THIS SURVEY WAS DESIGNED TO FIND OUT WHAT ASSOCIATIONS HAD PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURT JUDGES' PERFORMANCES. BACKUP MATERIALS SUCH AS REPORTS AND POLLING FORMS WERE ALSO REQUESTED. ASSOCIATIONS THAT DID EVALUATE INCUMBENT JUDGES WERE INTERVIEWED BY TELEPHONE IN DECEMBER TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL MATERIAL ABOUT THEIR PROGRAMS. OF THE 53 BAR ASSOCIATIONS TO WHICH THE QUESTIONNAIRE WAS SENT, FIFTEEN STATE AND SIXTEEN LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS - A 58.5 PERCENT RESPONSE RATE REPLIED. OF THE THIRTY-ONE RESPONDENTS, TWELVE INDICATED THAT THEY WERE ENGAGED IN SOME FORM OF JUDICIAL EVALUATION. NENETEEN ASSOCIATIONS STATED THAT THEY DID NOT CONDUCT EVALUATION PROGRAMS, ALTHOUGH FOUR SAID THAT THEY WERE CONSIDERING DOING SO. NINE HAD NOT CONSIDERED IT; AND SIX HAD CONSIDERED AND REJECTED IT. THIS SURVEY REPORT DISCUSSES THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EVALUATION PROGRAMS (PURPOSES, METHODS, DISSEMENATION OF RESULTS) AND SUGGESTS GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATION OF AN APPOINTED JUDICIARY. ALSO INCLUDED ARE DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF THE THIRTEEN PROGRAMS FOR EVALUATING SITTING JUDGES CONDUCTED BY THE BAR ASSOCIATIONS IN THE SURVEY. BECAUSE POLLING APPEARED TO BE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT COMMON DENOMINATOR AMONG THE PROGRAMS, THEY HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED IN THREE GROUPS: BAR ASSOCIATIONS WHICH CONDUCT POLLS OF THEIR ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP (PHILADELPHIA, CHICAGO, CINCINNATI, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DADE COUNTY, CONNECTICUT, ILLINOIS); THOSE WHICH CONDUCT POLLS OF A PART OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP (MARYLAND, CHICAGO, ARIZONA); AND THOSE WHICH DO NOT CONDUCT ANY POLL (NEW YORK CITY, CHICAGO, NEW JERSEY). APPENDED ARE DATA ON THE BAR ASSOCIATIONS RESPONDING TO THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE, SAMPLE JUDICIAL EVALUATION FORMS, AND THE ADDRESSES OF BAR ASSOCIATIONS CONDUCTING EVALUATIONS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED) (SNI ABSTRACT)