (1986).

Don Dillman, Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method (1978).

Chapter 9—Interviews

Task forces have used one-on-one interviewing to achieve more in-depth exa

nation of topics than provided by other commonly used methods, such as qu

tionnaires or even focus groups. For example, while a respondent might indic

in a questionnaire that he or she has observed judges addressing female lawy

less formally than male lawyers, an interview allows a person to describe in de

the specific interactions observed, the context in which they occurred, and 

person’s reactions to the behavior. In addition, because only the interviewe

present with the respondent, it is easier to assure confidentiality of respon

than with a focus group, and respondents may be more forthcoming about se

tive issues.

Interviews can be unstructured, with open-ended questions and dialogue 

tween the interviewer and interviewee; structured, where the interviewer ask

predetermined set of specific questions and provides little or no feedback

semistructured, including a combination of structured and unstructured qu

tions. Unstructured interviews yield qualitative information, while structured 

terviews usually result in both quantitative and qualitative responses.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Interviews

Interviews have several advantages:

• They can be used to obtain information from small groups of people (e

chief judges within a circuit) at a lower cost than designing and adminis

ing a questionnaire.

• They give people an opportunity to provide more in-depth information.

• They allow for precise information gathering about situations that do 

occur routinely and therefore are difficult to observe.

• Respondents may be more forthcoming about sensitive issues in a one-

one interview than they would be in a focus group with their peers.

• The interviewer can clarify questions that the respondent finds ambigu

or confusing.

• Interviews can be used to collect information from those unable to expr

themselves in writing or from groups who tend not to respond to wri

questionnaires.

The main disadvantage of interviews is that they take a good deal of time 

each respondent and therefore can usually be conducted with only a limi

number of people. This limits the generalizability of the findings, unless the 

terviews are conducted with members of a very small population (e.g., fem

appellate judges in a circuit). For these reasons, the task force should consi
70—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

limiting the use of interviews to those situations in which (1) detailed inform

tion from a particular group cannot be obtained through other methods, or 

the population of interest is small enough that individual interviews can 

conducted with most or all members.

Resources Required

A social scientist skilled in interviewing can assist the task force in develop

interview protocols and can give guidance on selecting respondents. Depend

on the number of interviews scheduled, the task force may need several indiv

uals who can conduct the interviews. If the task force plans for the interview

to tape-record the interviews, it should provide a tape recorder and tapes. Ide

the task force will have access to a skilled transcriber to transcribe these tapes

typist, stationery, and postage will be needed if potential respondents are c

tacted by mail.

Guidelines for Interviewing

The following guidelines offer some suggestions on how to plan and carry 

individual interviews.

Planning the Interviews

Selecting Respondents

There are several approaches to selecting respondents for interviews, depend

on how the task force wants to be able to use the information obtained. For 

ample, the task force may decide to interview some of the following groups:

• a few people from each category of judge, employee, or court u

(including attorneys and litigants), to get a sampling (not necessarily rep

sentative) of views;

• all members of a particular category (e.g., all female judges), to capture 

full range of their views and experiences; or

• individuals who make or influence policy within the circuit (e.g., c

judges, leading attorneys), to determine how policy is made.

When the categories are large, we suggest interviewing at least twenty indiv

uals in each category. Because of the small numbers of people who typically w

be interviewed, statistical description may not be a realistic goal; when statist

description is a goal, the task force should select respondents randomly or 

tempt to interview all members of a group. When small numbers of people 

interviewed in any given category, thematic analysis across categories is more 

propriate than statistical analysis.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Choosing Interview Topics

Useful sources for topic ideas include questionnaire results, testimony at pu

hearings, complaints to the chief judge, and findings from observational stud

If possible, it is best to avoid extremely sensitive or embarrassing topics that 

respondent may be reluctant to discuss. Such topics are best addressed in a w

ten questionnaire, where the respondent can have privacy when answering.

Constructing the Interview Protocol

To ensure consistency in data collection across interviews, a standardized in

view protocol should be used. This protocol will set forth the questions and 

low-up questions to be asked in each interview. Keep the following points 

mind when drafting an interview protocol:

• During the first several minutes of the interview, the interviewer wil

establishing a rapport with the respondent. Thus, the first few questi

should be easy to answer and should not make the respondent uncomfo

able or embarrassed.

• Questions should be organized logically, and transitions should be p

vided for the interviewer to move from one topic to another.

• If the interview will be a structured interview, the protocol will look v

similar to a written questionnaire, with a list of response options for the 

terviewer to read to the respondent after asking the question. For a 

structured interview, questions will be more open-ended, and the in

viewer will have flexibility to explore responses in greater depth. W

using this type of protocol, leave space after each question for the in

viewer to take notes on narrative responses.

• If you want to be able to perform quantitative analyses (e.g., counting 

frequency of different responses to a question), the questions should no

open-ended. Otherwise, respondents may interpret and answer the qu

tion in very different ways, and you will not be able to analyze across 

sponses.

• If certain questions should be skipped depending on the response t

previous question, give instructions about this on the interview proto

For example, after a particular question the protocol might s

“Interviewer: If answer is NO, GO TO Question 15.” The instructi

to interviewers should be in a different style (e.g., bold or italics) than 

questions.

• If you think some respondents might not understand a question, i

helpful to provide alternative wording so the interviewer does not hav

improvise.

• Keep the questions simple, as it is difficult for a respondent to consi

multiple parts of a spoken question.
72—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

• Make sure the questions are phrased in a neutral way—that is, they sho

not suggest what response is considered “appropriate.”

Pretest the interview protocol with members of the group to whom it wil

administered or others who are similarly situated. After going through the in

view protocol, ask the pretest respondents for feedback, including comments 

whether they understood the questions, whether they found the questions thr

ening or embarrassing, and whether the order of questions seemed logical. T

person conducting the interview should also make notes on problems enco

tered (e.g., interviewer instructions that were not clear).

Length of Interviews

Although more topics can be covered in individual interviews than in foc

group sessions, most respondents will not be able to commit to more than 

hour per sitting. For this reason, we recommend that the topics of inquiry 

limited to those which can be covered adequately in one hour. 28 Sometimes 

searchers hope to conduct a series of interviews with an individual, but few 

spondents are willing or able to make such a time commitment.

Contacting Interviewees

Once potential respondents have been selected, they can be contacted by m

Send a letter informing the potential interviewee of the following:

• the task-force mandate and purpose of the interview;

• the topics to be covered;

• the length of the interview;

• whether and how confidentiality will be preserved; and

• a time when the interviewer will call to schedule an interview, or a t

phone number the respondent can call to suggest an interview time.

When setting up interviews, the task force and researchers may find that so

prospective respondents are reluctant to be interviewed because of conce

about confidentiality, issues of privilege when discussing ongoing cases, or ti

constraints. The interviewers should be prepared to discuss each of these po

and work out an arrangement that is satisfactory to the respondent.29 In addi t

the site selected for the interview should be one that is convenient a

comfortable for the respondent.

28. As we mentioned in Chapter 2, if a circuit is studying several aspects of diversity, resp

dents may suggest that all topics be covered in one interview. The task force should resist this p

sure and limit interviews to one major aspect of diversity (e.g., effects of gender). Otherwise

opportunity that interviews afford to get in-depth information will be lost.

29. Consider, for example, providing interview notes to respondents after their interviews 

allowing them to correct any inaccuracies. This approach, which was used by the special com

tees of the D.C. Circuit task force in their interviews with judges, can increase respondents’ co

dence in the interview process and enhance the authority of the material in the notes.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Selecting Interviewers

To promote confidence in the task-force inquiry and to assure respondents t

confidentiality will not be breached, the interviewers should not be from 

same office or legal community as the individuals they interview.

For consistency in data collection, the same person or a small number of p

ple should interview everyone in a particular category. For example, if the t

force decides that magistrate judges will be interviewed, one or two interview

should interview all of those magistrate judges selected in a district.

If possible, interviewers should be selected to mirror the demographic cha

teristics of the court and legal community. Relevant characteristics include g

der, age, social class, race, and ethnicity. Research has shown that people are 

likely to respond favorably to research inquiries when they are uncomforta

with the gender, race, or ethnicity of the researcher. Given the small number

interviewers, it might not be possible to select interviewers to completely refl

respondent characteristics, but we advise sensitivity to this issue.

Training Interviewers

Unstructured interviewing requires much more training—or knowledge of the 

sues—than structured interviewing, because the interviewer must be able to 

low up spontaneously on interesting issues and adapt questions to the resp

dent during the course of the interview. The task force, in consultation with a 

cial scientist, may be able to train those selected to conduct unstructured in

views by rehearsing the protocol in mock interviews and providing feedb

about tone, use of follow-up questions, and use of other approaches for obtain

more detailed information.

Those conducting structured interviews have a specific protocol to follow 

have much less opportunity to exercise discretion. Nevertheless, interview

should at least be trained to know what an adequate answer is (i.e., when foll

up is unnecessary) and how not to influence responses by the way they ask 

questions or respond to answers. For example, nodding or sighing could indic

the interviewer agrees or disagrees with the answer given.

Conducting Interviews

Beginning the Interview

The interviewer should begin the interview by introducing himself or hersel

the respondent; explaining briefly the purpose of the task force and why the 

spondent was chosen for an interview; emphasizing the importance of each in

vidual’s responses; reassuring the respondent that all efforts will be made to k

the interview confidential; and asking for permission to tape-record the sess

after explaining the rationale for such a request.
74—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Tape recording makes it possible to collect accurate and complete informat

and allows the interviewer to focus on the responses. This is especially helpful 

an unstructured interview, in which the respondent will be giving narrative 

swers rather than selecting a response option. If the respondent prefers not to 

tape-recorded, he or she should be told that the interviewer will have to t

brief notes during the interview. If notes are taken during the interview, the 

terviewer should supplement them with additional notes immediately follow

the interview, before details have faded from memory.

Asking Questions

An interviewer following a structured interview protocol will have little flexi

ity. In contrast, the interviewer conducting an unstructured interview must 

careful to listen for mention of topics that would be interesting to explore furt

but were not anticipated in the interview protocol. In either type of interview

the respondent begins to talk about something not contemplated by the in

viewer but pertinent to the research topic, the respondent should be permitted 

continue as long as this does not threaten to make the interview overly long. T

interviewer should take detailed notes on these spontaneous comments so 

comments can be analyzed later.

Acknowledging Appreciation

When the interview is completed, the interviewer should thank the respond

and reiterate the importance of his or her responses to the task-force inquiry. 

a good idea to tell respondents that they might be contacted later to clarify c

ments or respond to a few additional questions. In addition, the task force a

interviewer should send a letter to the respondent immediately following the 

terview expressing the task force’s appreciation for the respondent’s participat

in the task-force inquiry.

Analyzing Data

If a structured interview protocol has been followed and the questions asked 

not open ended, analysis of the responses will be similar to analysis of quest

naire responses (see Chapter 8). For responses to unstructured interviews, op

ended questions, or spontaneous comments made during an interview, the an

sis will be qualitative. The task force and researchers should read over the no

on responses to each question, develop a scheme for categorizing responses, 

develop rules for assigning responses to categories. This approach is simila

analysis of data from focus groups (see Chapter 6).
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Maintaining Confidentiality

It is essential that information obtained from interviews not be attribute

Tapes and notes of interviews should not be shared beyond those overseei

conducting, and analyzing the interviews. Only the findings—with no attri

tion—should be shared beyond this group. Some security measures that can 

taken include the following:

• keeping tapes, transcriptions, and notes locked away when not in use;

• making only those identifications on data that are necessary for analysis

• being vigilant about “leaks”;

• hiring a professional transcriber who is outside the employ of the cou

and legal community or using a volunteer transcriber who is not percei

as closely affiliated with the courts of the circuit;

• destroying all tapes at the end of the task-force inquiry; and

• striving to maintain anonymity when presenting findings in the task-fo

reports and in presentations to the judicial council and other audiences.

Telephone Interviews

Telephone interviews are particularly useful if the task force is under severe ti

constraints, or when more information is sought from someone who has b

previously interviewed in person. They should generally be designed to last 

more than 30–45 minutes.

30. The only exception to this rule might arise in the context of interviews with promin

circuit policy makers, who might agree to attribution of some or all of their responses.
76—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

For Further Reference

Howard S. Becker, Practitioners of Vice and Crime, in Pathways to Data: F

Methods for Studying Ongoing Social Organizations (Robert W. Habens

ed., 1970).

Gene Kassebaum, Strategies for the Sociological Study of Criminal Correctio

Systems, in Pathways to Data: Field Methods for Studying Ongoing So

Organizations (Robert W. Habenstein ed., 1970).

John Lofland, Analyzing Social Settings (1971).

Leonard Schatzman & Anselm L. Strauss, Field Research: Strategies for a Natu

Sociology (1973).

U.S. General Accounting Office, Using Structured Interviewing Techniqu

Methodology Transfer Paper 5 (1985).
Chapter 10—Observational Studies

Some task forces have used observational studies to collect information 

whether gender plays a role in day-to-day activities and interactions in the co

room, the clerk’s office, or other locations. Most commonly, task forces h

placed observers in various locations (e.g., courtrooms) where the observers u

coding form to record particular behaviors or incidents of interest to the t

force. For example, observers for the Rhode Island Committee on Women in 

Courts recorded information about the level of attention paid to female speak

forms of address, extraneous comments with gender content, use of gen

stereotypes in argument, and inappropriate physical contact.31 This type of 

servation is referred to as nonparticipant observation.

By contrast, participant observation involves a more intensive, qualitative 

proach in which the outside observer enters and is actively involved in the ac

ties of a particular setting (e.g., an office) by observing, listening, asking qu

tions, and participating in the group’s activities for a substantial period of tim

ranging from a few weeks to a year or more. This approach focuses on obtain

detailed information about how people interact with each other and how they 

terpret or perceive each other’s behavior. Participant observation require

signif icant time commitment as well as expertise in qualitative observatio

methods; thus, the task force is likely to be able to use this method only if it 

locate a social scientist with the requisite expertise who is interested in and a

to carry out the study.

Advantages of Observational Studies

Observational studies have the following advantages:

• Information about behavior is gathered in a natural setting rather than 

an artificial situation, such as when a person responds to a questionnair

participates in a focus group.

• Because observers are in natural settings, they have the opportunity to 

come aware of gender issues or problems that might not have been ant

pated by the task force.

• Information can be obtained on nonverbal behavior, which is more d

cult, if not impossible, to obtain using questionnaires or other methods.

• Information can be collected on sensitive issues that participants migh

reluctant to report in questionnaires or interviews.

31. The Final Report of the Rhode Island Committee on Women in the Courts 6 (1

[hereinafter Rhode Island Report].
78—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

• If conducted properly, observational studies can yield information ab

the actual frequency of occurrence of various behaviors that might h

been reported as anecdotes when using focus groups, public hearings

other methods.

Disadvantages of Observational Studies

• A serious disadvantage of observational studies is the high risk of the 

sults being affected by the biases (conscious or otherwise) of the observ

Some of those who volunteer to conduct observations for a gender t

force, for example, might be predisposed to interpret and report cer

behaviors as reflecting gender bias. For this reason, the task force m

train observers carefully and limit their discretion in interpreting eve

and behaviors.

• Also, those being observed might modify their behavior if they are awar

the observer’s presence. If they act differently than they normally wo

the information gathered will not be reliable. In fact, they might not o

change their behavior. At the same time, they may resent the fact of be

monitored as an improper intrusion.

• Finally, observational methods take a good deal of time. To obtain relia

information about events and occurrences, several settings should be 

served and each setting should be observed a number of times. Some s

task forces have had difficulty getting reliable information through obse

tion because of difficulty in finding observers able to commit the time 

quired. 32

Nonparticipant Observation

In this type of study, trained observers are placed in various sites to record un

trusively the frequency with which certain specified behaviors or events occ

Observers record their observations on a form that indicates the behaviors 

events to be noted. The observers have little discretion in determining w

should be recorded.

32. See, e.g., Wisconsin Equal Justice Task Force Final Report app. C at 7 (1991) (unab

collect enough data for state-wide comparisons because volunteers could not observe consiste

except in two counties); Gender and Justice in the Colorado Courts: Final Report of the Colo

Supreme Court Task Force on Women in the Courts 6–7 (1990) (three student interns who c

posed one observation group were unable to observe settings long enough to collect sufficient 

for use in the task-force report; another student group collected adequate data for the superv

professor to write a report for task force). But see Rhode Island Report, supra note 31, at 12–14

a discussion of a successful courtroom observational study (total observation time was 58.4 ho

and Women’s Bar Association of Maryland, Courtwatch Report (May 1993) (during a one-w

period, proceedings were observed in the courtrooms of 172 judges and masters as a follow up 

report issued in 1989 by the (Maryland) Special Joint Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts)
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

The guidelines below will help the task force obtain accurate and reliable 

formation with observational studies. An example of the type of coding fo

used in these studies is provided in Appendix C.

1. Select several examples of each type of site to be observed (e.g., courtro

clerk’s office). These sites should be selected systematically so that t

differ in terms of their locations (urban or rural), population demograph

and other relevant characteristics. Judges or other subjects to be obser

should also be selected in a representative way.

2. Obtain permission from the chief judges of the districts or circuits in wh

observations will be made.

3. Decide, in consultation with the chief judges in the jurisdictions being 

served, whether to notify the judges or others who will be observed. Fr

a research standpoint, it is preferable that subjects not be aware of the 

servers, as this knowledge might affect their behavior. On the other ha

failing to notify those who will be observed may create resentment 

suspicion when the task-force results are reported, or if the fact of the 

servers’ presence leaks out.

4. In consultation with a social scientist working with the task force, deve

a coding form for observers to use in recording behaviors. Instructions 

the coding form should be explicit about what is to be recorded; the m

specific the instructions, the less discretion the observer will have 

recording events, the less error or bias there will be, and the more relia

the findings will be. The coding form should also include space for the 

server to take notes on activities and behaviors that are not covered exp

itly by the form but that appear relevant to the task-force inquiry. If th

notes are reviewed as the observation process continues, the task force m

find patterns of behavior that it will want to analyze and add to the cod

form.

5. Recruit and train observers. Because of the time commitment involved, 

servers will often be law students or graduate students. They should 

instructed on such matters as what to expect when they go to the obser

tion site, courthouse etiquette, how to use the coding form, and how 

take notes on other behaviors that may be of interest. This can be done 

conducting training sessions and by providing observers with a writ

training manual.

