Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Study Methods And Next Steps topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stakeholders press researchers on definitions, framing and next steps for Texas digital recording study
Summary
Stakeholders at the JBCC work group asked for clarity on modality definitions, how percentage differences will be framed, access to slide decks and appendices, and whether the mandated feasibility study will include or separate a comparison analysis; researchers pledged follow‑up and full appendices.
After the PPRI presentation, multiple stakeholders used the Q&A to press for clarity on methods and next steps.
Judge Phillips sought reassurance that the three modalities were presented distinctly and asked whether survey recipients understood the distinctions. Jenna and Gotti from the research team said the survey included definitions for each modality (DCR with human monitoring, passive audio recording, and ASR), those definitions were refined with stakeholder input, and respondents were asked about each modality separately.
Renee White asked whether stakeholders would have another opportunity to review the comparison study before it is finalized. PPRI and OCA said they will incorporate stakeholder feedback into the comparison study and that the team plans to move forward using that feedback to shape the final analysis.
Mr. Sigler and Miss Moses raised questions about how the team will frame percentage differences (for example, when two groups both show majority disagreement but at different rates) and whether the interviews will be reported question‑by‑question. Gotti and Jenna said the final report will include full tables and that qualitative interview results will be reported as thematic summaries (not itemized Q&A) to protect participant confidentiality; the team expects interview analysis results in late July or early August.
Miss Moses also urged the team to note statutory intent: she argued the statute asked for feasibility of digital recorders, not a head‑to‑head comparison with stenographic reporting. Ron Morgan and the researchers said the comparison work is intended to review how other states and the federal system approach recording standards to inform recommendations for Texas; they framed it as contextual analysis rather than a directive to replace existing methods.
Participants requested and were promised distribution of the slide deck and appendices by email, and the researchers and OCA said they will plan follow‑up meetings. The meeting concluded with thanks to stakeholders and recognition of the unusually high survey response rate.
