Volume 22, No. 5 February 2012 

E-SJI NEWS SJI NEWS

In this Issue 

SJI Grant Applications 

and Concept Papers 

1 

MACRO Phase I 

ADRESS Evaluation 

1 

Maricopa County, AZ 

Juvenile Probation 

Capacity Building 

2 

FY 2013 President’s 

Budget 

2 

York County, PA 

Administrative Review 

3 

SJI received 20 grant applications requesting a total 

of $1,147,684 for the 2nd quarter of FY 2012. In 

addition, SJI received 45 Concept Papers totaling 

$4,695,208 for the recent Strategic Initiatives Grants 

solicitation for self-represented litigation in the state 

courts. The Board will meet in April to finalize decisions on both grant awards for the 2nd quarter, and on 

the Concept Papers submitted to address selfrepresented litigation in the state courts. 

Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to: 

1) reach out to SJI with any questions before applying; 2) thoroughly review the requirements contained 

in the Grant Guideline; and 3) use the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) Digital Library and Archive to research past SJI grant reports and products 

that are similar to their proposed project, and inform 

SJI on how their project builds on that work. SJI is 

Page 1 

Maryland’s Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office (MACRO) has completed the first phase of its 

multi-year evaluation of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) through its statewide ADR Evaluation 

Support System (ADRESS) (SJI-08-N-073). A new 

report is available that can assist other jurisdictions 

across the U.S. with implementing similar ADR 

evaluations. 

The report contains descriptive information about the 

statewide evaluation project, as well as the new 

evaluation system, and is now available at the NCSC 

Digital Library and Archive. Appendix A of the 

report, which is indexed separately, contains the 

questionnaires that MACRO distributed to key stakeholders across the state. 

With continued SJI support, in Phase II MACRO will 

assess the efficiency and effectiveness of Maryland’s 

ADR programs (SJI-10-N-146), and perform a cost/ 

benefit analysis during Phase III (SJI-12-N-002). 

State courts are encouraged to contact Julie Linkins, 

MACRO Project Lead, with questions on how to 

obtain the software utilized during the analysis. 

Follow SJI on 

Facebook and 

Twitter 

For the latest information on 

projects, grant application deadlines, and updates. Connect 

with us on both forums by visiting our Facebook and Twitter

pages. 

SJI Receives 2nd Quarter Grant Applications 

always available to help interpret the Grant Guideline

and answer questions during the grant proposal development process. All applicants will be required to 

detail their level of research before and during the 

proposal preparation phase. Additionally, all applicants will be asked to describe how their proposed 

project addresses one or more of SJI's new Priority 

Investment Areas. Applicants will also be asked to 

specify performance outcomes and define how success will be measured. 

SJI Grant funding remains available on a first-come, 

first-served, basis for grant applications that 

merit funding. 

SJI Grant Application deadlines for the remainder of 

FY 2012 are as follows: 3rd quarter – May 1, 2012; 

and 4th quarter – August 1, 2012. 

MACRO Releases ADRESS Evaluation 

Report for Phase I 
With grant funding from SJI (SJI-10-T-155), 

Maricopa County’s Juvenile Probation Department (MCJPD), operating within the County’s 

Juvenile Court, released an in-depth analysis 

of evidence-based practices (EBP) designed to 

help advance the capacity building process. 

The report discusses eight key principles of 

EBP in community corrections, and addresses 

how the MCJPD is positioned in relation to 

each of these principles. 

Maricopa County has been identified by internal and external stakeholders as being impacted by the “perfect storm” of changes to its 

criminal justice system,. Some of the challenges experienced in Maricopa County follow 

the national trends, including reduced funding. 

Uniquely, the MCJPD is situated in one of the 

largest jurisdictions in the country, and the 

bench relies heavily on the expertise of it juvenile probation officers for placement recommendations and community-based supervision. 

This project was built on a climate and leadership team primed for change. Using the consulting services of the National Center for 

State Courts (NCSC), MCJPD engaged in a 12

-month review of current operations that inMaricopa County, AZ Examines Evidence-Based 

Practices to Strengthen Juvenile Probation 

E-SJI News Volume 22, No. 5 February 2012 

Page 2 

cluded interviews with the leadership team, 

case information data collection, observation, 

and the surveying of staff. The NCSC team 

then provided an analysis of current operations, governance, and supervision outcomes 

in comparison to EBP. 