6. Each site should be observed a number of times and at different time

the day. This temporal “sampling” may show variation in work practi

activities, and participants. It is a good idea for the researchers to set up 

observational work schedule.

7. To determine whether subjective interpretation is influencing the record

of events despite the use of a standardized coding form, conduct a pilot 

to do reliability checks. This involves placing two or three observers 
80—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

single site to record observations independently (i.e., without seeing e

other’s coding forms or notes). After the observation period, compare 

observers’ coding forms to see if they have coded information consisten

If they have not, the instructions on the coding form should be made m

explicit or the observers should be given additional training in using 

coding forms.

8. Analysis of data from coding forms is similar to analysis of other quant

tive data, such as those obtained through questionnaires. Analysis of qu

tative observational data, such as additional notes taken by observers, 

volves reviewing the notes from all observers and looking for patterns 

reported behavior. If the researchers identify patterns, they can code 

observations fitting these patterns into new analytic categories. These c

gories can be added to the coding form for use in future observations.

Participant Observation

A participant observer immerses herself or himself in a setting for a substan

period of time, often interacting with the people being observed. Unlike 

servers using a coding form or checklist, participant observers typically do 

attempt to foresee which behaviors are relevant or dispositive respecting the is

or problems that interest them. For example, a participant observer interested 

the role of gender in courtroom interactions would not decide in advance wh

behaviors to record. Instead, the observer would watch everything for a num

of weeks to determine whether and in what way gender plays a role in courtro

behavior. After making background observations and documentation, the 

server begins to focus on a few select behaviors and then systematically colle

information on those behaviors through observation and interviewing, keep

an eye out for newly arising events as well.

Participant observation is much more flexible than nonparticipant observat

which relies on a coding form. This same flexibility, however, allows subject

interpretation to play a large role in data collection, making it difficult for 

task force to document conclusions based on this method. Thus, participant 

servation should be used only with the guidance of a social scientist experien

with such an approach, and the task force should ensure that the process 

drawing conclusions from the resulting data is thoroughly documented.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

For Further Reference

Kenneth D. Bailey, Methods of Social Research (3d ed. 1987).

Robert M. Emerson, Contemporary Field Research: A Collection of Readi

(1988).

John Lofland, Analyzing Social Settings (1971).

John Lofland, Doing Social Life: The Qualitative Study of Human Interaction 

Natural Settings (1976).

Leonard Schatzman & Anselm Strauss, Field Research: Strategies for a Natu

Sociology (1973).

Anselm Strauss & Juliet Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research (1990).

Chapter 11—Drawing Conclusions from

Research

Task forces that undertake studies using some or all of the methods described 

this guide may acquire vast amounts of information. This chapter discusses g

eral issues to consider and common pitfalls to avoid in describing and draw

conclusions from the data obtained. The first section addresses issues applica

to both qualitative and quantitative data, while the second section, beginning 

page 84, deals with issues most pertinent to analyzing and drawing conclusi

from large quantitative data sets.

Considerations in Drawing Conclusions from Data

Effects of Preconceptions

Research has shown that when people have an expectation or a theory before 

countering evidence, they tend to find evidence that confirms their theory. 

example, someone who expects women interviewees to have many complai

about a court’s personnel policies might interpret comments made by an in

viewee as constituting complaints, even if such comments were intended to 

neutral. Therefore, task-force members should be wary about drawing qu

conclusions that are consistent with their expectations. This problem can 

avoided to some extent by including on the task force people with a range 

views, as we discussed in Chapter 2. In addition, it is important to recognize t

this potential risk exists and to explore aggressively, before reporting 

findings, data that both support and refute any preconceptions about the effe

of gender in the circuit. As noted in Chapter 4, anecdotal data, dramatic but 

necessarily representative, are particularly dangerous in this regard.

Alternative Explanations for Results

Another major concern in interpreting results is the “third variable proble

which is also known as the “problem of alternative hypotheses.” This prob

occurs when researchers do not take into account other explanations or variab

that might be responsible for relationships observed in the data.

Suppose, for example, a task force is interested in the hiring practices o

court, with particular interest in the relationship between gender and hiring. 

examine this, the task force collects a list of all applicants for positions in 

clerk’s office for the past several years and compares that with information 

who was actually hired for each position. Assume that the task force finds a 
84—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

relation between being a female applicant and being hired in the clerk’s offi

This association may or may not reflect a causal relationship between gender 

hiring. The task force should be attuned to the existence of other variables (so

of which may also be gender linked) that could affect causation. There is a p

sibility, for example, that a third variable, such as performance on a job sk

test, correlated with both gender and hiring. In reporting findings such as th

the task force might want to discuss a range of possible conclusions and in

ences that could be drawn, and it should be careful to identify instances in wh

unexamined variables may have explanatory force.

Reporting Results from Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses

When reporting results from either qualitative or quantitative data analysis, 

task force should fully explain the nature and scope of the data collected 

used in the analysis. The basic results from each method, such as tables of 

sponse frequencies or correlations, should be provided in the report itself. T

report or its appendices should document all data-collection procedures (e

how a questionnaire was administered) and any subsequent changes or mod

cations made to the collected data. In addition, all data created or modified d

ing the statistical analysis should be preserved so that they can be made availa

to other researchers.33

Furthermore, a detailed technical appendix should be provided with the fi

report or made available upon request. It should supply the reader with all of 

information necessary to reanalyze the data with a complete understanding 

how those data were collected (including copies of data-collection instrume

such as questionnaires and interview protocols). In addition, a complete and 

tailed code book explaining what the data consist of and how they were cate

rized should be developed and preserved. All of these steps bolster the credibi

of the task-force report by documenting how the task force arrived at its con

sions.

Specific Pitfalls in Analyzing Quantitative Data

In general, the uses of quantitative data fall into two broad categories: descript

and inference. Description involves making statements about the particular d

collected by the researcher. For example, if all law clerks in a circuit were s

veyed, the task force could present the frequencies of responses to differ

questions and make descriptive statements based on the frequencies, such 

“Fifteen percent of the female law clerks in the circuit report having been as

33. It is accepted scientific practice to make data available to other researchers, with iden

cation of individuals removed if anonymity was promised. Among other things, making data a

able allows other researchers to replicate the analysis. If the original analysis is sustained, one 

have greater confidence in the conclusions.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

questions about their marital or parental status when they interviewed wit

judge for their current position.”

The researcher moves from description to inference when the data are used 

draw conclusions that go beyond those specific data. For example, the task fo

would be using inference if it surveyed only a sample of law clerks in the circ

and then used the answers from the sample to draw conclusions about all 

clerks in the circuit (i.e., the population). Similarly, the task force might d

inferences about a population of cases by looking at a sample of case files. T

question of whether such inferences are valid depends largely on how closely 

selected sample mirrors the full population. Because most task-force research 

likely to involve samples rather than populations, the rest of this chapter d

primarily with issues to be aware of when drawing inferences from a sample 

make statements about an entire population.

Generalizability and Representative Samples

The strength and validity of conclusions that can be drawn from data obtai

from a sample depend largely on the issue of generalizability. Generalizability 

turn rests on several factors, particularly whether the sample size is adequate 

discussion beginning on page 87) and whether the sample is representative of 

full population (i.e., whether those from whom data are obtained reflect 

characteristics of the population).

To maximize the representativeness of a sample, the task force should first 

fine the appropriate reference population. The reference population is the po

lation of people, cases, or other subjects about which the researcher is attempt

to generalize. If the task force does not identify the appropriate reference pop

tion in advance of a research project, the conclusions drawn from the data m

be misleading or invalid.

Suppose, for example, the task force wishes to explore the question of gen

differences in the appointment of lawyers to committees established by a co

The task force finds that female lawyers constitute 40% of the attorneys admit

to the federal bar in that jurisdiction but only 15% of attorneys appointed 

court committees. A straightforward but potentially misleading analysis would 

to compare the proportion of female lawyers appointed to court committees w

the proportion of female lawyers admitted to the bar. An analysis of this sort 

nores the fact that there may be requirements for appointment to a court com

tee other than simply being admitted to the bar. In other words, the makeup 

the bar overall may be an inappropriate reference population for addressing 

question.

A preferable approach would be to determine first the qualification requ

ments for these appointments (e.g., perhaps only partners are eligible to be 

pointed), and then compare the proportion of female attorneys eligible fo

court-committee appointment (e.g., female partners) with the proportion t
86—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

were appointed. This analysis compares the appropriate proportion with the 

propriate reference population and sheds light on whether gender plays a rol

the appointment process and, if so, in what way.

Of course, this type of analysis does not explore historical or other factors t

may have led to the underrepresentation on committees of female attorneys p

sessing the qualifying characteristics (in this case, as partners). However, 

analysis described above will provide a sounder answer to the question 

whether gender affects the appointment of eligible lawyers to court committ

than an analysis using all members of the bar as the reference population.

Selecting a Representative Sample

After the reference population has been identified—and if the whole populat

cannot be studied—the task force will want to draw an unbiased sample. T

surest way to create a representative sample is to select it randomly. Rand

sampling procedures help eliminate or control for many potential biases t

could affect the research results and call their validity into question. A sim

random sample, for example, is a subset of a population selected in such a w

that each member of the total population has an equal probability of being 

lected into the sample. In a systematic sample, subjects are selected sequenti

from an ordered list, with only the starting place in the list selected at rando

For example, the task force might select a sample of every fourth attorney fr

an alphabetical list of attorneys.

There are a variety of other random sampling methods that could be used 

the task force, and social-science advisors should be able to help the task fo

select the most appropriate sampling method.

Other sampling techniques, though not as rigorous as random sampling, m

yield a reasonably representative sample. One example is what statisticians r

to as “quota sampling.” In a quota sample, the researcher attempts to select p

ticipants in the proportions in which they are prevalent in the population be

studied. For example, the task force might select employees from various 

positions to participate in interviews, with the number of employees from e

job position approximately proportional to their number in the courts over

This technique can minimize some of the biasing effects of drawing a nonrand

sample.

On the other hand, use of a nonrepresentative sample yields results that can

be generalized to the population of interest. For example, asking for volunteer

participate in focus groups or passing out questionnaires at a bar meeting is 

likely to produce a group that represents all members of the population in wh

the task force is interested (e.g., a volunteer focus group cannot represent all 

torneys practicing in the circuit). Instead, the people in these samples are lik

to be those who have a specific interest in relating their experiences.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

This is not to imply that the task force should ignore the information that 

be gained from samples generated in a nonrepresentative manner. Public he

ings, for example, in which witnesses are often volunteers or individuals 

cruited because of their prominent positions on an issue, are useful for highlig

ing areas of concern and providing the task force with specific examples 

gender-related issues in the circuit. The point is simply that data collected fr

self-selected samples or other “biased” samples are likely to underrepresent 

overrepresent the actual effects of gender and should not be used to genera

about gender effects or perceptions overall. Consequently, to speak author

tively on gender issues in the circuit, the task force should rely on data collec

in a way that is consistent with accepted social-scientific methods.

Nonresponse

Although use of a nonbiased sampling technique is one of the surest ways to 

hance the representativeness of the task force’s research results, the task force 

encounter problems in drawing valid conclusions if many members of the sam

do not participate in or respond to the task force’s inquiries. For example, s

pose the task force has designed a mail questionnaire and wants to compare 

sponses of a randomly selected group of female and male attorneys practicing 

the circuit, but only 50% of the respondents return the questionnaire. When 

response rate is broken out by gender, the task force finds that 30% of the m

and 70% of the women returned the survey. The task force is now faced wit

critical question: Do the people who responded represent the population of 

terest? It is possible, for example, that the men who did not respond hold vi

quite different from those who did respond. A variety of statistical methods 

assess this issue, and the task force’s social-science advisor should be able to 

sist the task force in minimizing the impact of nonresponses.

Thus, in planning its research and determining the generalizability of its fi

ings, the task force should, in consultation with a social scientist or statistic

consider the following: (1) whether it has identified an appropriate refere

population; (2) whether the sample was selected randomly or at least in a rep

sentative way; (3) whether the response or participation rate is sufficiently hi

and (4) to what extent missing responses bias the findings.

Sample Size Considerations

Two questions need to be considered regarding sample size: (1) Does the t

force have sufficient data to do the analyses it wishes to conduct?; and (2) D

the task force have an excess of data? A social-science advisor working with 

task force should be able to help it assess the first question—whether it 

sufficient data to perform statistical analyses. For example, if the task force wa

to be able to conduct separate analyses of the questionnaire responses of differ
88—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

subgroups (such as men and women), it will need to make sure it has a suffici

number of respondents in each subgroup.

Just as the task force may have insufficient data for some analyses, it may h

too many data for others. Many of the statistical data sets referred to in Chapte

contain thousands or tens of thousands of data records. As a statistical mat

analyses on data sets with a very large number of records or observations w

yield differences that are “statistically significant” (see next section) even tho

the actual observed differences are very small. For example, if many records 

analyzed, even a 2% difference in the hiring rate between women and men w

be statistically significant at any preset significance level. The question the t

force needs to answer is: How large must a difference or effect size be for u

consider it important? That is a question that cannot be answered by a statist

test; it is a matter of policy or intuition and should be determined by the t

force at the outset of the project.

Reporting of Statistical Results

Finally, in reporting results of statistical analyses, the task force should be care

not to place undue emphasis on results solely because they are “statistically 

nificant.” Statistical significance is a technical term, frequently misunderstood

does not reflect a probability that the results are accurate or reliable. Rather

indicates that the results obtained differ to a predetermined extent from th

that would have been expected if there were no actual effect of the variable be

examined (e.g., gender).34

Researchers have traditionally used evidence of statistical significance to v

date their research findings, when in reality statistical significance is only 

limited step in determining whether the results obtained are important and 

what extent they reflect reality. In conjunction with determining whether a re

is statistically significant, the task force should consider the extent to which 

results converge with other findings, the size of the effect, and whether there 

method-related artifacts that might have produced “significant” results that 

not reflect the true situation.

Suppose that the task force compared the responses of 1,000 male and fem

attorneys with 25 questions relating to gender effects in courtroom interacti

and found that males and females responded differently to only one of the qu

tions. For example, in response to a question asking whether federal judges t

female attorneys more favorably than male attorneys, 25% of male attorneys 

20% of female attorneys answered “Yes.” Suppose further that this difference 

statistically significant. Would this result support a conclusion by the task fo

34. The probability value against which results are evaluated to determine whether they 

statistically significant is usually 1% or 5%, although this is just a matter of social-science con

tion. This probability value merely indicates the probability that an effect as large or larger than 

one reflected in the data could have been observed if there were no actual underlying difference
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

that male and female attorneys hold very different views of the prevalence 

gender bias among federal judges? For several reasons, it probably would not.

First, the 5% response difference may not have much practical significance

other words, the task force may conclude that the responses are not in fact v

disparate (see the discussion of effect size above). Second, the large numbe

question responses being compared creates a strong possibility of finding at le

one “statistically significant” result that does not reflect an actual effect. Third, 

fact that no other significant differences between responses were found sugg

this result may be a “fluke,” particularly since all of the questions addressed 

same general topic (if the questions were heterogeneous, there might be less 

son to doubt the one significant effect). Finally, a strong statement about dif

ences in attorneys’ perceptions of gender bias is not supportable by response

one specific question.

On the other hand, if the task force found that male and female response

eighteen of the twenty-five questions were significantly different, that the 

sponse differences were quite broad (e.g., 20% vs. 50%), and that the resu

converged with results from other methods, the task force could draw mu

stronger conclusions.

Although the above example is extreme, it highlights the types of issues 

task force should be aware of in analyzing, reporting, and drawing conclusi

from statistical data. Statistical advisors working with the task force can prov

more detail about these and other potential analysis problems.
90—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

For Further Reference

General References

Joseph L. Gastwirth, Statistical Reasoning in Law and Public Policy, vols. 1 & 

(1988).

Gerald J. Hahn & William Q. Meeker, Statistical Intervals: A Guide for Pra

tioners (1991).

David C. Hoaglin et al., Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data Analy

(1983).

David C. Hoaglin et al., Exploring Data Tables, Trends, and Shapes (1985).

Peter H. Westfall & S. Stanley Young, Resampling-Based Multiple Testing (19

Alternative Explanations for Results

Peter J. Bickel et al., Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions from Berkeley, 187 Sci. 3

404 (1975).

Chamot Wang, Sense and Nonsense of Statistical Inference: Controversy, Misu

and Subtlety (1993).

Effects of Preconceptions

David C. Hoaglin et al., Exploring Data Tables, Trends, and Shapes (1985).

Nonresponse

Judith T. Lessler & William D. Kalsbeek, Nonsampling Error in Surveys (1992

Donald B. Rubin, Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys (1989).

Chamot Wang, Sense and Nonsense of Statistical Inference: Controversy, Misu

and Subtlety (1993).

Sampling Methods

William G. Cochran, Sampling Techniques (1977).

Richard Scheaffer et al., Elementary Survey Sampling (3d ed. 1986).

Steven K. Thompson, Sampling (1992).
III

Resources Available to Task Force

Chapter 12—Resources for Conducting Gend

Studies

The extent of a circuit’s study of gender in the courts will depend in part on 

personnel and other resources available to assist it in carrying out the resear

Any assistance must be obtained ethically, legally, and without compromising 

objectivity of the task force’s work. There are many potential resources, includ

appropriated funds or donated funds; services (volunteer or paid) from pro

sional individuals, such as social scientists, statisticians, or law professors; 

vices (volunteer or paid) from organizations, such as law firms or research in

tutions; research assistance (volunteer or paid) from students or other individu

interested in working with the task force; services from court personnel; and 

formation or assistance from various agencies. This chapter summarizes the v

ous ways in which different types of people or organizations might be able to 

sist the task force by providing information or services.

Statutes and judicial branch rules, regulations, and policies (including the C

of Conduct) sometimes limit the kind of services or funding assistance a fede

court task force may accept, and they may prescribe procedures to be followed 

accepting or using these resources. Therefore, to the extent the task force turn

outside resources for assistance or funding, this activity should be coordina

with the Office of General Counsel at the Administrative Office of the U

Courts. The AO should be contacted about any contracting issues, fund

problems, or procedural or ethical issues perceived by the task-force memb

The Office of General Counsel also can answer questions about using vari

court funds.

