Brittany Schneider
Trial Court · Grand · Grand
Meets Standards2 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2026 retention cycleTrial Court · Grand · GrandMeets StandardsVotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2025 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The Fourteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agree, 7-0, with three commission vacancies, that Judge Brittany Schneider MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. It was clear from the interview that Judge Schneider is a dedicated judicial officer and is an asset to the Court. Judge Schneider has settled into her role as the chief judge in the 14th Judicial District and continues to improve in her role as both chief judge and a district court judge. She works hard to serve the judiciary and earn the respect of those that appear in her courtroom. The Commission was disappointed by the lack of participation in the survey results and would encourage the public to participate in the future. Despite the nominal participation, survey results and comments reflect that Judge Schneider works hard to serve the judiciary and treat those that appear in her courtroom with respect. Judge Schneider handles a combined docket of domestic relations, civil, juvenile, and criminal matters. Judge Schneider continues to increase her knowledge and appears comfortable handling a diverse case load. Judge Schneider demonstrates integrity, legal knowledge, good communication skills, good judicial temperament, good administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Schneider continues to improve in the area of timely issuance of written civil orders and remains committed to efficiency. The Commission is pleased that Judge Schneider has embraced virtual courtroom options to promote efficiency and accessibility of the Courts. However, the Commission encourages Judge Schneider to firmly enforce traditional standards of decorum during WebEx proceedings. Based on all the aforementioned considerations, the Judicial Performance Commission recommends that Judge Schneider meets performance standards. The Commission personally interviewed Judge Schneider, observed her in Court, reviewed judicial performance data, several of her written orders, written comments from attorneys and non-attorneys, and a self-evaluation done by the Judge. Judge Schneider was appointed as a judge to the 14th Judicial District Court in November 2023. She was appointed as chief judge in the 14th Judicial District in 2024. Previously, Judge Schneider was a Moffat County court judge in the 14th Judicial District. a deputy district attorney in the 14th Judicial District, assistant public defender in the Wyoming Office of the Public Defender, owner of the Law Office of Brittany Schneider, and deputy district attorney in the 9th Judicial District Attorney’s Office. She earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado – Colorado Springs in 2008 and acquired her juris doctorate from the University of Oregon School of Law in 2011.
- 2022 retention cycleTrial Court · Moffat · MoffatCommission vote: 7 for · 0 againstMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 67.3% yes3,106 yes · 1,512 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard 2022 Retention Survey (PDF) 2021 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 7-0 that Judge Brittany Schneider MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Schneider presides over Moffat County Court matters within the 14th Judicial District and serves as a weekend Bond Hearing Officer. Judge Schneider participates as a BHO Judge in the statewide weekend bond program, which ensures that a person arrested in Colorado will see a judge within 48 hours. Judge Schneider’s demeanor is described as being fair, kind, patient, and courteous. She had to embrace the virtual courtroom throughout the COVID-19 pandemic as she was appointed as a Moffat County Court Judge in 2020. Judge Schneider’s written decisions are well researched, clear and concise. Judge Schneider is very knowledgeable and respectful. Commission members observed these qualities during their evaluations and interviews. Based on these findings, the Commission unanimously agreed that Judge Brittany A. Schneider meets performance standards. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Schneider, reviewed opinions and motions written by her, observed her in court, reviewed a self-evaluation prepared by Judge Schneider, and reviewed survey responses from both attorneys and non-attorneys who had interaction in Judge Schneider’s court. Judge Schneider’s survey results, which may be skewed by the low number of responses, showed that Judge Schneider received higher ratings than the average for Judges within the district overall among both attorneys and non-attorneys in every category surveyed. 100% of attorneys responding felt Judge Schneider met performance standards, as well as 83% of non-attorneys responding. Among the responses received, Judge Schneider was highly praised for her work in the courtroom. Participants appreciated the professional manner and control that Judge Schneider has in her courtroom as well as her knowledge and demeanor. Based on the observations, the commission feels that Judge Schneider is an asset to the 14th Judicial District and appreciates her commitment.