With the primary goal of building long-term 

capacity, the NCSC advised that MCJPD engage in a two-phase approach, which evolves 

from their initial analysis and recommendations. A second phase, to include strategic 

planning, was proposed based on the “Eight 

Evidence Based Principles for Effective Interventions,” from the Center for Juvenile Justice 

Reform’s recently-published document titled, 

Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice 

Programs: A New Perspective on EvidenceBased Practice. 

The eight practices included and addressed in 

the report include: 

1. Assess Actuarial Risk/Needs 

2. Enhance Intrinsic Motivation 

3. Target Interventions 

4. Skill Train with ongoing and directed practice (stress the use of cognitive-behavioral 

treatment methods) 

5. Increase use of Positive Reinforcement 

6. Engage Ongoing Support in Natural Communities 

7. Measure Relevant Processes/Practices 

8. Provide Measurement Feedback to staff 

The 24-page Phase I working report is available online through NCSC’s Digital Library 

and Archive, and provides recommendations 

specific to the challenges faced by the 

MCJPD. 

The White House released the FY 2013 President’s Budget on February 13th, which includes $5,121,000 for SJI. 

The President and the Office of Management 

and Budget continue to support SJI’s mission. 

The funding requested will enable SJI to continue addressing issues impacting the state 

courts, foster innovative solutions, and share 

information on successful approaches nationwide. 

FY 2013 President’s Budget 

and SJI Budget Request to Congress 

The FY 2013 President’s Budget in its entirety 

can be viewed online. The President’s Budget 

for SJI is available on the SJI website. 

In conjunction with the President’s Budget, 

SJI also submitted its detailed budget request 

to Congress. SJI’s budget request is available 

on the SJI website. 
Page 3 

SJI Board of Directors

Chairman 

James R. Hannah 

Chief Justice 

Supreme Court of Arkansas 

Little Rock, AR 

Vice Chairman 

Daniel J. Becker 

State Court Administrator 

Utah AOC 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Secretary 

Gayle A. Nachtigal 

Judge 

Washington County Circuit Court 

Hillsboro, OR 

Treasurer 

Hernan D. Vera 

President & CEO 

Public Counsel Law Center 

Los Angeles, CA 

Robert A. Miller 

Chief Justice (Ret.) 

Supreme Court of South Dakota 

Pierre, SD 

Chase T. Rogers 

Chief Justice 

Supreme Court of Connecticut 

Hartford, CT 

David V. Brewer 

Chief Judge 

Oregon Court of Appeals 

Salem, OR 

Wilfredo Martinez 

County Judge 

9th Judicial Circuit of Florida 

Orlando, FL 

Marsha J. Rabiteau 

Policy Consultant 

Rabiteau Consulting 

Bloomfield, CT 

John B. Nalbandian 

Partner 

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 

Cincinnati, OH 

Isabel Framer 

President 

Language Access Consultants, LLC 

Copley, OH

Jonathan D. Mattiello 

Executive Director 

The State Justice Institute is a federallyfunded, non-profit corporation established by 

federal law in 1984 to improve the quality of 

justice in the state courts. 

E-SJI News Volume 22, No. 5 February 2012 

York County, PA Court of Common Pleas 

Conducts Administrative Office Review 

The 19th Judicial District, Court of Common 

Pleas, in York County, Pennsylvania recently 

completed an administrative office review 

with SJI support (SJI-11-T-155) and technical 

assistance from the National Center for State 

Courts (NCSC). This assessment was an integral component of the Court’s overall succession planning strategy. 

This first step in succession planning, acquiring assistance from the NCSC, was initiated 

by the Court’s judicial and administrative 

leadership, with the primary goal centering on 

providing the jurisdiction’s presiding judge 

with an informed assessment of court management, and an analysis of the execution of operational responsibilities by the administrative 

office. As one of the largest jurisdictions in 

Pennsylvania, York County’s District Court 

Administrator is responsible for the superviNCSC used a three-part review process to 

assist the Court, which addressed the management component, operational considerations, 

and provided a comparison with other administrative offices. 

The review determined which essential operations of the Court relied exclusively on management positions, and after recommendations 

were implemented, how the Court could make 

leadership decisions that would address future 

trends. 

A copy of the report and its appendices, which 

discuss migration towards the High Performance Court model, including sample job descriptions for court leadership positions, 

downloaded through NCSC’s Digital Library 

and Archive. 

sion of four offices, several divisions, and a 

variety of programs that accomplish the essential operations of the Court. This pivotal administrative leadership position and others will 

experience turnover in 2012.