Services from Individuals

Social Scientists

Social scientists trained in research design and methods can be an invaluable 

source to a task force during the gender study. It may be beneficial to have 

least one social scientist as a full member of the task force (see Chapter 2).

Perhaps most important, a competent social scientist can make the task fo

aware of what issues can and cannot be addressed through empirical resea

and can show what limitations exist on conclusions that can be drawn from d

gathered by the task force. Social scientists can assist in a number of ways: 

designing research approaches to help answer the task force’s questions; 

drafting research instruments (e.g., questionnaires or interview protocols); 

training assistants to carry out research methods (e.g., interviews, observatio
94—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

studies); and by analyzing data collected through various methods. Most 

professors do not have such knowledge and skills, because their training and 

search do not require them. Therefore, asking a local law professor to draw u

questionnaire is unwise unless that professor is also a skilled social scientist. 

cial scientists who are professors are likely to have a number of students work

with them who also may be able to assist with the task-force studies.

The term social scientist encompasses a variety of disciplines, including exp

mental psychology, sociology, political science, economics, and statistics. Dif

ent types of expertise will be relevant to different stages of the task-force stu

For example, an expert who can advise the task force on drawing samples 

survey research may not have any familiarity with conducting focus-group 

sions. Similarly, an expert in focus-group methods may not be adept at analyz

large quantitative data sets, and not all social scientists are skilled in quantita

methods. Ideally, the task force will be able to locate one or more social scient

with fairly broad backgrounds (i.e., experienced in a number of the methods 

task force will use) to work with the task force from the beginning. As the stu

moves along, these scientists can identify when other expertise is needed a

might be able to suggest colleagues who can assist.

Law Professors

Law professors—particularly those familiar with federal courts and federal s

stantive law—can be another valuable resource for the circuit task forces. Ag

those with experience in gender issues in the courts will probably have the m

to offer. Law professors also are likely to have access to students who will be 

terested in assisting the task force in various ways, and the professors may h

access to other resources, such as computerized databases.

Other Personnel

Some task forces have designated “executive directors”—either paid or unpaid 

to oversee the administration of task-force activity and coordinate the work 

various task-force committees. A few have hired reporters, who play a role sim

to that of the reporters for the Civil Justice Reform Act advisory groups. Fina

most task-force work has relied heavily on the services of professional a

nonprofessional volunteers.

The Office of General Counsel of the AO can provide assistance and advice 

garding procedures to follow and ethical and legal limits involved in secur

personal assistance (paid or unpaid) for the task force. For more information 

these issues, contact the Office of General Counsel at (202) 273-1100.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Materials and Assistance Available from Various Agencies

Valuable data about the role of gender in the federal circuits are collected r

tinely by various federal agencies, both within and outside the judicial branch

noted, most data are not collected specifically to address inquiries about gend

but the information often can be made available to the circuit task forces in a w

that enables gender-based analysis. In addition, many agencies produce ann

statistical reports, some of which provide a “snapshot” of certain information 

sic to the task-force inquiries (for example, demographics of court employe

The following section lists some of the major agencies with databases or other 

sources likely to be of interest to circuit task forces; the section also lists name

contacts at each agency from whom more detailed information can be request

None of these agencies is likely to have the time to conduct exhaustive analy

of information in its databases at the request of a task force. If the task force w

be able to conduct analyses on its own, agencies may be more willing to prov

requested data or materials. Alternatively, an agency may be willing to perfo

the analyses if the task force presents it with a well thought-out set of spec

questions rather than an all-inclusive “grab bag” of issues on which it wants 

obtain data. In general, preferred methods of providing data will vary with 

agency involved and the nature of the task force’s request.

Courts and Judicial Branch Agencies

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts routinely collects information fr

the courts about specific types of cases, court personnel, juries, and other top

for the most part in response to specific statutory mandates in its orga

statute 35 that may be related to the task-force inquiry. The AO enters most of 

information into large computerized databases from which it generates vari

statistical reports. The AO publishes an annual report with summary tab

providing information about caseload distributions, trials, jury activity, probat

and pretrial services, Criminal Justice Act appointments, and many other issu

As mentioned in Chapter 7, these databases and statistical reports typically 

not contain specific information about gender of parties, attorneys, or jurors, 

might nonetheless be relevant to the task force’s inquiry. Courts can obt

copies of the AO’s annual statistical report by calling Patricia Richards, Statis

Division, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, at (202) 273-2240.

In addition to maintaining many centralized databases, the AO support

number of database products used by the courts, including electronic-docket

systems. These products would allow the task force to generate reports a

statistical information specific to a particular court (see below for more detail)

35. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 604(a)(2), (3), (13), (24).
96—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

The following describes briefly the types of information available in vari

databases maintained or supported by the AO.

AO Statistics Division

The Statistics Division of the AO maintains several databases and provides m

of the statistical information in the AO’s annual reports. In addition, this of

responds to ad hoc requests from the courts for particular statistical reports. 

more information, contact Steven Schlesinger, chief, Statistics Division, at (2

273-2240.

Case Information. AO databases contain information from forms submitted 

the courts about civil, criminal, appellate, and bankruptcy cases. These forms 

generally available in court clerks’ offices and can be reviewed by the task forc

determine if the AO databases corresponding to the forms will contain infor

tion of interest to the task force.

Jury Information. Courts submit JS-11 forms to the AO—these forms contain 

formation about jury selection and jury trials. A JS-11 form reports by month 

number of jurors present for voir dire, the number selected and challenged, 

total number of trials for which juries were selected, and other relevant inform

tion; data about gender and race of potential jurors, however, are not collect

For grand jurors, the JS-11G form reports monthly grand jury activity for e

court. In addition, courts complete a JS-12 form when a jury wheel is refilled 

the JS-12 includes information about race and gender of those in the jury wh

this information is not reported to the AO, but is maintained by the dist

courts.

Many other types of court workload information are collected routinely by 

AO and compiled in computerized databases. The Statistics Division can prov

further details about information in which the task forces might be interested.

Equal Employment Opportunity and Special Projects Office

The Equal Employment Opportunity and Special Projects Office of the 

produces an annual report that includes the following: a description, by job c

gory, race/national origin, sex, and handicapped status, of all permanent fed

court employees; statistics on promotions, appointments, and interviewees; 

allegations contained in discrimination and reprisal complaints filed during 

year. Separate tables containing data on judges and magistrate judges are also 

cluded in the report. As with many other AO reports, this report is compi

from information submitted by the courts electronically or in hard copy.

In response to the anticipated needs of circuits’ gender and diversity t

forces, the EEO Office also has changed its reporting form to collect cross-ta

lated information about the race and gender of court employees. For more in
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

mation, contact Maurice White, chief, EEO and Special Projects Office, Admi

trative Office of the U.S. Courts, at (202) 273-1260.

Court Databases Supported by the AO

Task forces should not overlook databases maintained at the courts to doc

cases and generate reports. These include the Integrated Case Management S

tem (ICMS) for civil, criminal, bankruptcy, and appellate cases. Although so

aspects of the ICMS are standardized, each court has the ability to customize 

some extent) how various items are docketed, and therefore it is important 

the task force to be aware of the features unique to the system of each court fr

which it wants to gather data.

Not all of these systems are available in all courts, so the task force sho

check with the clerks of court or systems managers to determine what capab

ties are available in each court. The systems manager will also be able to descr

how the systems have been customized for a particular court. Where availa

these systems provide an excellent local resource for questions regarding ca

management practices or caseload distributions.

ICMS CIVIL replaces manual civil docketing in the district courts and is u

by more than 90% of the district courts. This system has functions other th

docketing, such as creating customized reports, providing information in 

sponse to individual queries, and compiling judicial statistics.

ICMS CRIMINAL is used by more than two-thirds of all district courts and 

places manual criminal docketing in those courts. It shares many features w

the ICMS CIVIL system.

The ICMS Appellate Information Management System (AIMS) is installed in 

of the twelve appellate courts.36 It is a full electronic-docketing system and 

cludes report-generation capabilities. It also is used to provide judicial statis

to the AO and for local court use.

There are two automation systems being used in the bankruptcy courts. M

than three-quarters of all bankruptcy courts use the ICMS Bankruptcy Co

Automation Project (BANCAP). The remainder use the National Inte

Bankruptcy System (NIBS). Both systems provide, among other things, electro

statistical reporting, reports and summary information, and professional fee 

porting.

The Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System (PAC

provides a number of case-management functions at the district-court leve

well as an important on-line query capability. PACTS has proven useful a

means to locate case files and generate reports. A significant advantage of PAC

is its compatibility with established court-automation programs, which incl

case-management, financial, and fine-collection systems.

36. The Fifth Circuit will begin using AIMS in 1995. The Eleventh Circuit has a separate e

tronic-docketing system that has capabilities similar to those of AIMS.
98—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

The Federal Judicial Center

While the AO routinely collects data from the courts, the Federal Judicial Cen

(FJC) does not. However, Center research projects may yield data of interes

task forces. For example, in an effort to develop a risk-prediction device to h

probation officers determine the level of supervision needed by different type

offenders, the Center gathered information on the experiences of approxima

3,700 offenders. Among other outcomes, the analysis will produce either (

risk-of-recidivism-prediction device that has been developed and tested for g

der, racial, and ethnic differences, or (2) separate recidivism-prediction dev

for each of these population subgroups should their recidivism patterns 

match those of the overall offender population. Similarly, as part of a resea

project conducted at the request of the National Commission on Judicial Di

pline and Removal, the Center reviewed and summarized files in cases that 

leged judicial misconduct involving race or gender bias.

For a list of FJC publications, including research reports, contact the Infor

tion Services Office, Federal Judicial Center, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judic

Building, One Columbus Circle, N.E., Washington, DC 20002-8003, or 

(202) 273-4153.

FJC research staff also have a good deal of experience with many of the st

methods task forces are likely to use, including mail questionnaires, intervie

and analyses of existing records and databases. Members of the research staff 

be available as time permits to consult with task forces on an ad hoc basis (e

to review drafts of questionnaires or interview protocols, to provide specific 

vice on statistical analysis and reporting, and to explain limitations on databa

with which we are familiar). The FJC also maintains a longitudinal database 

the basic civil, criminal, and appellate data collected by the Statistics Division 

the Administrative Office (see supra page 96). The structure of this database 

lows quick analyses of data from several years. Staff of the Research Division m

be able to perform limited queries from these data for the task forces. For m

about information and services available from the Research Division, con

Molly Johnson at (202) 273-4086.

In addition to research projects, the FJC sponsors many educational progra

for judges and court staff on gender and diversity issues. For information ab

the FJC’s activities in these areas, contact the Judicial Education Division at (2

273-4052 or the Court Education Division at (202) 273-4110.

U.S. Sentencing Commission

The effect of gender on sentencing has been examined by a number of entit

including some task forces as well as the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The U

Sentencing Commission maintains a database with extensive information ab

defendants sentenced (for other than petty offenses) under the Sentencing 
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

form Act of 1984. 37 The commission also conducts research projects focused 

specific issues and produces a brochure describing the data sets and repo

available from various projects.

In its annual report, the commission sets forth a table showing the age, r

and gender of defendants sentenced that year under the guidelines, as wel

separate tables showing the age, race, and gender of defendants sentenced 

each primary offense category. Finally, the report displays tables for each judi

district showing demographic information (including race and gender) for all 

fendants sentenced within that district.

The Sentencing Commission is willing to make portions of its database av

able, with appropriate documentation, to task forces interested in conduct

their own analyses of gender-related sentencing issues. For more informat

about help available from the Sentencing Commission, contact Susan Katze

son, Director of Policy Analysis, United States Sentencing Commission, at (2

273-4530.

Individual Courts

The task force should also be aware that many records and databases that may 

useful to the task-force inquiry are maintained by individual courts. Clerks 

court and systems managers in each court should be able to describe 

databases in use in their courts.

Executive Branch Agencies and Private Institutions

In addition to courts and judicial branch agencies, a number of government a

private institutions, including agencies within the Department of Justice, the 

partment of Commerce, and the Department of Health and Human Services, 

lect information that may be of use to the task forces. The following is a br

nonexhaustive list of government agencies that may have relevant informati

the type of data they are likely to have, and contacts. This list was compiled fr

information provided by the agencies, information in the Statistical Abstrac

the United States, copies of reports produced by these agencies, and from a b

on information and data available to policy makers.38

Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Prisons

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) produces an annual report, The Stat

the Bureau, that summarizes the bureau’s operations and the prison populat

for a given year. The report contains statistical tables describing staff and pri

37. Information on defendants sentenced prior to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 is c

tained in a database maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

38. David C. Hoaglin et al., Data for Decisions: Information Strategies for Policymakers (198
100—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

inmate characteristics. Task forces may be interested as well in BOP’s annual 

tistical report, which provides more detailed statistical information about pri

inmates and BOP staff.

BOP also issues program statements and operations memoranda that desc

the BOP’s procedures, programs, and policies, including those related to gen

studies. Researchers from other federal gender task forces have found it usefu

review these documents prior to developing research projects that address p

oner issues. Task forces conducting research in the BOP must comply with 

research program statement issued by the bureau and are asked to coordin

their research efforts through the agency’s Office of Research and Evaluati

Staff members in this office are experts in criminal-justice research and can h

task forces determine approaches for studying gender in the BOP.

Finally, BOP’s inmate database (SENTRY) contains a wealth of information 

inmate characteristics, including demographics and offense information. The s

of the Office of Research and Evaluation will work with task forces to custom

statistical analyses from this database to address task-force needs.

For more about information and research assistance from the Bureau of P

ons, contact Sue Kline, Office of Research and Evaluation, at (202) 724-3121

Dr. Joyce Conley, deputy chief, Psychology Services, at (202) 633-2214.

U.S. Marshals Service

The duties of the U.S. Marshals Service include providing judicial and witn

security, service of judicial process, seizing and disposing of assets used in 

obtained as a result of criminal activities, apprehending federal fugitives, det

ing federal offenders held by order of the court prior to trial, and transport

both pretrial offenders and sentenced prisoners in cooperation with the Burea

Prisons. While the Marshals Service collects some data about individuals wit

its custody, the data are not easily accessible. However, representatives are w

ing to discuss with the circuit task forces how they might be of help. For m

information, contact Kristine M. Marcy, U.S. Marshals Service, associate direc

for operations support, 600 Army-Navy Drive, Suite 1200, Arlington, VA, 222

(202) 307-9740.

Office of Justice Programs/National Criminal Justice Reference Service

Information: Distributes publications and serves as a clearinghouse for natio

criminal justice publications or research; most publications from divisions wit

the Office of Justice Programs are available free of charge.

Contact: National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 1600 Research Boulev

Rockville, MD 20850. Telephone: Bureau of Justice Assistance: 1-800-688-42

Bureau of Justice Statistics: 1-800-732-3277; National Victims’ Resource Cen

1-800-627-6872; National Institute of Justice: (301) 251-5500; Office of Juve

Justice and Delinquency Prevention: 1-800-638-8736.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

The National Criminal Justice Research Service document database, which c

logs the largest criminal justice collection in the country, is also available on-

through DIALOG, an international on-line retrieval service.

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)

Information: Data and publications about immigrants, naturalization rates, 

other information relating to immigration. Contact: Immigration and Natural

tion Service, Statistics Division/COSTA, 425 I Street, N.W., Room 235, Ta

Building, Washington, DC 20536.

Department of Commerce

Bureau of the Census

Information: Detailed statistics on population characteristics. Contact: C

tomer Services Branch, Data User Services Division, Bureau of the Census, U

Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20233. (301) 763-4100.

Bureau of Economic Analysis

Information: Economic statistics, including regional economics. Contact: C

rent Business Analysis Division, BE-53, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. 

partment of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. (202) 606-9900.

Department of Health and Human Services

Social Security Administration

Information: Conducts research and gathers data on Old-Age, Survivors, 

Disability Insurance (OASDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) progra

and the populations served or potentially served by these programs. Cont

Publications Staff, Office of Research and Statistics, Social Security Adminis

tion, VanNess Centre, 4301 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Room 209, Washingt

DC 20008.

Department of Labor

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Information: Data about labor economics, mostly gathered from survey

households or businesses. Contact: Office of Publications and Information S

vices, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 441 G Street, N.

Room 2831A, Washington, DC 20212.

Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research

The Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) p

vides a central repository and dissemination service for general databases as w
102—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

as data sets from specific social-science research projects, including some fr

the Census Bureau, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Sentencing Commissi

Federal Judicial Center, and other relevant agencies. Membership to the cons

tium is open to institutions (e.g., universities), and it is likely that social-scie

or law professors working with the task force will be affiliated with instituti

that belong to the consortium. If the task force has access to the data availa

through the consortium, to the requisite database expertise, and to the statist

expertise, it may be able to conduct analyses of database information direc

rather than contacting the individual agencies for assistance. The task force w

first need to determine whether a consortium membership can appropriately 

used for the work of the task force or if special arrangements will need to 

made.

For further information about the consortium, contact: Inter-University C

sortium for Political and Social Research, The University of Michigan Institute 

Social Research, P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. (313) 764-8392.
IV

Recommendations and

Implementation

Chapter 13—Formulating Recommendations

and Writing the Report

After the task force and its committees or working groups have analyzed a

drawn conclusions from their research inquiries, they will still have a good d

of work to do. In particular, they will need to (1) formulate recommendation

address any problems identified in the study that are appropriate for treatm

by the body to which they report; (2) write and disseminate a report describ

their areas of inquiry, research methods, and recommendations; and (3) estab

mechanisms to track whether their recommendations are carried out and 

monitor their effectiveness. This chapter provides suggestions for formulat

recommendations and writing the report; Chapter 14 discusses the importan

sues of implementing changes and monitoring their effectiveness.39

Formulating Recommendations

The process of formulating recommendations should begin with the committ

or working groups most familiar with their individual topics. The task fo

should review proposed recommendations to ensure that they are carefu

thought out, based on the findings, realistic, and can be implemented by 

body to which the task force reports. 40 In addition, the task force can formu

overarching recommendations that address problems identified through m

than one inquiry.

Task forces have recommended a variety of ways to address proble

identified through their studies, including the following: educational progra

revised personnel policy statements; establishment of ongoing data-collect

procedures to obtain information about gender, race, and other aspects of di

sity as they relate to the courts; legislation; revision of court forms and manu

sanctions and codes of ethics; and other administrative modifications in the 

cuit (e.g., establishment of a committee to monitor progress, or adoption of p

cedures for handling complaints relating to gender-based misconduct). Revi

ing recommendations from other gender task forces (state and federal) can h

generate ideas about concrete steps the task force can take to address any pr

lems identified.