Surveys & reports
- 2026 cycle
- 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Brittany Schneider 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Schneider, 10 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 10 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.7 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Schneider All County Judges Judge Schneider All County Judges Overall Grade 3.7 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 100% 80% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 14% 13% 8% 5% 0% Judge Schneider All County Judges Judge Schneider All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Schneider Schneider Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 80% 100% 79% standards No, does not meet 0% 14% 0% 13% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.5 3.7 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.7 Communications 3.5 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.9 Demeanor 3.4 3.9 Fairness 3.4 Judge Schneider All County Judges Judge All County Schneider Judges Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and 3.7 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.7 3.5 Diligence 3.6 3.4 Demeanor 3.9 3.4 Fairness 3.9 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 7 16% 43% 3 Non-Attorneys 8 - - 7 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Schneider received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schneider Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Schneider Attorneys 3.8 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Judge Judge County Judges Number of Schneider Schneider Schneider Non- Overall Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.3 3.5 4 3.0 9 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.1 3.4 3.3 3.0 9 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.4 4 3.6 8 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.4 4 3.3 8 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schneider Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Schneider Attorneys 4 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge Judge County Judges Number of Schneider Schneider Schneider Non- Overall Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.7 3.3 4 3.6 10 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 4 3.2 4 N/A 3 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 4 3.3 4 N/A 2 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 4 3.2 4 N/A 3 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 4 3.2 4 N/A 3 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.3 N/A 3.4 7 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.7 3.4 N/A 3.7 6 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schneider Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Schneider Attorneys 4 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge Judge County Judges Number of Schneider Schneider Schneider Non- Overall Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.8 3.5 4 3.7 10 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 4 3.3 4 N/A 3 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 7 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 7 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schneider Score 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Schneider Attorneys 4 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Judge Judge County Judges Number of Schneider Schneider Schneider Non- Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.8 3.4 4 3.7 10 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.9 3.4 4 3.9 10 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.9 3.3 4 3.9 10 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.9 3.3 N/A 3.9 7 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schneider Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Schneider Attorneys 4 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge Judge County Judges Number of Schneider Schneider Schneider Non- Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 4 3.2 4 N/A 3 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.3 4 N/A 3 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 4 3.3 4 N/A 3 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 7 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 2.8 3.6 N/A 2.8 6 Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 6 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.4 N/A 4.0 1 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 11 ## Page 12 Judge Judge Judge County Judges Number of Schneider Schneider Schneider Non- Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Managing court proceedings so 3 3.4 N/A 3.0 6 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Schneider Score 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Schneider Attorneys Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Judge Judge County Judges Number of Schneider Schneider Non- Schneider Score Overall Responses Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 7 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 7 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 4 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 5 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Schneider, 10 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 10 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 14 ## Page 15 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2020 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 15 ## Page 16 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on interim. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 45 7 0 3 43% Staff 6 0 6 - Others 27 2 0 1 - Total Non-Attorneys - 8 - 7 - Total Respondents - 15 - 10 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 17 - 2026 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Structured scores pending
Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.
- 2022 cycle
- 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Brittany Schneider 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Schneider, 10 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 10 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.7 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Schneider All County Judges Judge Schneider All County Judges Overall Grade 3.7 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 100% 80% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 14% 13% 8% 5% 0% Judge Schneider All County Judges Judge Schneider All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Schneider Schneider Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 80% 100% 79% standards No, does not meet 0% 14% 0% 13% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.5 3.7 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.7 Communications 3.5 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.9 Demeanor 3.4 3.9 Fairness 3.4 Judge Schneider All County Judges Judge All County Schneider Judges Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and 3.7 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.7 3.5 Diligence 3.6 3.4 Demeanor 3.9 3.4 Fairness 3.9 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 7 16% 43% 3 Non-Attorneys 8 - - 7 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Schneider received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schneider Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Schneider Attorneys 3.8 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Judge Judge County Judges Number of Schneider Schneider Schneider Non- Overall Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.3 3.5 4 3.0 9 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.1 3.4 3.3 3.0 9 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.4 4 3.6 8 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.4 4 3.3 8 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schneider Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Schneider Attorneys 4 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge Judge County Judges Number of Schneider Schneider Schneider Non- Overall Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.7 3.3 4 3.6 10 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 4 3.2 4 N/A 3 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 4 3.3 4 N/A 2 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 4 3.2 4 N/A 3 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 4 3.2 4 N/A 3 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.3 N/A 3.4 7 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.7 3.4 N/A 3.7 6 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schneider Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Schneider Attorneys 4 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge Judge County Judges Number of Schneider Schneider Schneider Non- Overall Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.8 3.5 4 3.7 10 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 4 3.3 4 N/A 3 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 7 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 7 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schneider Score 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Schneider Attorneys 4 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Judge Judge County Judges Number of Schneider Schneider Schneider Non- Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.8 3.4 4 3.7 10 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.9 3.4 4 3.9 10 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.9 3.3 4 3.9 10 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.9 