39. For a detailed discussion of these points, see Schafran & Wikler, supra note 9; and E

Wells Handy et al., Establishing and Operating a Task Force or Commission on Racial and Et

Bias in the Courts 51–61 (The National Center for State Courts 1993).

40. Some task forces have also issued recommendations for the consideration of entities o

than their oversight bodies.
106—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Writing and Disseminating Reports

Planning for Dissemination

At the inception of its work, the task force should begin formulating plans 

disseminating its reports. The task force should identify the audiences who w

be interested in and affected by the task-force findings, set up a schedule for 

culating drafts among committee and task-force members, and consider whet

a preliminary report or other communications to those outside the task force w

be appropriate. For example, a task force may want to consider establish

communication links with certain groups (e.g., federal judges in all of the circ

courts, court personnel, committees of the court, lay users of the court, 

associations, law schools, the public, and the media). In order to discuss preli

nary findings and generate recommendations during the course of its inquiry

task force can distribute materials to these individuals and organizations throu

interim reports, memoranda, circuit newsletters, and oral presentations.

To budget adequately for production of the final report, a task force shoul

the beginning of the project consider who should receive copies of its report. A

minimum, task-force reports should be given to all members of the adminis

tive body to which the task force is reporting, all judges and clerk’s offices in 

circuit, all court and law school libraries within the circuit, lawyer representat

to the circuit judicial conference, and the circuit executive. In addition, to sh

results outside the circuit, copies can be sent to the chief judge of each circ

the circuit executive of each circuit, all circuit libraries, the Federal Judicial C

ter, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, major bar associations, 

major law school libraries.

There are many other individuals or organizations with whom a task force 

want to share its final report. Because printing these reports can be very exp

sive, particularly if they include detailed appendices, the task force should 

plore whether a law review might publish the report or whether it can be p

lished in any other type of reporting service. The Ninth Circuit, for examp

printed 1,500 copies of its final report, all of which were gone within 

months. However, that report was reprinted in the University of Southern Cali

nia Law Review.

Keep in mind that both printing a report and submitting it for publication t

considerable lead time. Thus, in addition to estimating the number of copie

will need, the task force should also explore the time and format requireme

for printing or publishing the report.

Writing Reports

The task force is responsible for coordinating and reviewing any subcommitte

working-group reports and preparing a final report. The task force may fin

useful to begin thinking from the beginning of the inquiry about how to co
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

plete these tasks. Planning ahead will give the task force room to adapt to n

situations as the inquiry evolves and expands. Some of the decisions the t

force needs to make about report writing include the following:

• who will write the final report;

• the format and editing style for committee reports;

• the schedule for submission of reports; and

• the standards of review for committee reports to evaluate how accura

data are analyzed and presented to the reader.41

Making these decisions will lead to standardized committee reports and facili

writing the final report. If the task force decides that a staff member, social sc

tist, or other advisor should write the final document, it should consider incl

ing this item in its budget, unless the individual is already employed by the t

force or is willing to write the report without compensation. Whoever will w

the final report should be involved in the task-force process as early as possi

It is important that the report be written by a single author, rather than sim

combining various subreports into one document.

Overseeing the Report-Writing Process

There are various ways to oversee the report-writing process. Some task for

may decide that committee or working-group heads can oversee report writ

for their respective groups. Others may want to designate a task-force membe

staff person to be a report coordinator for the entire task force. The report co

dinator can monitor submission of committee reports, answer questions, and 

as a “clearinghouse” for the ongoing report-writing process. Another approac

that taken by the Utah Task Force, which divided into five subcommittees 

had four of the subcommittees each write a chapter on a substantive topic w

the fifth subcommittee serving as a review committee.42 Committees or work

groups should be encouraged to share working drafts throughout the proj

with those overseeing the report-writing process. Reviewing these drafts will h

reveal any weaknesses in the data, keep committee members informed of n

findings, promote an exchange of views, and facilitate consensus on final co

mittee reports.43

Types of Reports

In addition to the final task-force report, some task forces may choose to issu

preliminary or interim report during the task-force’s inquiry. An interim rep

41. Schafran & Wikler, supra note 9, at 46 (They suggest asking the following sorts of questi

“Does each report fully and fairly convey the data and the spectrum of views collected by the 

force? Are the findings warranted? Is anything omitted? ”).

42. Utah Task Force on Gender and Justice, Report to the Utah Judicial Council 8 (1990).

43. See Schafran & Wikler, supra note 9, at 46–47 for discussion of avoiding dissent or min

reports; Handy et al., supra note 39.
108—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

typically includes a statement of the task-force objectives, describes the task-fo

composition and research plan, and presents preliminary findings and future 

search plans. In addition, the task force may want to suggest possible rec

mendations for discussion. An interim report can be a good way to provid

large number of individuals with information about the task force’s prelimin

findings, stimulate discussion, and obtain feedback.

Both the Ninth and D.C. Circuits had task-force preliminary reports provi

at their circuit judicial conferences. These conferences included sessions addr

ing the materials collected and discussing their import. Given that circuits a

many districts routinely hold judicial conferences (either annually or biannual

such conferences may be well suited to dissemination of preliminary or final 

ports. After the task force has issued its report, circuit judicial conferences mi

also provide opportunities to consider implementation efforts and follow

studies.

In deciding whether to produce an interim report, the task force should c

sider the following issues:

• Are the time, personnel, and funds available to produce both an inte

and final report?

• Is an interim report the best way to communicate findings and stimu

discussion? How is information usually communicated within the circ

Is there a circuit newsletter? Can the task force make a special commi

report at the annual circuit conference?

• What kinds of preliminary information are available? In what shape are 

data?

Whether a public interim report is issued, the task force may choose to sub

periodic progress reports to the circuit judicial council or other administra

body that appointed the task force, to advise them of the status of the project 

initiate an ongoing conversation to resolve emerging issues.

The task force may choose to ask its committees or working groups to prod

companion reports or working papers on the issues they are studying. For 

ample, the Ninth Circuit Task Force commissioned working papers on severa

sues, including procedures for selecting magistrate judges in the circuit and 

demographics of special master appointments.44 These reports can be drawn 

when writing the final report and are useful for presenting detailed findings o

particular issue. The task force may choose to make the companion reports av

able to the public upon request.

44. For a list of these working papers, see the bibliography at the end of this guide.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Writing the Final Report

A final report is a comprehensive statement describing the task force’s project

findings, and its recommendations. A final report typically includes some va

tion of the following sections:

• introduction;

• description of data-collection procedures;

• findings;

• conclusions and recommendations; and

• appendices.

The introduction is an important part of the document because it provides 

context for understanding the purpose and work of the task force. The m

comprehensive the introduction, the better its readers will appreciate the t

force’s work. An introduction often includes the following: a statement of 

mandate given to the task force; a list of the task force’s objectives; the reasons 

rationale for each inquiry; a brief history of the project; and an overview of 

report.

The presentation of findings is the most important part of the report beca

the findings form the basis for the task force’s recommendations. Findings can 

organized by topic or theme, where each subsection is devoted to a differ

topic or research objective. Each topical subsection might include, for exam

the following elements: an introduction stating the research objective and rei

ating its relationship to gender issues in the court and legal community; 

overview summarizing the main findings on that topic; presentation of data 

that topic in tables, charts, graphs, or illustrative quotations; a discussion of e

finding; and a conclusion.45

The task force should describe each data-collection method used in the inqu

in as much detail as possible. Include the subjects addressed by each meth

how the data were collected, and constraints within which the task force and 

cial scientists worked. For example, the California Task Force summarized its 

of the survey method by presenting a general description of its survey ins

ment, its sampling procedure, response rate, and nature of findings. 46 The d

collection instruments used by the task force, such as questionnaires or interv

protocols, are normally reproduced in an appendix.

The task force should pay close attention to the section on conclusions 

recommendations because many readers will turn to that section first and m

read only it.47 The conclusion generally restates the task-force objectives and 

forth the main conclusions to be drawn from the findings on each topic 

45. See, e.g., Ninth Circuit, The Effects of Gender, supra note 8, at 9–22.

46. Achieving Equal Justice for Women and Men in the Courts: The Draft Report of the Jud

Council Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts, 1990, § 3, at 4–8.

47. It is convenient to incorporate the conclusion and recommendations into the same chapt

section to illustrate the clear connection between the findings and proposals for change.
110—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

dressed by the task force. In the conclusion, a task force may consider discuss

its accomplishments, the limitations of the report, a comparison between 

findings and those of other gender task forces, and future topics of inquiry. S

ing what the task force was not able to accomplish is important because it m

help other circuit bodies, and it delineates the current knowledge base about 

gender issues studied by the task force.

A task force may choose to discuss each recommendation in detail, laying 

for its readers the rationale behind the recommendation. If this is done, it is u

ful to conclude the section with a summary of the recommendations.

Finally, the report should be accompanied by appendices to provide more 

tailed information for readers. Appendices should include, for example, a 

scription of the data-collection instruments and research procedures (see Chap

11) and a bibliography. In addition, appendices could also include working 

pers; resolutions relating to gender; and examples of guidelines, policies, can

of ethics, or any other materials that the task force believes inform the reade

its activities and conclusions. The more documentation the final report conta

the more credible it will be and the more useful it will be as an educational t

for the court, legal community, and public.

Several task forces have produced a summary report or executive summary 

be released simultaneously with the final report. An executive summary is a sh

document, typically twenty-five to thirty pages, that communicates to as m

people as possible a succinct statement of the task force’s findings, conclusio

and recommendations. Many people who will not have the time or patience 

read the full report will read an executive summary. Typically, its contents w

parallel the final report. It can be included with the final report (as an accom

nying document or in a section at the front of the report) or published separat

Keep in mind that law reviews may be a venue for publication of the execu

summary or the final report.48

48. For example, the Executive Summary of the Ninth Circuit Task Force’s preliminary re

was published in 45 Stan. L. Rev. 2143 (1993). The final report was published in 67 S. Cal. L. 

745 (1994).
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

For Further Reference

Edna Wells Handy et al., National Center for State Courts, Establishing and O

erating a Task Force or Commission on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Co

(Marilyn McCoy Roberts ed., 1993) (available from the National Center 

State Courts, 300 Newport Ave., Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798. (804) 2

2000).

National Center for State Courts, Proceedings of the National Conference 

Gender Bias in the Courts (Dixie K. Knoebel & Marilyn McCoy Roberts e

1990) (available from the National Center for State Courts, 300 Newp

Ave., Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798. (804) 253-2000).

Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force, The Effects of Gender in the Federal Cou

The Final Report of the Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force, 67 S. Cal. L. R

745 (1994).

Lynn Hecht Schafran & Norma Juliet Wikler, The Foundation for Wom

Judges, Operating a Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts: A Manual 

Action (1986) (available from the Women Judges’ Fund for Justice, 733 1

St., N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005).

Norma Juliet Wikler & Lynn Hecht Schafran, Women’s Judges’ Fund for Just

Learning from the New Jersey Supreme Court Task Force on Women in 

Courts (1989) (available from the Women Judges’ Fund for Justice, 733 1

St., N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005).

Chapter 14—Implementing Recommendation

and Monitoring Changes

The task force should try to work with its appointing authority from its incept

to develop a comprehensive plan to implement recommendations and mon

changes. For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force for Gen

Fairness in the Courts established an implementation committee one year bef

issuing its report so that there would be a seamless transition from presenting 

report to taking action on it. In New Jersey, the task force itself continued to 

plement recommendations for several years, at which point the chief justice 

tablished a standing committee of the Supreme Court to continue implemen

tion. After the Ninth Circuit task force report was issued, Chief Judge Wall

appointed a four-person Ad Hoc Committee on Implementation of Gender F

ness to advise staff on proposals to implement the recommendations of the Ni

Circuit Gender Bias Task Force.

The task force should also think long range about monitoring and evaluatin

learn whether it has effected the improvements it recommended. Planning 

Evaluation: Guidelines for Task Forces on Gender Bias in the Courts, by Lynn He

Schafran, 49 explains how task forces can gather information throughout 

study, information that will facilitate evaluation. Many of the research approac

discussed in this guide will also be useful for ongoing evaluation of the im

mentation efforts recommended or undertaken by the task force.

49. Lynn Hecht Schafran, Women Judges’ Fund for Justice, Planning for Evaluation: Guide

for Task Forces on Gender Bias in the Courts (1989).

Appendix A—Summaries of Gender Task Forc

Reports

In this appendix, we provide summaries of final published reports from state 

federal gender task forces. The summaries include a description of the issues 

dressed and the research approaches used by each task force. In addition, we 

clude information about obtaining copies of the reports.

For more information about state task forces on gender in the courts, con

the National Center for State Courts, Information Services Office, 300 Newp

Ave., Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798. (804) 253-2000.

STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

California

Achieving Equal Justice for Women and Men in the Courts: The Draft Repor

the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts (1990)

Areas Covered

• Civil Litigation and Courtroom Demeanor

• Family Law

• Domestic Violence

• Juvenile and Criminal Law

• Court Administration

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Questionnaires

- judges

- court clerks

• Regional Bar Meetings (confidential meetings with attorneys)

• Public Hearings

• Site Visits to Two Jail Facilities

• Focus Groups

- judges

- civil litigators

- family attorneys

- minority attorneys

• Information Gathering Meetings with Domestic Violence Advocates

• Meetings with Court Clerks

• Review of Reports Submitted by Affiliates of California Women Lawy

on:

- domestic violence diversion

- attorneys’ fees in family law matters

- alternative sentencing and dispositional programs in criminal and ju

nile law

- appointment of counsel in juvenile and criminal matters

• Review of Literature

• Case Law Searches and Analysis

• Comments Submitted to the California Lawyer

• Follow-up Telephone Interviews with Participants in Focus Groups a

Public Hearings

• Survey of Court Employment Practices

For a copy of the report, contact: Bobbie L. Welling, Esq., Administrative 

fice of the Courts, 303 Second Street, South Tower, San Francisco, CA 941

(415) 396-9139.
118—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Colorado

Colorado Supreme Court Task Force on Women in the Courts, Gender and J

tice in the Colorado Courts (1990).

Areas Covered

• Economic Consequences of Divorce

• Domestic Relations

• Child Custody and Visitation

• Child Support

• Domestic Violence

• Criminal Justice

• Civil Justice

• Courtroom Environment

• Court Administration

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Public Hearings

• Listening Sessions (accompanied the public hearing; confidentiality assu

and testimony was not transcribed)

• Meetings with Attorneys

• Mail Questionnaires

- all registered attorneys

- judges and referees

- court employees

• Court Watching

• Analysis of Court Records (concerning child custody and divorce cases)

• Telephone Calls and Letters Received by Task Force

For a copy of the report, contact: Virginia Leavitt, Office of the State Co

Administrator, 1301 Pennsylvania Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80203-24

(303) 837-3658.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Connecticut

Gender, Justice and the Courts: Report of the Connecticut Task Force (1991).

Areas Covered

• Women in the Courts (attorneys, judges, litigants, witnesses, jurors, e

ployees)

- gender-biased language in the courts and on court forms

- interactions

- appointments to prestigious and fee-generating positions

• Women and Children in the Criminal Justice System

• Sentencing

• Sexual Assault

• Family Law

• Domestic Violence

• Court Administration

• Probate Court

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Review of Literature and Other States’ Reports

• Questionnaires

- judges

- attorneys (public and private)

- court employees

• Public Hearings

• Meetings with Women Attorneys

• Analyses of Court Data

For a copy of the report, contact: Judge Francis X. Hennessy or Marjorie 

Wilber, Legal Services Unit, Judicial Branch, 231 Capitol Ave., Hartford, 

06106. (203) 566-7483.
120—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

District of Columbia

District of Columbia Courts, Final Report of the Task Force on Racial and Eth

Bias and Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts (May 1992).

Areas Covered

• Court Administration (including court employment)

• Treatment of Participants in the Court System

• Civil and Criminal Law

• Family Law

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Questionnaires

- court employees

- judicial officers

- jurors

• Statistical Analyses

- sentences

- damage awards in personal injury cases

- respondents in disciplinary actions

- requests for and issuance of civil protection orders

- appointments made under the Criminal Justice Act

• Focus Groups (with attorneys from various legal specialties)

- employment law

- child abuse and neglect

- personal injury

- criminal law

- intrafamily disputes

• Conferences and Workshops to Receive Public Input and Recommenda

tions

• Individual Interviews and Meetings with Leaders of Minority Bar Associ

tions

For a copy of the report, contact: Chief Judge Annice M. Wagner, Distric

Columbia Court of Appeals, 500 Indiana Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 200

(202) 879-2700.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Florida

Report of the Florida Supreme Court Gender Bias Study Commission (1990).

Areas Covered

• Gender Bias in the Dissolution of Marriage, Custody, and Child Suppor

• Gender Bias in the Criminal Justice System

• Gender Bias in the Legal Profession

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Public Hearings

• Regional Meetings (informal roundtable discussions by attorneys and ot

professionals)

• Questionnaires

- attorneys (several subgroups)

- judges

- law students

• Interviews

- representatives of fathers’ rights groups

- representatives of women’s rights groups

- representatives of sexual and domestic abuse treatment programs

- judges

- attorneys

- law enforcement personnel

- correctional officers

- rehabilitation and drug counselors

- social workers

- medical personnel

- prostitutes

• Analyses of Existing Data

• Analysis of Reported Decisions

• Review of Scholarly Publications and Unpublished Legal Research

• Review of Statements and Reports Submitted to the Commission

For a copy of the report, contact: Ken Palmer, State Court Administra

Supreme Court Building, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900. The report was publis

in 42 Fla. L. Rev. 803 (1990).
122—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Georgia

Gender and Justice in the Courts: A Report to the Supreme Court of Georgia 

the Commission on Gender Bias in the Justice System (1991).

Areas Covered

• Domestic Violence Involving Adults

• Sexual Offenses

• Adult Sentencing

• Juvenile Justice System

• Child Custody

• Visitation

• Child Support

• Alimony & Equitable Distribution of Property

• Treatment of Attorneys, Litigants, and Witnesses in the Courtroom

• Treatment of Court Employees

• Formal Language in the Courts

• Judicial Ethics and Discipline

• Judicial Selection

• Court Facilities

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Review of Existing Data and Statistics

• Questionnaires

- court employees

- attorneys

- judges

• Public Hearings

• Confidential Hearings (in conjunction with public hearings)

• Review of Judicial Selection and Appointment Process

• Review of Court Forms and Documents for Gender-Biased Language

• Review of Numerous Studies, Books, and Articles

• Review of Statutory and Case Law

• Interviews with Female Inmates

• Review of Reports and Letters Submitted to the Commission

• Court-Watching Project

For a copy of the report: The report was reprinted in 8 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 

(1992). Also available from: Marla S. Moore, Judicial Liaison Officer, Admi

trative Office of the Courts, 244 Washington Street, S.W., Suite 550, Atlanta, 

30334-5900. (404) 656-5171.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Hawaii

Achieving Gender Fairness: Designing a Plan to Address Gender Bias in Haw

Legal System (Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Gender Bias) (1989).

Areas Covered

• Courtroom Interaction

• Judicial Decision Making

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Questionnaire to Attorneys (ad hoc committee modified a questionn

used by the New York Court of Appeals Task Force on Women in 

Courts)

For a copy of the report, contact: L. Dew Kaneshiro, Project Coordinator, G

der and Other Fairness, Office of the Administrative Director of the Courts, P

Box 2560, Honolulu, HI 96804.
124—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Idaho

Report of the Fairness and Equality Committee of the Supreme Court of Id

(1992).

Areas Covered

• Gender Bias in the Court Environment

• Domestic and Family Law

• Domestic Violence

• Women as Victims of Crime

• Women as Criminal Defendants

• The Court System as an Employer

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• The committee studied and summarized the results of other states’ stud

including those of California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, M

sachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rh

Island, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.

For a copy of the report, contact: Justice Linda Copple Trout, Supreme Co

of Idaho, P.O. Box 83720, Boise, ID 83720-0101. (208) 334-2207.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Illinois

The 1990 Report of the Illinois Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts (199

Areas Covered

• Domestic Relations

- property distribution, maintenance, and litigation expenses

- child support

- child custody and visitation

- domestic violence

• Criminal Justice

- sexual assault

- domestic violence

- criminal sentencing

• Civil Damage Awards

• Courtroom Dynamics

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Questionnaires

- state’s attorneys and defense attorneys

- domestic relations litigants

- judges

- domestic violence victim advocates

• Public Hearings

• Roundtable Discussions (with attorneys, mediators, judges, and other p

fessionals)

• Interviews

- pre-divorce financial planners

- chief of sexual crimes prosecution division in county state attorn

office

- individuals working with incarcerated women

• Research on the Evolution of Law in Areas of

- domestic relations

- criminal law (including sexual assault and domestic violence)

- civil damage awards

- courtroom dynamics

• Literature Reviews

• Review of Existing Statistics

For a copy of the report, contact: Janet Paul, Illinois State Bar Association, 

South Second Street, Springfield, IL 62701. (217) 525-1760.
126—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Iowa

Final Report of the Equality in the Courts Task Force. State of Iowa (Febru

1993).

Areas Covered

• Appointments, Hiring, and Advancement

• Courtroom and Professional Interactions

• Jury Selection

• Civil Damages

• Domestic Relations

• Domestic Abuse

• Bias in the Criminal System

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Questionnaires

- judges

- court personnel

- attorneys

• Telephone Interviews with Members of the General Public

• Public Hearings

• Meetings with Attorneys and Service Workers

For a copy of the report, contact: The Supreme Court of Iowa, Statehouse, 

Moines, IA 50319. (515) 281-5174.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Kansas

Report of the Kansas Bar Association Task Force on the Status of Women in 

Profession (1992).

Areas Covered

• General Practice of Law

• Legal Education Setting

• Judicial Conduct

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Telephone Interviews with Attorneys

• Follow-up Mail Surveys to Those Who Were Interviewed

• Written Questionnaires to Area Law Students

• Review and Analysis of Other State Task-Force Reports

For a copy of the report, contact: Kansas Bar Association, P.O. Box 10

Topeka, KS 66601-1037. $15.00 charge.
128—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Kentucky

Kentucky Task Force on Gender Fairness in the Courts: Equal Justice for Wom

and Men (1992).

Areas Covered

• Gender Bias in the Legal Profession

• Gender Bias in the Courts

• Domestic Relations

• Domestic Violence

• Criminal Justice

• Gender Bias in Damages and Awards

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Public Hearings

• Review of Confidential Correspondence

• Questionnaires

- attorneys

- judges

• Review of Court Personnel Statistics

• Review of Other State Task-Force Reports

• Analyses of Existing Data

• Meeting with Inmates

For a copy of the report, contact: Ellen Razor, Director of Communicatio

Kentucky Bar Association, 514 West Main Street, Frankfort, KY 40601-1883.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Louisiana

Louisiana Task Force on Women in the Courts: Final Report (1992).

Areas Covered

• Women as Litigants

- domestic relations

- domestic abuse

- general civil litigation

• Women as Criminal Defendants

• Women as Attorneys and Judges

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Public Hearings (members of the public were allowed to testify priva

and anonymously )

• Telephone Interviews of Attorneys

• Review of Letters, Statements, and Affidavits Sent to Task Force

For a copy of the report, contact: Paulette H. Holahan, Deputy Judicial Adm

istrator, Supreme Court of Louisiana, 301 Loyola Ave., Rm. 109, New Orlea

LA 70112. (504) 568-5748.
130—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Maryland

Report of the Special Joint Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts (May 198

Areas Covered

• Domestic Violence

• Child Custody and Visitation

• Child Support

• Alimony, Property Disposition, and Litigation Expenses in Divorce Case

• Court Treatment of Personnel

• Judicial Selection

• Women in the Courtroom: Treatment of Women Parties, Witnesses, Jur

and Lawyers

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Questionnaires

- judges

- attorneys

- court personnel

• Public Hearings

• Review of Reports, Statements, and Complaints Submitted to 

Committee

• Review of Court Files and Transcripts

• Analysis of Personnel Data

• Other (The committee obtained information from judges and court-

pointed masters by having them respond to hypothetical problems ab

child custody, alimony, sentencing, and jury instructions.)

For a copy of the report, contact: Deborah A. Unitus, Administrative Offic

the Courts, The Court of Appeals Building, 361 Rowe Blvd., Annapolis, M

21401. (410) 974-2475.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Massachusetts

Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts. Supreme Judicial Co

(1989).

Areas Covered

• Family Law

• Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault

• Criminal and Juvenile Justice

• Civil Damage Awards

• Courthouse Interactions

• Court Personnel

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Analysis of Court Records (re: court employment and appointments; eq

table distribution in divorce cases; abuse prevention)

• Questionnaires

- attorneys (general and specialized)

- jurors

- court employees

- judges

- parties

- witnesses

- members of the public

• Individual/Group Interviews

- listening sessions with attorneys

- regional meetings of court employees

- interviews with divorcing couples

- interviews with family-law attorneys

- interviews with family-service officers

- meetings with litigants

- group interview with sexual assault victims

- interviews on sexual assault (judges, assistant district attorneys, m

bers of advocacy and service groups)

- public hearings

- focus groups with personal-injury attorneys

• Other (experiment using videotapes of hypothetical trials to determine 

fluence of plaintiff’s gender on juror-damage awards)

For a copy of the report, contact: Justice Ruth Abrams, Supreme Judicial Co

1300 Courthouse, Boston, MA 02108. (617) 725-8010.
132—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Michigan

Final Report of the Michigan Supreme Court Task Force on Gender Issues in 

Courts (1989).

Areas Covered

• Courts’ Response to Violence Against Women

• Domestic Relations

• Gender Bias Within the Court Environment

- treatment of women litigants and witnesses

- treatment of women attorneys

- treatment of women judges

- the judge’s role in courtroom control

- case assignments and appointments of women in criminal matters

- mediation

- treatment of court personnel

• Status of Women in the Profession

- professional associations

- employment issues for women lawyers

- law schools

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Public Hearings

• Review of Case Transcripts

• Review of Judicial Opinions

• Data Concerning Court Demographics

• Court Employment Questionnaire

• Questionnaires

- court users

- judges

- attorneys

• Telephone Interviews with Litigants and Court Users

• Review of Scholarly Research (published and unpublished)

• Presentations by Scholars and Experts in Various Fields

For a copy of the report, contact: Michigan Office of Court Administrat

Department of Management and Budget, Office Services Division, Publicati

Section, 2461 Crowner Drive, Lansing, MI 48913. $7.00 charge.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Minnesota

Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force for Gender Fairness in the Courts: Fi

Report (1989).

Areas Covered

• Family Law

- spousal maintenance

- property division

- child support

- child custody

- access to the courts

• Domestic Violence

- context of the problem

- the civil process: orders for protection

- criminal enforcement: dismissals

• Criminal and Civil Justice

- sexual assault

- sentencing adult felons

- juvenile justice

- civil-damage awards

- gender-based employment discrimination

• Courtroom Environment

- the courtroom environment for female litigants, witnesses, and attor

neys

- women judges

- gender fairness in court documents

- the court as employer

- sexual harassment

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Public Hearings

• Lawyers’ Meetings

• Meeting with Women Judges

• Questionnaires

- attorneys

- judges

- in-court personnel

- court administrators

• Review of Written Comments

• Review of Reports and Research Results Submitted to Committee

• Analyses of Existing Statistical Data
134—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

• Interviews with Practicing Attorneys

• Literature Reviews

• Review of Court Rules, Forms, and Brochures for Gender-Biased Langua

For a copy of the report: The report is reprinted in 15 Wm. Mitchell L. R

827 (1989).
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Missouri

Report of the Missouri Task Force on Gender and Justice (1993).

Areas Covered

• Domestic Violence

• Family Law

• Criminal Justice

• Treatment of Jurors, Litigants, Witnesses, Attorneys, and Judges in the

Courtroom

• Treatment of Court Personnel

• Judicial Selection

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Public Hearings

• Questionnaires

- attorneys

- judges

- court personnel

• Inquiry to Presiding Judges on Rules and Policies

• Judicial Nominating Commission Questionnaire

For a copy of the report, contact: The Missouri Bar Center, 326 Monroe Str

P.O. Box 119, Jefferson City, MO 65102. (314) 635-4128.
136—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Nevada

Justice for Women: First Report of the Nevada Supreme Court Task Force 

Gender Bias in the Courts (1988).

Areas Covered

• Justice for Women in Divorce Cases

- spousal support

- property division

- child custody

- child-support awards and enforcement

• Justice in Protection of Women Victims of Domestic Violence

• Just Treatment of Women Participants in the Legal System

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Review of Other State Task-Force Reports on Gender Bias

• Review of Literature

• Questionnaires

- judges

- attorneys

• Public Hearings

• Comments Submitted to the Task Force

For a copy of the report, contact: Justice Charles Springer, Nevada Supre

Court, Capitol Complex, Carson City, NV 89710. (702) 687-5190.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

New Hampshire

Report of the New Hampshire Bar Association Task Force on Women in the 

(1988).

Areas Covered

• Demographics (of male and female attorneys)

• Professional Life—Activities and Motivation

• Personal Life—Influence on Professional Life

• Perceptions of Discrimination

- “old boy network”

- discrimination within the profession

- treatment of female attorneys—outside of court

- treatment of female attorneys in court or chambers

- client complaints

• Job Satisfaction

• Measures of Discrimination

- salary differences: the profession as a whole

- salary differences: private firms

- effect on partnership

- differences in making partner

- management functions

- billing rates

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Questionnaire to Attorneys

• Public Hearings

• Interviews with Attorneys

• Review of Letters Submitted to Task Force

For a copy of the report: This report is published in 29 N.H. B. J. 213 (Sum

1988).
138—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

New Jersey

First Year Report of the New Jersey Supreme Court Task Force on Women in 

Courts (1984); Second Report of the New Jersey Supreme Court Task Force 

Women in the Courts (1986)

Areas Covered

• Treatment of Women and Men in the Legal and Judicial Environment

- treatment of litigants

- treatment of witnesses

- treatment of lawyers in the courtroom, in chambers, and at professio

gatherings

• Effect of Gender-Based Myths, Biases, and Stereotypes on Substantive La

and Judicial Decision Making

- personal injury damages

- domestic violence

- child support, custody, and visitation

- juvenile justice system

- matrimonial law

- sentencing

• Court Administration (including gender-neutral language in court forms

and correspondence)

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Review and Analysis of Cases, Legal and Social Scientific Studies, and St

tistical Information

• Interviews with Judges

• Survey of Attorneys

• Regional Meetings with Bar Association Members

• Review of Letters Received by Task Force

For a copy of both reports, contact: Marilyn Slivka, Administrative Office of 

Courts, R. J. Hughes Justice Complex, CN-037, Trenton, NJ 08625. (609) 2

0856.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

New Mexico

The Status of Women Attorneys in New Mexico: Final Report of the Task Fo

on Women and the Legal Profession (1990).

Areas Covered

• Legal Employment Experience

• Judicial Selection

• Bar Activity

• Courtroom Environment

• Court Documents (concerning the use of gender-neutral language)

• Civil Justice

• Domestic Violence

• Criminal Law

- sexual assault

- sentencing adult felons

• Juvenile Justice

• Family Law

- access to the courts

- property division

- alimony

- child support

- physical custody

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Review of Literature and Other State Task-Force Reports

• Analysis of Court Rules

• Survey of Law Firms on Parental Leave Policies

• Regional Meetings

• Survey of All Active In-State Members of the Bar

For a copy of the report, contact: State Bar of New Mexico, P.O. Box 258

Albuquerque, NM 87125. (800) 876-6227. There is no charge for the report. 

appendices cost $6.00.
140—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

New York

Report of the New York Task Force on Women in the Courts (March 1986).

Areas Covered

• Status of Women Litigants

- the courts’ response to violence against women

- the courts’ enforcement of women’s economic rights (equitable distr

bution, damage awards in personal injury suits, child support)

- the court’s consideration of gender in custody determinations

- the courtroom environment

• Status of Women Attorneys

- professional acceptance

- professional opportunity

• Status of Women Court Employees

- women’s representation in the unified court system

- gender-biased conduct

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Review of Research and Literature

• Review of Other State Task-Force Reports Concerning Gender Bias

• Public Hearings

• Regional Meetings with Judges and Attorneys

• Regional Listening Sessions

• Surrogate’s Court Survey of Fee-Generating Appointments (questionnai

to surrogates)

• Questionnaires to Those Involved in Nominating Judges

• Statistical Analysis of Court Personnel Information

• Interviews with Court Employees and Administrators

• Textual Analysis of Personnel Rules

• Questionnaire to Attorneys

For a copy of the report: The report is reprinted in 15 Fordham Urb. L

(1986–87). Fordham Urban Law Journal, 140 West 62nd Street, New York, 

10023. (212) 841-5247. Individual copies may be purchased for $5.00.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Rhode Island

The Final Report of the Rhode Island Committee on Women in the Courts

Report on Gender Bias (June 1987).

Areas Covered

• Court Environment

- treatment of women litigants, witnesses, and attorneys

• Fee-Generating Appointments

• Court Employment

• Language of Court Publications

• Court Decisions

• Family Law

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Court Watching Project

• Analysis of Court Decisions

- case dispositions

- sentencing decisions

- damage awards

• Review of Court Appointments for Indigent Defense

• Comparison of Salary Grades of Male and Female Court Employees

• Review of Court Forms and Publications for Gender-Biased Language

• Questionnaires

- judges

- attorneys

- jurors

- court employees

For a copy of the report, contact: Susan McCalmont, Esq., Rhode Island 

ministrative Office of the Courts, 250 Benefit Street, Rm. 705, Providence, 

02903. (401) 277-2500.
142—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Texas

The Gender Bias Task Force of Texas Final Report (February 1994)

Areas Covered

• General Perceptions of Gender Bias

• Courtroom Interactions

- treatment of litigants

- treatment of attorneys

- effect of gender on the litigation process

• Gender Bias in Areas of Substantive Law

- divorce and division of property

- custody and visitation

- child support

- domestic violence

- sexual assault

- sexual harassment

- adult criminal sentencing

- juvenile justice

• Lack of Access to the Judicial System

• Use of Gender-Biased Language in Texas Statutes

• Gender Differences in Court-Appointed Fees

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Questionnaires

- judges

- attorneys

• Regional Meetings

• Public Hearings

• Survey of Rape Crisis Centers

• Review of Results from State Bar of Texas 1990 Member Attitudes Surve

• Review of Results from 1992 State Bar of Texas Legal Needs of the Poor 

sessment Project

• Assessment of Language Used in Statutes Relating to Secretary of State’s

Office

• Analysis of Lubbock County Court Appointments for Fiscal Year 92

• Interviews

• Review of Results from Other State Gender Bias Task Forces

For a copy of the report, contact: State Bar of Texas, Department of Resea

and Analysis, P.O. Box 12487, Austin, TX 78711. (800) 204-2222/(512) 4

1463.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Utah

Utah Task Force on Gender and Justice: Report to the Utah Judicial Coun

(March 1990).

Areas Covered

• Domestic Relations

• Domestic Violence

• Judicial Selection

• Court Employment

• Courtroom Interaction

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Public Hearings

• Confidential Hearings

• Mail Questionnaire to Attorneys

• Telephone Interviews with County Attorneys

• Review of Personnel Data on Court Employees, Including Judicial 

pointments

• Focus Groups with Court Employees

• Appellate Case Law Study

• Review of Studies Conducted by Other Groups and Submitted to the T

Force

For a copy of the report, contact: Holly Bullen, Administrative Office of 

Courts, 230 South 500 East, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT 84102. (801) 5

3817. Free for state agencies. $5.00 charge for individuals.
144—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Vermont

Gender and Justice: Report of the Vermont Task Force on Gender Bias in the 

gal System (1991).

Areas Covered

• Domestic Violence

• Courtroom Interaction

• Judicial Selection

• Court Personnel

• Child Support

• Child Custody

• Mediation

• Guardians Ad Litem

• Criminal Justice

• Civil-Damage Awards

• Access to the Legal System

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Questionnaires

- attorneys (general)

- women attorneys with more than five years of experience

- appointed judges

- court personnel (including nonappointed judges)

• Private Listening Groups

• Public Hearings

• Interviews

- members of judicial nominating board

- judges

- lawyers

- guardians ad litem

- law enforcement officers

- criminal defense attorneys

- state’s attorneys

- victim’s advocates

• Review of Substantive Case Law

• Review and Analysis of Docket Information

• Review of Existing Statistical Data

• Review of Written Submissions

• Review of Literature and Other Studies

For a copy of the report, contact: Thomas J. Lehner, Court Administrator 

Clerk, 111 State Street, Montpelier, VT 05602. (802) 828-3278.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Washington

Washington State Task Force on Gender and Justice in the Courts, Gender 

Justice in the Courts (1989).