3.3 N/A 3.9 7 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schneider Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Schneider Attorneys 4 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge Judge County Judges Number of Schneider Schneider Schneider Non- Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 4 3.2 4 N/A 3 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.3 4 N/A 3 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 4 3.3 4 N/A 3 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 7 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 2.8 3.6 N/A 2.8 6 Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 6 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.4 N/A 4.0 1 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 11 ## Page 12 Judge Judge Judge County Judges Number of Schneider Schneider Schneider Non- Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Managing court proceedings so 3 3.4 N/A 3.0 6 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Schneider Score 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Schneider Attorneys Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Judge Judge County Judges Number of Schneider Schneider Non- Schneider Score Overall Responses Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 7 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 7 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 4 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 5 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Schneider, 10 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 10 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 14 ## Page 15 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2020 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 15 ## Page 16 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on interim. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 45 7 0 3 43% Staff 6 0 6 - Others 27 2 0 1 - Total Non-Attorneys - 8 - 7 - Total Respondents - 15 - 10 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 17 - 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.6judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend100%23 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend83%respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Brittany Schneider 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . 13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Schneider, 28 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 28 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.6 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Schneider All County Judges Judge Schneider All County Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 83% 83% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 12% 8% 8% 4% 6% 0% Judge Schneider All County Judges Judge Schneider All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Schneider Schneider Judges Judges Yes, meets 100% 83% 83% 83% performance standards No, does not meet 0% 13% 8% 12% performance standards No opinion 0% 4% 8% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.4 3.6 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.7 Communications 3.5 3.8 Diligence 3.4 3.7 Demeanor 3.4 3.6 Fairness 3.3 Judge Schneider All County Judges Judge All County Schneider Judges Case Management 3.4 3.4 Application and 3.6 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.7 3.5 Diligence 3.8 3.4 Demeanor 3.7 3.4 Fairness 3.6 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 23 23% 65% 15 Non- 17 - - 13 Attorneys *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Schneider received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schneider Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Schneider Attorneys 3.7 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.1 Judge Judge County Judge Schneider Number of Schneider Judges Schneider Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.1 3.5 3.4 2.8 19 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.4 3.8 3.2 26 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.2 3.5 3.6 2.9 20 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.5 4 3.0 24 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schneider Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Schneider Attorneys 3.8 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge County Judge Schneider Number of Schneider Judges Schneider Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.5 3.3 3.7 3.3 25 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 4 3.3 4 N/A 13 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 11 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 14 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.3 N/A 3.3 12 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 3.4 3.3 N/A 3.4 12 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schneider Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Schneider Attorneys 3.9 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge County Judge Schneider Number of Schneider Judges Schneider Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.6 3.5 3.9 3.3 26 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.9 3.4 3.9 N/A 12 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 12 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.4 3.7 N/A 3.4 12 what’s being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schneider Score 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Schneider Attorneys 3.9 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge County Judge Schneider Number of Schneider Judges Schneider Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.4 26 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.4 26 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.4 3.3 N/A 3.4 12 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schneider Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Schneider Attorneys 3.9 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge County Judge Schneider Number of Schneider Judges Schneider Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 13 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.4 3.9 N/A 14 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 13 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 11 Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 11 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 10 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 11 Managing court proceedings so 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 11 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Schneider Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Schneider Attorneys 3.9 Judge Schneider Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Judge Judge County Number of Schneider Schneider Schneider Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Non-Attorneys Giving participants an 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 12 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.2 3.3 N/A 3.2 12 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 10 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 12 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.5 3.3 3.9 3.2 26 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 14 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Schneider, 28 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 28 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, a total of 89,078 survey invitations were sent to 10,845 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2022. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 8.2 judges. In total 9,005 surveys were completed with an additional 9,895 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 10% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 21%. Non-attorneys The 2022 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 86,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 5,463 surveys were completed with an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2022 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on June 15th, 2021. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2021 on June 15th, 2021. Reminders were sent on June 30th and July 9th, 2021. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2021 with email invitations sent on August 23rd, 2021 and reminders was sent on September 2nd, 2021 and September 14th, 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2021 on November 9th, 2021. Reminders sent on November 18th and December 2nd, 2021. The final data collection took place in January 2022. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2021 on January 19th, 2022. Reminders were sent on January 28th, February 2nd and 12th, 2022. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2021 and ran through the response deadline of February 28th, 2022. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 13 ## Page 14 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 28th, 2022. During this period 938 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28th or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 14 ## Page 15 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 99 23 15 65% Staff - 7 7 - Others 79 10 6 60% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 17 13 - Total Respondents - 40 28 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Brittany Schneider 16
Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.
Sources
- 2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
- 2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026