Areas Covered

• Consequences of Violence: Domestic Violence and Rape

• Consequences of Divorce

- property division

- maintenance awards

- custody and visitation

- child support

- legal services

• Economic Consequences of Other Civil Litigation

- wrongful death

- loss of consortium

- court-awarded attorneys’ fees

• Treatment of Lawyers, Litigants, Judges, and Court Personnel

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Review of Research and Literature

• Review of Other States’ Gender-Bias Studies

• Questionnaires

- judges

- attorneys

- social-service personnel

• Public Hearings

• Review of Court Personnel Policies and Procedures

• Substantive Case Research

• Analysis of Relevant State and National Data

• Analysis of Case Files

• Interviews with Attorneys

For a copy of the report, contact: Gloria Hemmen, Office of the Administr

for the Courts, 1206 South Quince Street, Olympia, WA 98504. (206) 753-33
146—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Equal Justice Task Force Final Report (January 1991).

Areas Covered

• Civil Law

• Criminal Law

• Domestic Abuse

• Family Law

• Gender Discrimination and the Legal Profession

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Mail Questionnaires

- judges

- district attorneys

- clerks of court

- family court commissioners

• Review of Probation Files and Sentencing Transcripts

• Review of Family Law Files

• Review of Jury Instructions for Gender-Biased Language

• Court Observers

• Focus Groups

• Public Hearings

• Confidential Listening Sessions with Attorneys

For a copy of the report: This report is reprinted in 6 Wis. Women’s L.J. 

(1991). State Printing Office—Document Sales, P.O. Box 7840, Madison, 

53707-7840. (608) 266-3358.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

U.S. Courts of the Ninth Circuit

The Effects of Gender in the Federal Courts: The Final Report of the Ninth C

cuit Gender Bias Task Force (1993).

Areas Covered

• The Courts, Lawyers, and Litigants

- the roles of women and men in the Ninth Circuit: a demographic

profile

- appointments, hiring, and promotion: practices and perceptions

- courtroom interactions: on and off the record

- work and life

• The Interaction Between Gender and Federal Law

- federal courts and administrative adjudication: federal benefits and

immigration law

- gender and employment law

- gender and bankruptcy

- gender and federal Indian law

- gender and the criminal justice system

Research Approaches and Sources of Data

• Review of Existing Records and Published Information

• Questionnaires

- judges

- attorneys (general and bankruptcy practitioners)

- courtroom deputies

- specialized questionnaires (re: areas of substantive law)

• Focus Groups

- attorneys

- magistrate judges

- courtroom deputies

- probation officers

- court interpreters

• Analysis of Margin Comments on Questionnaires

• Office Self-Studies

- U.S. Attorney offices

- federal public defender offices

• LEXIS and Westlaw Computer Searches

• Analysis of Case Law, Statutes, and Regulations

• Telephone Interviews
148—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

For a copy of the report: The report is reprinted in 67 S. Cal. L. Rev. 7

(1994). The executive summary of the preliminary report and related essays 

published in 45 Stan. L. Rev. 2143 (1993).
Appendix B—Calls for Gender Studies

This appendix sets forth several recent resolutions or suggestions for gen

studies in the federal courts.
150—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Appendix B-1—Judicial Conference of the United States

In March 1993, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted the foll

ing resolution:

After considering the report and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee

on Gender-Based Violence, and as a result of the dialogue the Ad Hoc Committee has undertaken with the sponsors of the proposed Violence Against Women

Act of 1991 since the Judicial Conference adopted its resolution about the proposed 1991 Act, the Conference takes no position on specific provisions of the

proposed Violence Against Women Act of 1993. The Conference reiterates its

concerns expressed in its prior resolution and its general concerns about the

trend toward federalization of state law crimes and causes of action.

At the same time, the Conference believes that the provision of Title V of S.

11, encouraging circuit judicial councils to conduct studies with respect to

gender bias in their respective circuits, has great merit and the Conference endorses that specific provision.50

50. Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States 28 (March 

1993) (citations omitted).
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Appendix B-2—American Bar Association

In 1991, the American Bar Association House of Delegates adopted the follow

resolution, as recommended by the following groups: its Standing Committee 

Federal Judicial Improvements; Commission on Women in the Professi

Commission on Opportunities for Minorities in the Profession; Section of Cri

nal Justice; Association of the Bar of the City of New York; and the Boston 

Association.

RESOLVED, that the American Bar Association supports the enactment of

federal legislation, or other authoritative measures, requiring a study of the

existence, if any, of racial, ethnic and gender bias in the federal judicial system

and the extent to which bias may affect litigants, witnesses, attorneys and all

those who work in the judicial branch.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the American Bar Association urges that

such a study should include the development of remedial steps to address and

eliminate any racial, ethnic and gender bias found to exist.51

51. American Bar Association, Report with Recommendations to the House of Delegates, An

Meeting (1991).
152—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Appendix B-3—National Commission on Judicial Disciplin

and Removal

In its 1993 report, the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Remo

made the following recommendation:

The Commission recommends that each circuit that has not already done so

conduct a study (or studies) of judicial misconduct involving bias based on

race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnic or national origin, including

sexual harassment, and of the extent to which the 1980 Act and other existing

mechanisms and programs, including judicial education, are adequate to deal

with it. The Judicial Conference should monitor the implementation of this

recommendation and when such studies have been completed, consideration

should be given both locally and nationally within the judiciary to such changes

in policies, procedures, and programs as are warranted.52

52. Report of the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal 126 (1993).
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Appendix B-4—The Violent Crime Control and Law

Enforcement Act of 1994

Section 40421 of this Act contains the following provision:

In order to gain a better understanding of the nature and the extent of gender

bias in the Federal courts, the circuit judicial councils are encouraged to conduct studies of the instances, if any, of gender bias in their respective circuits

and to implement recommended reforms . . . The studies . . . may include an

examination of the effects of gender on —

(1) the treatment of litigants, witnesses, attorneys, jurors, and judges in the

courts, including before magistrate and bankruptcy judges;

(2) the interpretation and application of the law, both civil and criminal;

(3) treatment of defendants in criminal cases;

(4) treatment of victims of violent crimes in judicial proceedings;

(5) sentencing;

(6) sentencing alternatives and the nature of supervision of probation and parole;

(7) appointments to committees of the Judicial Conference and the courts;

(8) case management and court sponsored alternative dispute resolution programs;

(9) the selection, retention, promotion, and treatment of employees;

(10) appointment of arbitrators, experts, and special masters;

(11) the admissibility of the victim’s past sexual history in civil and criminal

cases; and

(12) the aspects of the topics listed in section 40412 [dealing with training on

violence against women] that pertain to issues within the jurisdiction of the

Federal courts.
154—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Appendix B-5—Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference

In August 1990, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference passed the following re

lution, which was submitted by its Lawyer Representatives Coordinating Co

mittee:

WHEREAS, gender bias in the courts includes behavior or decision making

of participants in the justice system which is based upon or reveals stereotypical

attitudes regarding the roles of women and men, cultural perceptions about the

relative worth of the sexes, and misconceptions about the social and economic

realities encountered by women and men;

WHEREAS, the problem of gender bias may continue to exist in the federal

courts within the Circuit despite efforts by the bench and bar to eradicate it;

WHEREAS, gender bias in the courts is an impediment to the fair administration of justice;

WHEREAS, a large number of state judicial councils have established gender

bias committees; and

WHEREAS, the California Judicial Council has recently issued its report finding that gender bias in the California courts is pervasive and widespread and

recommended dozens of reforms;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:

1) The Special Studies Committee of the Ninth Circuit Conference establish

an Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts composed of judges,

lawyers, and other experts to conduct a comprehensive review of gender bias

issues including, but not limited to, courtroom interaction, judicial branch employment practices and other issues of court administration, gender bias within

the judiciary, selection of court-appointed counsel, and jury instructions.

2) The Special Studies Committee be authorized to conduct public hearings,

regional meetings, and surveys; consult with other professionals in the justice

system; collect statistical information and perform any other tasks consistent

with its charge.

3) The Special Studies Committee prepare a written report which will set

forth its findings and make recommendations for the elimination of gender bias

in the courts.
Appendix C—Sample Research Instruments

In this appendix we provide examples of the types of research instruments u

with the methods described in the guide. These are not intended to serve as p

totypes for the task forces, but to give task-force members a more concrete i

of what the research instruments look like. Some of the sample instruments w

developed by the FJC, while others are based on those used in previous ta

force efforts.

Method and Instrument(s) P

Public Hearings

Notice announcing hearing (D.C. Circuit task force) 

Registration forms (D.C. Circuit task force) 

Guidelines for testimony (D.C. Circuit task force) 

Focus Groups

Moderator’s guide (D.C. Circuit task force) 

Original Records

Sample items for a case file coding form (FJC) 

Observational Studies

Observation form (based on form used by Women’s Bar Assoc., MD) 

Interviews

Sample questions for interview protocol (FJC) 

Mail Questionnaires

Sample questions for attorney gender questionnaire (FJC—based on

previous task-force questionnaires) 

STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Appendix C-1—Public Hearings

Task Force of the District of Columbia Circuit

on Gender, Race, and Ethnic Bias

UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 202-273-0477 FAX: 202-273-0559

NOTICE

A public hearing to identify and prioritize issues to be explored by the Spe

Committee on Race and Ethnicity of the D.C. Circuit Task Force on Gend

Race, and Ethnic Bias will be held on Tuesday, May 11, 1993, from 8:30 a

until 6:30 p.m. in the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building (low

level), One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Preliminary areas identified for study include:

**Criminal Justice

including bail, charging, and sentencing

**Access to Justice

including availability of attorneys to minority populations, court access for non

English speakers

**Class, Race & Gender

including unique issues confronting minority women as lawyers or parties

**Litigation Process

including the role race or ethnicity may

play in substantive outcomes, interactio

among judges, attorneys, jurors, witness

etc.

**Employee Worklife

including issues affecting hiring and work

of federal courthouse employees

**Federal Equality Law

including court’s attitudes toward cases 

which minorities and women are frequently parties

**Demographics

including demographics of federal bench,

bar, and courthouse

**Relationship of Federal Court 

Legal Community

including representation at Judicial Con

ference, selection for fee-generating appointments

Any person or organization wishing to testify or to submit written comme

or seeking further information, should contact Katherine L. Garrett at the T

Force, United States Courthouse, Room 4816, Washington, DC 20001, (2

273-0477, no later than May 3, 1993.

On request, the Special Committee will arrange for receipt of confidential 

timony or written comments.
158—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Task Force of the District of Columbia Circuit on Gender, Race, an

Ethnic Bias Special Committee on Race and Ethnicity

Public Hearing Participant Registration Form

[used for registration in advance of the hearing]

Date: May 11, 1993

Place: Federal Judiciary Bldg.

Name:

Address:

Phone: (day) (evening)

I represent an organization (please circle): Yes No

Name and address of organization you represent:

I would be available to testify during the following times (please circle):

8:30–9:30 a.m. 1:30–2:30 p.m.

9:30–10:30 a.m. 2:30–3:30 p.m.

10:30–11:30 a.m. 3:30–4:30 p.m.

11:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. 4:30–5:30 p.m.

12:30–1:30 p.m. 5:30–6:30 p.m.

*All witnesses will be scheduled to speak for no more than ten minutes.

[ ] I need language interpretation for my testimony

for the language.

[ ] I would like to provide a confidential statement. Please contact me at:

[ ] I will submit a written statement.

Please return this form by May 3, 1993, to:

Katherine L. Garrett, Executive Director

Task Force of the D.C. Circuit on Gender, Race, and Ethnic Bias

U.S. Courthouse, Room 4816

Washington, DC 20001

or FAX to: Katherine Garrett, (202) 273-0559
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Special Committee on Race and Ethnicity of the D.C. Circuit Task Fo

on Gender, Race, and Ethnic Bias

Participant Registration Form

[used on the day of the hearing]

PUBLIC HEARING—MAY 11, 1993

Name:

Address:

Phone:

Are you representing an organization? ____ Yes ____ No

If yes, please provide the name and address of organization:

Did you send/bring written testimony or materials for the Special Committee?

____ Yes ____ No

How are you involved in the matter you will testify about?

____ Witness in a case ____ Student

____ Attorney ____ Employee

____ Party (plaintiff or defendant) ____ Other (please explain)

____ Juror

Please briefly describe the matter that you wish to share with the Special Co

mittee:
160—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Special Committee on Race and Ethnicity of the D.C. Circuit Task Fo

on Gender, Race, and Ethnic Bias

Guidelines for Testimony—Public Hearing

1. The Special Committee is looking at the federal courts in the D.C. Circ

the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Circ

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It is not looking at the lo

courts of the District of Columbia (Superior Court, D.C. Court of Appea

or at any other federal court that happens to be in D.C. (such as the U

Claims Court or U.S. Tax Court).

2. The Special Committee cannot decide individual cases and cannot help y

with your legal case.

While the Committee cannot give legal advice or become involved in 

legal case, it would like to know if you thought you were treated unfai

The Committee can learn from your experiences and help the D.C. Cir

prevent others from being treated unfairly.

3. The Special Committee is exploring procedural issues: Are individuals tre

with dignity and courtesy by court participants regardless of race and ethn

ity?

4. The Special Committee is also concerned with substantive issues: Is decis

making fair and impartial on substantive matters? Do neutral pract

nonetheless have significant racially and ethnically biased results?

5. Written materials will help the Special Committee—let the Committee kn

if there is a transcript, written decision, or report that relates to the ma

you are testifying about. Submit any written materials to the address be

NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, MAY 14, 1993.

Forward any questions or information to the Special Committee at:

Katherine L. Garrett, Exec. Dir.

D.C. Circuit Task Force on Gender, Race, and Ethnic Bias

United States Courthouse, Rm. 4816

Washington, DC 20001
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Appendix C-2—Focus Groups

Moderator’s Guide—Litigator’s Group

(based on guide developed by Katharyn Marks for the D.C. Circuit Task Force

I. Introduction (10 min.)

Good afternoon. My name is ___________ , and I’d like to welcome you 

behalf of the D.C. Circuit Task Force on Gender, Race, and Ethnic Bias 

thank you for agreeing to participate in today’s discussion.

I’ll be acting as the moderator or facilitator for today’s discussion, and with 

is _____________ , who’ll be acting as notetaker. We’ll be here for about 1 

hours and the subject for our discussion will be your impressions of, opini

about, and experiences with gender in the court system of the D.C. Circuit.

There are no right or wrong answers for today’s discussion. We are simply 

terested in getting your views and hearing about your experiences.

To allow the conversation to flow more smoothly, I will offer the follow

ground rules so that we will all be moving in the same direction.

• Please talk one at a time and in a voice at least as loud as mine.

• The tape recorder you see on the table is here so that we don’t have to 

to write absolutely everything down during the discussion. The tapes 

be used to help make sure we get the information correct when the 

port is written, but no names will be attached to any of the comments. N

will any names be used in the report. We are interested in the conten

your comments—not in who says what. Also, the Task Force will only 

using the information in performing its work and for no other purpos

• Since the information is being kept confidential by the Task Force, 

would also ask you to agree to honor this confidentiality and not to sh

the information you hear in this group with anyone outside it.

• I need to hear from everyone during the course of today’s discussion, 

you do not need to answer every question.

• You also do not need to address all your comments to me. You can 

spond directly to what someone else says, but do try to avoid side c

versations with your neighbors.

Before we get started, I’d like us to introduce ourselves. Please tell us:

• your first name;

• the main types of law you practice;

• how long you’ve litigated in the D.C. Circuit; and

• whether you practice primarily at the trial or appellate level.
162—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

I’ll start. My name is _______________ . Right now I’m not actively practicin

the circuit, but when I did, I primarily represented clients at the trial leve

pension and other employment related cases.

II. Discussion Issues (70 min.)

1. Thinking specifically of the courtroom environment in the D.C. Circuit, h

would you describe the gender, race, and ethnic make-up of the participa

there?

2. In the courtroom, what role, if any, does gender play in how participants 

perceived? In how they are treated? (By participants, we mean anyone inc

ing attorneys, clients, witnesses, judges, court reporters, bailiffs, etc.)

Have you ever heard or observed any assumptions being made abou

particular person in a courtroom based upon his or her gender? Could 

please tell us about it?

[PROBE: What assumptions were made? Under what circumstances did 

happen? Who was involved (what roles did they play)?]

3. We’ve talked a bit about the courtroom itself. Now let’s discuss the nonco

room litigation environment.

How would you describe the gender, race, and ethnic make-up of the p

ticipants in the noncourtroom litigation environments in the D.C. Circuit?

What roles or effects, if any, does gender have in such settings (includ

depositions, settlement negotiations)? Does this vary with race and ethnic

4. Have you ever observed or experienced an attorney being treated differen

from attorneys of the other gender (for example, not being recognized as 

attorney)? What were the circumstances? What happened?

5. In what ways, if any, do you feel that the gender of an attorney affects hi

her ability to get federal cases to work on?

6. In what ways, if any, do you feel that gender affects the perceived credibilit

attorneys?

—Of witnesses?

—Of parties?

7. In what ways, if any, do you think gender affects litigation strategies?

—What about litigation outcomes?

8. In your opinion, in what ways, if any, is the attorney–client relationship 

fected by the gender of an attorney or a client?

—Have you ever observed or experienced such effects? Please tell 

about it.

9. In addition to the specific business or litigation environment, there is also 

social environment—social situations that can, in turn, affect professio

opportunities. In what ways, if any, do you think gender impacts upon 

attorney’s other social, professional, or athletic activities that, in turn, can 

fect professional status or opportunities? What have you observed?
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

[PROBE: How about membership in certain clubs or organizations?]

10. Are there any other areas related to federal litigation in which gender m

play a role? What are these areas?

—What about employment opportunities?

—What about other professional opportunities?

—What have you observed or experienced?

III. Closing/Summary

We’ve covered a number of issues today, but before we wrap things up, I’d lik

hear any other comments any of you would like to make about the role of gen

in the D.C. Circuit.

[Take comments & questions]

Thank you very much for your help! We really appreciate your taking the tim

discuss your opinions with us.

STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Appendix C-3—Original Records

On the following pages are examples of the type and format of items that mi

appear on a coding form used to code information from case files regard

criminal offenders. The items are taken from a coding form used in an FJC stu

on risk of recidivism (see supra page 98). They are not intended to represen

complete coding form, but include examples of questions about demograph

and other information that might be of interest in a study of gender issues us

original records. In addition to coding forms, those doing the coding would 

ceive a detailed codebook explaining unfamiliar terms, describing where in 

case file information about the various items would be found, and explaining 

meaning of each code.
166—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Code Sheet

Date: |_____|_____|___

1. Coder’s Initials: |_____|_____|_____|

Demographics

2. Offender’s Date of Birth (mm/dd/yy):

3. Gender: ___

(1) Male

(2) Female

4. Race: ___

(1) African/Black

(2) Asian

(3) Caucasian/White

(4) Native American/American Indian

(5) Other ______________________________

5. Hispanic: ___

(1) No

(2) Yes

6. Residency Status of Offender: ___

(1) Citizen by Birth

(2) Naturalized Citizen

(3) Resident Alien

(3) Illegal Alien

(9) Residency Status Unknown

7. Marital Status at Time of Instant Offense: ___

(1) Single: Never Married

(2) Common Law

(3) Divorced

(4) Separated

(5) Widowed

(6) Married

(7) Other

(9) Unknown

8. Years of School Completed: ___

(00) No Schooling

(01–12) Actual Years of Elementary or Secondary School Completed

(13) Less Than One Year of College

(14) One Year of College

(15) Two Years of College

(16) Three Years of College

(17) Four Years of College
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

(18) More Than Four Years of College

(99) Unknown

9. Highest Educational Degree Attained: ___

(1) No Educational Degree Attained

(2) G.E.D. (General Education Diploma)

(3) High School Graduate

(4) Trade or Vocational Degree

(5) Associate’s Degree

(6) Bachelor’s Degree

(7) Master’s Degree

(8) Professional Degree (J.D., M.D., Ph.D., etc.)

(9) Unknown

10. Offender’s Living Arrangements at Time of the Instant Offense: ___

(1) w/Others: Wife/Husband and/or Children

(2) w/Others: Parents or Guardian

(3) w/Others: Paramour

(4) w/Others: Common Law Spouse

(5) w/Others: Unspecified

(6) Alone: Fixed Address

(7) Alone: No Fixed Address

(8) Community Treatment Center

(9) Halfway House

(10) Institution

(11) Military

(99) Other

11. Offender’s Annualized Income at Time of Instant Offense: $ ____________

12. Employment Status at Time of Instant Offense: ___

(1) Offender Was Unemployed and Not Otherwise Involved in Any Productive

Efforts

(2) Unemployed but Actively Seeking Employment

(3) Offender Was Employed by Another Person for 35 or More Hours Per Week

(4) Offender Was Self-Employed and Devoting 35 or More Hours a Week to Such

Work

(5) Offender Was Attending High School

(6) Offender Was Attending College and Carrying a Full Load

(7) Offender Was Working a Minimum of 29 Hours Per Week

(8) Offender Was Working a Minimum of 20 Hours Per Week and Attending Sch

(9) Offender Is Physically or Mentally Incapable of Working

(10) Other: ________________________________________________________

(99) Unknown

13. Type of Job Held by Offender at the Time of the Instant Offense:

________-_________ [Use DOT Codes (000-000 = None, 999-999 = Unknow
168—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

14. The Number of Offender’s Offspring: ___

(0) None

(9) Unknown

15. Has Offender Ever Absconded from a Previous Period of Parole, Probation, or 

pervised Release? ___

(1) No

(2) Yes

Instant Offense

16. Was Offender Sentenced Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines? ___

(1) No

(2) Yes

17. Number of Codefendants Involved in Instant Offense: ___

18. Legal Disposition of Instant Offense: ___

(1) Guilty Plea

(2) Nolo Contendere

(3) Jury Trial/Bench Trial

(9) Unknown

19. Was a Plea Bargain Involved in the Instant Offense of Conviction? ___

(1) No

(2) Yes

19a. If Yes, What Is the U.S.C. Title & Section of the Most Serious Count in the

Indictment? ________________________

20. Was There a Relationship Between Offender and Victim? ___

(1) No

(2) Yes

21. Were There Any Aggravating or Mitigating Circumstances Involved in the Ins

Offense? ___

(1) No Additional Aggravating or Mitigating Circumstances

(2) Additional Aggravating Circumstance

(3) Additional Mitigating Circumstance

(4) Both Additional Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

(9) Unknown

22. What Was Offender’s Role in the Instant Offense?___

(1) Acted Alone

(2) One of the More Culpable (Must Have at Least One Codefendant)

(3) One of the Less Culpable (Must Have at Least One Codefendant)

(4) Of Equal Culpability (Must Have at Least One Codefendant)

(9) Unknown
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Appendix C-4—Observational Studies

On the following pages are examples of the types of items that might appear o

coding form for observing behaviors and interactions in a courtroom. A codin

form containing items such as these would be accompanied by detailed instru

tions explaining unfamiliar terms and specifying the criteria to be used in

recording behaviors.
170—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Observation Form

[based on form developed by Women’s Bar Association of Maryland]

I. Observer

Name:

Phone No.:

Name of co-observer (if applicable):

II. Court Information

District:

Division (if applicable):

Judge:

III. Date and Time of Observation

Date:

Time Observation Began:

Time Observation Ended:

Number of Separate Proceedings Observed:

IV. Characteristics of Courtroom Participants

Please supply the following information about the judge, courtroom empl

ees, and each lawyer, party, and witness observed. Place check marks in 

applicable columns for each individual.

Sex Age (please estimate) Race Representation

M F

under

35 35–55

over

56 White

African

-Amer.

Other

(specify)

Plaintiff

(or state) Defenda

Judge

Courtroom

deputy N/A N/A

Court reporter

Other court

employee

Lawyer 1

Lawyer 2

Lawyer 3

Lawyer 4

Lawyer 5

Lawyer 6

Lawyer 7

Lawyer 8

Plaintiff 1

Defendant 1

Other

party 1

Plaintiff 2
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Sex Age (please estimate) Race Representation

M F

under

35 35–55

over

56 White

African

-Amer.

Other

(specify)

Plaintiff

(or state) Defenda

Defendant 2

Other

party 2

Witness 1 N/A N/A

Witness 2

Witness 3

Witness 4

Witness 5

Witness 6

Witness 7

Witness 8

V. Judge’s Conduct

1. Please use the table below to indicate whether the judge engaged in 

of the listed behaviors during the period of your observation. Put a check 

any box that applies, accompanied by the code number used in the tabl

section IV to identify the individual to whom the judge’s behavior or rem

was directed. For example, if the judge mentioned the physical appearanc

the lawyer whom you have designated as “Lawyer 5,” you would plac

check mark in row “c” under the “Lawyer” column, and write “Lawyer 

next to the check mark. If you check any boxes, please describe the beh

ior(s) below in as much detail as possible.

Lawyer Party Court employee Witnes

a. Judge used term of address other

than formal “counsel” or

“Mr./Miss/Mrs./Ms.” toward:

b. Judge mentioned race or sex of:

c. Judge mentioned physical appearance of:

d. Judge mentioned parental status or

pregnancy of:

e. Judge stated that he or she did not

believe:

Judge made joke(s) using gender or race: [ ] Yes [ ] No
172—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

2. Details

VI. Lawyer’s Conduct

1. Please use the table below to indicate whether a lawyer engaged in any 

the listed behaviors. Place a check in any box that applies, and supply 

code number (from the table in section IV) of the lawyer engaging in the 

havior. For any behavior you note, please give details in the space provi

below, including the code number of the individual to whom the behavio

remark was directed.

Lawyer Plaintiff Defendant

Court

Employee Judge Lawyer Witn

a. Mentioned sex or race

of:

b. Mentioned physical

appearance of:

c. Mentioned parental

status or pregnancy of:

Lawyer made joke(s) using sex or race: [ ] Yes [ ] No

2. Details

VII. Other Notes

Please note in this section or on additional pages any behaviors or inter

tions you observed involving gender that are not covered by previ

items. Provide as much detail as possible.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Appendix C-5—Interviews

The following are examples of questions that might be asked of judges in a o

on-one interview. This is not intended to be a complete interview protocol; it 

cludes only a few examples of questions from two topic areas. The examples 

set forth here to illustrate some of the protocol-writing concepts discussed 

Chapter 9.
174—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Sample Interview Questions for District Judges

My name is _______ , and I am on the staff of the gender task force. The t

force is interested in learning about the perceptions of judges, attorneys, co

staff, and others regarding whether gender or attitudes and assumptions ab

gender play a role in the courts of this circuit. We are interviewing a rand

sample of district judges, both men and women, to learn their views on this 

sue. Because we can interview only a small number of people, each person’s 

sponses are very important and we greatly appreciate the time you are taking 

meet with us.

First, I would like to talk with you about your observations of interactions 

take place before you in the courtroom. Then I’d like to ask about court 

pointments of attorneys to panels or fee-generating positions. As we talk, I’ll 

interested in any related observations you have made, and I’ll want to hear 

questions you may have about the task force’s study.

This is a confidential interview. We will not identify individuals in any rep

we write or to others who may ask.

I. Courtroom Interactions

1. Thinking for a moment about the attorneys who have appeared in 

mal proceedings in your courtroom over the last two years, about w

percentage would you say have been women?

1a. About what percentage of “first chair” attorneys have been women?

2. Have you observed female attorneys being treated by other attorney

a way that draws attention to their gender or reflects assumpti

about their gender?

IF NOT: Skip to Question 3

IF SO:

2a. Can you describe some examples?

2b. Does this treatment differ depending on whether the proceeding is 

front of a jury?

3. Have you observed male attorneys being treated by other attorneys 

way that draws attention to their gender or reflects assumptions ab

their gender?

IF NOT: Skip to Question 4

IF SO:

3a. Can you describe some examples?

3b. Does this treatment differ depending on whether the proceeding is 

front of a jury?

4. Do you think judges should intervene in situations in which an at

ney makes a comment drawing attention to the gender of another 

torney?
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

IF NOT: 4a. Why not?

IF SO: 4b. In what way should a judge intervene? Does this depend 

whether the proceeding is in front of a jury?

4c. Can you describe any examples of situations like this in which y

have intervened or observed other judges intervening?

II. Court Appointments

Now I’d like to ask a few questions about the role gender plays, if any, in 

pointment of attorneys to positions such as magistrate judgeships, spe

masters, counsel for indigent defendants, and court panels.

1. Do you think that in this district appointments of attorneys to serv

special masters, court experts, counsel for indigent defendants, or si

lar positions are influenced by the gender of attorneys?

IF SO: 1a. In what way?

1b. Does the effect of gender vary depending on the type of appointme

If so, in what way?

2. Do you think that in this district appointments of magistrate judges 

influenced by the gender of prospective appointees?

IF SO: 2a. In what way?

STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Appendix C-6—Mail Questionnaires: Sample Questions for

an Attorney Questionnaire

The following sample questions cover each of several different areas a task fo

may choose to explore. These are questions for a general attorney survey—

task force would likely want to ask additional or more specific questions i

wished to survey particular groups of attorneys, such as those specializing 

bankruptcy law or administrative law. The general areas covered are court 

pointments, demographics, and interactions. The examples do not exhaust all 

issues that could be addressed in an attorney questionnaire, nor do we rec

mend that all of these questions be used to constitute a questionnaire. The qu

tions are set forth primarily as illustrations of the question-writing concepts 

discussed in Chapter 8. Comments following some of the questions point out 

concepts illustrated by the question.

Task forces will choose to use some questions as they are, adapt others to th

particular needs, and not use some at all. In the set of questions on interactio

for example, our samples are generally phrased in terms of how men tr

women, but not how women treat men. If the task force wants questions ab

interactions that are completely balanced along these lines, it will want to mod

the samples to produce parallel questions about how women treat men. The t

force may also want to ask about how women treat other women and men tr

other men. As we mentioned in Chapter 3, and as evidenced by the large num

of questions set forth here, there are numerous types of interactions that could 

studied, and the task force will need to make decisions at the beginning of its 

quiry about the interactions in which it is most interested.

In addition to using and modifying questions from this appendix or questi

used by previous task forces, each task force will likely want to draft some o

own questions to address particular information needs. Compiling questions i

a questionnaire should be done using the questionnaire construction techniq

discussed in Chapter 8. General topics should be introduced with headings

illustrated below.
178—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Court Appointments

The following set of questions could be used—in conjunction with demograp

information about the questionnaire respondents—to determine whether gen

has an effect in court appointments of attorneys to various positions. Questi

such as these would be appropriate for the beginning of a questionnaire beca

they are concrete, clearly relevant to the task-force inquiry, and based on p

sonal experience.

1. Have you ever expressed interest to a federal court in this circuit in being 

pointed by the court as a magistrate judge or to a committee, panel, or f

generating activity (e.g., appointed as counsel)?

Please check one.

[ ] 1 No.

[ ] 2 Yes. —> Please explain the positions in which you expressed interest:

2. Have you ever been appointed to a position such as those described abov

a federal court in this circuit?

Please check one.

[ ] 1 No. —> Skip to Question 4.

[ ] 2 Yes, once.

[ ] 3 Yes, more than once.

3. Please indicate the position(s) to which you have been appointed in a fed

court in this circuit:

Please check all that apply.

[ ] 1 Court-appointed counsel for a criminal defendant.

[ ] 2 Court-appointed counsel in a civil case.

[ ] 3 Member on a committee established by the court.

[ ] 4 Member of a panel of ADR neutrals established by the court.

[ ] 5 Special master.

[ ] 6 Magistrate judge.

[ ] 7 Other. —> Please specify:

4. All other things being equal, do you think gender plays a role in appo

ments of attorneys to any position by the federal courts in this circuit?

Please check one.

[ ] 1 No.

[ ] 2 Yes, women are favored.

[ ] 3 Yes, men are favored.

[ ] 4 Yes, in some situations men are favored, while in other situations women ar

vored.

[ ] 5 Other. —> Please explain:
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Demographics

1. What percentage of your practice has been devoted to federal court litigat

during the past five years (or during the time you have been in practice

less than five years)?

___% of my practice

2. How many total years have you practiced law?

___ years

3. Which of the following best describes your practice setting? Please check on

[ ] 1 Sole practitioner

[ ] 2 Private law firm of < 20 attorneys

[ ] 3 Private law firm of 21–100 attorneys

[ ] 4 Private law firm of >100 attorneys

[ ] 5 Government

[ ] 6 Corporate counsel (in-house)

[ ] 7 Legal aid or legal services organization

[ ] 8 Other nonprofit organization

[ ] 9 Other —> Please specify:

4. During the past year, how frequently have you appeared in a federal co

room or in chambers in this circuit? Please check one.

[ ] 1 Daily

[ ] 2 Weekly

[ ] 3 Once or twice a month

[ ] 4 A few times

[ ] 5 Once

[ ] 6 Not at all

5. What was your age at your last birthday? Please check one.

[ ] 1 Under 30

[ ] 2 30–39

[ ] 3 40–49

[ ] 4 50–59

[ ] 5 60–69

[ ] 6 70 or over

6. What is your gender?

[ ] 1 Male

[ ] 2 Female

7. What race or ethnicity do you consider yourself? Please check one.

[ ] 1 White Anglo

[ ] 2 African-American/Black

[ ] 3 Asian-American

[ ] 4 Hispanic/Latino/Latina

[ ] 5 Native American

[ ] 6 Other` —> Please specify:
180—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

8. What is your marital status? Please check one.

[ ] 1 Married

[ ] 2 Living with a partner

[ ] 3 Single

[ ] 4 Widowed

[ ] 5 Divorced

[ ] 6 Other
following behaviors present? 

Q#:In your interactions with attorneys in cases filed in federal courts in this circuit, to what extent are each of theInteractions in Events Related to Cases Filed in Federal Court

Please check one response for each item.

1

interactions

part of most

Pervasive; a

2

unusual to seeCommon; not

or hear this

3

usually seen orInfrequent; not

heard

4

Rare or never; a

surprise when

it happens

5

Don’t know;

opinionhave no

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orby such terms as “young lady” or “honey”)male counsel (e.g., by their first names orcounsel less formally than they addressQ1. Male counsel addressing female

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orcounsel’s physical appearance or attireQ2. Male counsel commenting on female

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]
1

interactions

part of most

Pervasive; a

2

unusual to seeCommon; not

or hear this

3

usually seen orInfrequent; not

heard

4

Rare or never; a

surprise when

it happens

5

Don’t know;

opinionhave no

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orinterrupt or cut off male counselfemale counsel more often than theyQ3. Male counsel interrupting or cutting off

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orcounselsuggestive comments to or about femaleQ4. Male counsel making sexually

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orremarks to or about female counselQ5. Male counsel making derogatory

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]
interactions

part of most

Pervasive; a

unusual to seeCommon; not

or hear this

usually seen orInfrequent; not

heard

Rare or never; a

surprise when

it happens

Don

t know;

opinionhave no

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orcompetence or performanceremarks about female counsel’s professionalQ6. Male counsel making disparaging

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orserve as attorney or judgeremarks about female counsel’s ability toQ7. Male counsel making disparaging

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orbecause she is a womana condescending manner, seeminglyQ8. Male counsel treating female counsel in

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]
interactions

part of most

Pervasive; a

unusual to seeCommon; not

or hear this

usually seen orInfrequent; not

heard

surprise when

Rare ornever; a

it happens

Don

t know;

opinionhave no

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orfemale counselQ9. Male counsel inappropriately touching

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]
best captures your feelings about each type of behavior? 

Please check one response for each item.

1

Does not reflect

gender bias; a

traditional way of

treating women or

conducting

litigation

2

or no impact on

bias, but has little

A form of gender

legal process or

outcomes

3

A form of gender

bias that may

adversely affect

counsel’s credibility

and case outcome

4

Don’t know; have

no opinion

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orby such terms as “young lady” or “honey”)male counsel (e.g., by their first names orcounsel less formally than they addressQ1. Male counsel addressing female

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orcounsel’s physical appearance or attireQ2. Male counsel commenting on female

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]
1

Does not reflect

gender bias; a

traditional way of

treating women or

conducting

litigation

2

or no impact on

bias, but has little

A form of gender

legal process or

outcomes

3

A form of gender

bias that may

adversely affect

counsel’s credibility

and case outcome

4

Don’t know; have

no opinion

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orinterrupt or cut off male counselfemale counsel more often than theyQ3. Male counsel interrupting or cutting off

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orcounselsuggestive comments to or about femaleQ4. Male counsel making sexually

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]
1

Does not reflect

gender bias; a

traditional way of

treating women or

conducting

litigation

2

or no impact on

bias, but has little

A form of gender

legal process or

outcomes

3

A form of gender

bias that may

adversely affect

counsel’s credibility

and case outcome

4

Don’t know; have

no opinion

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orremarks to or about female counselQ5. Male counsel making derogatory

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orcompetence or performanceremarks about female counsel’s professionalQ6. Male counsel making disparaging

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]
1

Does not reflect

gender bias; a

traditional way of

treating women or

conducting

litigation

2

or no impact on

bias, but has little

A form of gender

legal process or

outcomes

3

A form of gender

bias that may

adversely affect

counsel’s credibility

and case outcome

4

Don’t know; have

no opinion

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orserve as attorney or judgeremarks about female counsel’s ability toQ7. Male counsel making disparaging

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orbecause she is a womana condescending manner, seeminglyQ8. Male counsel treating female counsel in

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]
1

Does not reflect

gender bias; a

traditional way of

treating women or

conducting

litigation

2

A form of gender

no impact on legal

bias but has little or

outcomes

process or

3

A form of gender

bias that may

adversely affect

counsel’s credibility

and case outcome

4

Don’t know; have

no opinion

settlement conferences NOT before a judgec. in proceedings such as depositions orjudgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orfemale counselQ9. Male counsel inappropriately touching

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ]
1

No

2

Only in the

circumstances

most egregious

3

Whenever it

outcome of the

might affect the

proceedings

4

Always

5

Don’t know;

opinionhave no

judgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orby such terms as “young lady” or “honey”)male counsel (e.g., by their first names orcounsel less formally than they addressQ1. Male counsel addressing female

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

judgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orcounsel’s physical appearance or attireQ2. Male counsel commenting on female

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

judgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orinterrupt or cut off male counselfemale counsel more often than theyQ3. Male counsel interrupting or cutting off

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]
1

No

2

Only in the

circumstances

most egregious

3

Whenever it

outcome of the

might affect the

proceedings

4

Always

5

Don’t know;

opinionhave no

judgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orcounselsuggestive comments to or about femaleQ4. Male counsel making sexually

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

judgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orcounselderogatory remarks to or about femaleQ5. Male counsel making demeaning or

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

judgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orcompetence or performanceremarks about female counsel’s professionalQ6. Male counsel making disparaging

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]
1

No

2

Only in the

circumstances

most egregious

3

Whenever it

outcome of the

might affect the

proceedings

4

Always

5

Don’t know;

opinionhave no

judgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orserve as attorney or judgeremarks about female counsel’s ability toQ7. Male counsel making disparaging

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

judgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orbecause she is a womana condescending manner, seeminglyQ8. Male counsel treating female counsel in

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

judgeb. in in-chambers proceedings before ajurya. in public proceedings before a judge orfemale counselQ9. Male counsel inappropriately touching

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]

[ ][ ]
[ ] 4 Does not apply; haven’t observed behavior.[ ] 3 Never.[ ] 2 On some occasions but not others.[ ] 1 Whenever such behavior occurs.

the credibility of the attorney who was the target of the behavior? Q# In general, what effect, if any, do you think intervention by the judge in situations such as those described above has on

Please check one.

[ ] 4 No opinion; don’t know.[ ] 3 Undermines the credibility of the attorney who was the target.[ ] 2 Has no impact on the credibility of the attorney who was the target.[ ] 1 Enhances the credibility of the attorney who was the target.

certain individuals or more pervasive than that? Q# Thinking about attorneys who have said or done the things listed above, would you say the behaviors are confined to

Please check one.

[ ] 4 Can’t say.[ ] 3 Engaged in by most attorneys at one time or another.[ ] 2 Engaged in by more than a few attorneys, but not most.[ ] 1 Confined to a few individuals.
behaviors present? 

Please check one response for each item .

1

interactions

part of most

Pervasive; a

2

unusual to seeCommon; not

or hear this

3

usually seen orInfrequent; not

heard

4

Rare or never; a

surprise when

it happens

5

Don’t know;

opinionhave no

schedules, processing papers, etc. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]attorneys in setting and managingQ8. Judges showing favoritism toward maleschedules, processing papers, etc. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]female attorneys in setting and managingQ7. Judges showing favoritism towardwoman [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]female counsel, seemingly because she is aQ6. Judges being stricter with or harder onmore time to make their point [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]female attorneys while permitting menQ5. Judges cutting off or interruptingperformance [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]their professional competence ordisparaging or demeaning remarks aboutQ4. Judges singling out female counsel forcomments to female counsel [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]Q3. Judges making sexually suggestiveseemingly because she is a woman [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]Q2. Judges favoring female counsel,male counsel [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]less professional manner than they addressQ1. Judges addressing female counsel in a
interactions

part of most

Pervasive; a

unusual to seeCommon; not

or hear this

usually seen orInfrequent; not

heard

Rare or never; a

surprise when

it happens

Don

t know;

opinionhave no

female counsel because of their gender [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]Q10. Judges ignoring or not listening toevents [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]child-care schedules) when scheduling caseobligations (maternity/paternity leave,insensitive to counsel or parties’ parentalQ9. Judges being unresponsive or
behavior in the context of that judge

s managerial style or professional career? Please check one.

[ ] 2 Yes —> Please describe:[ ] 1 No

Q# Have you ever heard other lawyers make disparaging remarks about a female attorney’s presumed sexual orientation or

behavior in the context of that attorney’s managerial style or professional career? Please check one.

[ ] 2 Yes —> Please describe:[ ] 1 No

this circuit because you were pregnant? Q# FOR FEMALE ATTORNEYS: Have you ever been told that you should not appear in court or before a particular judge in

Please check one.

[ ] 2 Yes —> Please describe:[ ] 1 No
following behaviors present? 

Please check one response for each item.

1

interactions

part of most

Pervasive; a

2

unusual to seeCommon; not

or hear this

3

usually seen orInfrequent; not

heard

4

Rare or never; a

surprise when

it happens

5

Don’t know;

opinionhave no

Q1. Counsel using first names or terms ofQ2.surnames or titles [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]while addressing men in the same roles bywitnesses, litigants, defendants, or victimsendearment to address women appearing as

 Judges using first names or terms of

Q3. surnames or titles [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]while addressing men in the same roles bywitnesses, litigants, defendants, or victimsendearment to address women appearing as

Counsel singling out female witnesses,

Q4.derogatory or demeaning remarks [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]litigants, defendants, or victims for

 Judges singling out female witnesses,

Q5. derogatory or demeaning remarks [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]litigants, defendants, or victims for

Counsel cutting off or interrupting

Q6.make their point [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]victims while permitting men more time tofemale witnesses, litigants, defendants, or

 Judges cutting off or interrupting female

their point [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]while permitting men more time to makewitnesses, litigants, defendants, or victims
Please describe what is the case, not what you think ought to be the case. 

you think clients are currently better served by male counsel or by female counsel, or that gender makes no difference.

Please check one response for each item.

1

Better served by

male counsel

2

Better served by

female counsel

3

Gender of counsel

makes no difference

4

Don’t know; have

no opinion

Q9. Social security disability claimant [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]Q8. Female narcotics criminal defendant [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]discrimination suit [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]Q7. Corporate defendant in an employmentdiscrimination suit [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]Q6. Plaintiff in an employmentor environmental regulatory action [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]Q5. Corporation challenging federal energyinjury suit [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]Q4. Corporate defendant in a personalQ3. Plaintiff in a personal-injury suit [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]regulatory dispute [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]Q2. Parties in a high-stakes business orcollar case [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]Q1. Male criminal defendant in a white-
1 2

Yes No

Clients [ ] [ ]Colleagues in your firm or office [ ] [ ]Opposing legal counsel [ ] [ ]Other federal court personnel [ ] [ ]Federal judges [ ] [ ]

your circuit at the present time?Q# Which of the following statements best describes your overall perception of bias against women in the federal courts in

 Please check all that apply.

[ ] 5 No opinion; can’t say.[ ] 4 Gender bias is widespread and readily apparent.[ ] 3 Gender bias is widespread but subtle and hard to detect.[ ] 2 Gender bias exists but is limited to a few areas or certain individuals.[ ] 1 There is no bias against women.

circuit over the past five years? Q# Which of the following statements best describes your perception of bias against women in the federal courts in this

Please check one.

[ ] 5 No opinion; can’t say.[ ] 4 There is gender bias, and the extent of it has remained steady over the past five years.[ ] 3 There is more gender bias now than there was five years ago.[ ] 2 There is less gender bias now than there was five years ago.[ ] 1 There has never been any bias against women, now or in the past.
Bibliography

Below is a nonexhaustive list of articles, books, symposia, reports, and a bibli

raphy that are more general than the items cited at the end of the chapters.

Articles

Marina Angel, Sexual Harassment by Judges, 45 U. Miami L. Rev. 817 (1991).

Lorenzo Arredondo, Combatting Stereotypes, Ct. Rev., Fall 1989, at 14.

Barbara Babcock, Introduction: Gender Bias in the Courts and Civil & Legal Edu

tion, 45 Stan. L. Rev. 2143 (1993).

Barbara Babcock, Western Women Lawyers, 45 Stan. L. Rev. 2179 (1993).

William Eich, Gender Bias in the Courtroom: Some Participants Are More Equal t

Others, 69 Judicature 339 (1986).

Ronald L. Ellis & Lynn Hecht Schafran, Avoiding Race and Gender Bias in 

Courtroom, in The Judge’s Book (1989).

Deborah Hensler, Studying Gender Bias in the Courts: Stories and Statistics, 45 St

L. Rev. 2187 (1993).

Pamela Jenkins & Barbara Davidson, Battered Women in the Criminal Justice S

tem: An Analysis of Gender Stereotypes, 8 Behav. Sci. L. 161 (1990).

Sandy Karlan, Towards the Elimination of Gender Bias in the Florida Courts, 11 N

L. Rev. 1569 (1987).

Herma Hill Kay, Models of Equality, 1985 U. Ill. L. Rev. 39.

Herma Hill Kay, Equality and Difference: The Case of Pregnancy, 1 Berkeley Wo

en’s L.J. 1 (1985).

Joan Dempsey Klein, Woman Justice: Does She View the Law Differently?, Ct. R

Fall 1989, at 18.

Jennifer Levine, Preventing Gender Bias in the Courts: A Question of Judicial Ethic

Geo. J. Legal Ethics (1988).

Marilyn Loftus et al., Establishing a Gender Bias Task Force, 4 Law & Ineq. J. (M

1986).

Nancy S. Marder, Gender Dynamics and Jury Deliberations, 96 Yale L.J. 5

(1987).
202—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Excluded Voices: New Voices in the Legal Profession, 42 

Miami L. Rev. 29 (1987).

Martha Minow & Elizabeth Spelman, Passion for Justice, 10 Cardozo L. Rev. 

(1988).

Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force, Executive Summary of the Prelimin

Report of the Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force, 45 Stan. L. Rev. 2

(1993).

Frances E. Olsen, The Family and the Market: A Study of Ideology and Legal Refo

96 Harv. L. Rev. 1497 (1983).

Judith Resnik, On the Bias: Feminist Reconsiderations of the Aspirations for 

Judges, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1877 (1988).

Judith Resnik, Housekeeping: The Nature and Allocation of Work in Federal T

Courts, 24 Ga. L. Rev. (1990).

Judith Resnik, “Naturally” Without Gender: Women, Jurisdiction and the Fede

Courts, 66 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1682 (1991).

Judith Resnik, Gender Bias: From Classes to Courts, 45 Stan. L. Rev. 2195 (1993

Deborah L. Rhode, Gender and Jurisprudence: An Agenda for Research, 56 U. C

L. Rev. 521 (1984).

Deborah Ruble Round, Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 2

(1988).

Lynn Hecht Schafran, Documenting Gender Bias in the Courts: The Task Force 

proach, 70 Judicature 280 (1987).

Lynn Hecht Schafran, Educating the Judiciary About Gender Bias: The National E

cation Program to Promote Equality for Women and Men in the Courts and 

New Jersey Supreme Court Task Force on Women in the Courts, 9 Women’s 

L. Rep. (1986).

Lynn Hecht Schafran, Eve, Mary, Superwoman: How Stereotypes About Women 

fluence Judges, Judges’ J., Winter 1985, at 12.

Lynn Hecht Schafran, Gender Bias in the Courts: An Emerging Focus for Judi

Reform, 21 Ariz. St. B. J. (Spring 1989).

Lynn Hecht Schafran, Gender Bias in the Courts: Time Is Not the Cure, 

Creighton L. Rev. (1988–89).

Lynn Hecht Schafran, Gender and Justice: Florida and the Nation, Symposium 

Women and the Law: Goals for the 1990’s, 42 Fla. L. Rev. 181 (1990).
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Lynn Hecht Schafran, Guidelines to Ensure Gender Equality in the Courts, Iow

Third Branch, September/October 1987.

Lynn Hecht Schafran, Women in the Courts Today: How Much Has Changed?, to 

read with the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Remarks on Women Becom

Part of the Constitution, vol. 6, Law & Ineq. , nos. 17 and 27, 1988.

Lynn Hecht Schafran, Issues and Models for Judicial Education About Gender Bia

the Courts, 26 Ct. Rev., Fall 1989, at 32.

Lynn Hecht Schafran, The Obligation to Intervene: New Direction from the Ameri

Bar Association Code of Judicial Conduct, 4 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 53 (Sum

1990).

Lynn Hecht Schafran, Overwhelming Evidence: Reports on Gender Bias in the Cou

26 Trial 28 (February 1990).

Lynn Hecht Schafran, Update: Gender Bias in the Courts, Trial, July 1991.

Norma J. Wikler, On the Judicial Agenda for the 80’s: Equal Treatment for Men 

Women in the Courts, 64 Judicature (November 1980).

Norma J. Wikler, Water on Stone: A Perspective on the Movement to Elimin

Gender Bias in the Courts, St. Ct. J., Summer 1989, at 13.

Wendy W. Williams, Equality’s Riddle: Pregnancy and the Equal Treatment/ Spe

Treatment Debate, 13 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 325 (1984–85).

Books

Laura L. Crites & Wendy L. Hepperle, Women, the Courts, and Equality, vol. 

(1987).

Foundation for Women Judges, Judicial Education: A Guide to State & Natio

Programs (1986).

Herma Hill Kay, Sex-Based Discrimination: Text, Cases and Materials (3d 

1988).

Deborah L. Rhode, Justice and Gender: Sex Discrimination and the Law (1989

Lynn Hecht Schafran, Planning for Evaluation: Guidelines for Task Forces 

Gender Bias in the Courts (1989).

Lynn Hecht Schafran, Promoting Gender Fairness Through Judicial Education

Guide to the Issues and Resources (1989).

Lynn Hecht Schafran, “Women in the Courts,” Women and the Law, (Carol 

court ed., 3d ed. 1989).
204—STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

Norma J. Wikler & Lynn Hecht Schafran, Learning from the New Jersey Supr

Court Task Force on Women in the Courts: Evaluation, Recommendati

and Implications for the Other States (1988).

Norma J. Wikler, Educating Judges About Aboriginal Justice and Gender Equ

ity: The Western Workshop Series 1989, 1990, 1991 (1991).

Symposia

Different Voices, Different Choices? The Impact of More Women Lawyers and Judge

the Justice System, 74 Judicature (October/November 1990).

Feminist Jurisprudence and Procedure, 61 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1139 (1993).

Judicature, vol. 65, no. 6, 1982 (dedicated to the subject of “Women in the Ju

ciary,” with articles on women on the state bench, women on the fed

bench, and women as Supreme Court candidates).

National Center for State Courts, Proceedings of the National Conference 

Gender Bias in the Courts (1990).

Symposium, Seventh Annual Conference of the National Association of Women Jud

4 Law & Ineq. J. 1 (1986).

University of Chicago Legal Forum Symposium on Feminism in the Law: The

Practice, and Criticism (1989).

Women and the Constitution: Presentations from the 1987 Eighth Circuit Ju

cial Conference, Colorado Springs, Colorado, July 17, 1987, 6 Law & Ine

(May 1988).

Reports

New York State Bar Association, Report of the Special Committee on Women 

the Courts (1988).

Report of the American Bar Association Commission of Women in the Profess

to the ABA House of Delegates (1988).

Working Papers of the Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task For

Copies of the following papers are available from Mark Mendenhall, assistant circuit 

ecutive, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, P.O. Box 193846, San Francisco, 

94119-3846.
STUDYING THE ROLE OF GENDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS—

Barbara Atwood, A Preliminary Assessment of the Effects of Gender on Fed

Jurisdiction over Indian Law Matters (June 1993).

Heidi Binford & Angela L. Johnson, Recommendations of the State Gender B

Reports and the State Race/Ethnic Bias Reports (May 1992).

Christine Carr, Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force Surveys: The Survey 

struments and the Compilation and Analysis of the Margin Comment 

sponses (June 1993).

Susan Factor & Veronica Gentilli, Procedures for the Selection of Magistr

Judges Within the Ninth Circuit (May 1992).

Lisa Hill Fenning, An Overview of Gender and Bankruptcy Law: A Report of 

Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy (April 1993).

Veronica Gentilli & Susan Factor, The Demographic Profile of the Ninth Circ

(May 1992).

Veronica Gentilli, Composition of the Civil Justice Reform Act Advisory Gro

(May 1992).

Peter V. Lee et al., Gender in Social Security Disability Determinations (Ju

1992).

Denise Meyer & Pam Johnston, A View from the Public Sector of the Bar: T

Results of Self-Studies on the Effects of Gender in the Offices of Federal P

lic Defenders and of United States Attorneys Within the Ninth Circuit (M

1993).

Lee Seltman, The Appointment of Special Masters: A Demographic Analysis 

the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court (February 1992).

Maria E. Stratton & Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Composition of the Criminal 

tice Act Panels (June 1992).

Bibliography

Paul M. George & Susan McGlamery, Women and Legal Scholarship: A Bibliog

phy, 77 Iowa L. Rev. 87 (1991).