Volume 23, No. 10 July 2013 

E-SJI NEWS SJI NEWS

In this Issue 

Status of FY 2014 

Appropriations 

1 

Executive Session 

New Papers 

1 

Limited Jurisdiction 

Courts in Washington 

Douglas County, 

Nebraska Juvenile 

Court 

3 

2 

Page 1 

Status of FY 2014 Appropriations 

On July 20, 2013, the House Commerce, Justice, Science 

(CJS) Appropriations Subcommittee marked up the FY 2014 

CJS Bill, which included $4,799,000 for SJI. The full House 

Appropriations Committee approved the Bill on July 17th. 

On July 16th, the Senate CJS Appropriations Subcommittee 

marked up the Bill, including the requested $5,121,000. The 

full Senate Appropriations Committee approved the Bill on 

July 18th. SJI greatly appreciates the support from the House 

and Senate CJS Subcommittees and their staff. SJI will continue to provide updates on the FY 2014 Appropriations Process in future editions of the E-SJI News. 

Executive Session for State Court 

Leaders Releases New Papers 

The Executive Session for State Court Leaders in the 

21st Century has released two new papers in the 

series. 

Executive Session participants, in coordination with 

the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) have 

been publishing an ongoing series of papers that 

explore, through in-depth analysis, a policy or operational issue critical to effective state court leadership. 

The latest papers, Governance: The Final Frontier, 

by NCSC President Mary McQueen, 

and, Maintaining Institutional Independence: Funding Sustainable State Courts During Economic Crisis, by former Oregon Chief Justice Paul De Muniz 

are now available. These two new papers, in addition to the full catalog, are available online. 
E-SJI News Volume 23, No. 10 July 2013 

Page 2 

In FY 2012, the Washington Administrative 

Office of the Courts (AOC) was awarded an 

SJI grant (SJI-12-T-076) to analyze the efficiency and effectiveness of courts of limited 

jurisdiction throughout the state. 

Washington, like Ohio, Arizona, and Texas, 

has a robust limited jurisdiction court system. 

In Washington, these courts are comprised of 

both district and municipal systems and appear 

in each of Washington’s 39 counties and most 

major cities and towns. The courts receive 

primarily local funding in addition to other 

limited resources. These courts are authorized 

to hear misdemeanor criminal cases; traffic, 

non-traffic, and parking infractions; and issue 

domestic violence protection orders. District 

courts also have the authority to hear civil 

actions of $75,000 or less and small claims up 

to $5,000. 

In consideration of streamlining operations 

through reform, the AOC required this analysis 

to explore the benefits of a regional court 

model capable of accomplishing some of the 

following outcomes developed by a statewide 

Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Work Group 

(CLJWG): 

Minimizing the abundance of complex 

court organizations focused primarily on 

local concerns without a foundation of 

sound management practices and efficient 

resource allocation. 

Reducing the inequitable distribution of 

resources among courts of varying jurisdictions. 

Diffusing authorities and power, and 

minimal management accountability, with 

attendant lack of uniform case processing 

and court operational practices. 

Decreasing local variations in the processes, procedures and quality of justice. 

Expanding management capacity and 

authority, thereby reducing their vulnerability to micromanagement by other 

branches of government. 

The final report highlights critical administrative, budgetary, and policy considerations that 

must be considered in a regional consolidation 

plan. 

In addition to focusing on the history, successes, and challenges of state court consolidation, the report also presents several models for 

municipal court operations that were considered 

in both cost and caseload benefits analysis. 

Customer access, responsiveness, and satisfaction, as well as human resources and collaboration are evaluated in each of the five possible 

municipal court models. 

A variety of recommendations presented to the 

AOC and its stakeholders are cited in-depth in 

the final report. 

To review this report and other papers addressing limited jurisdiction court issues from SJI 

grantees, please visit the NCSC Library eCollection. 

Washington Concludes Analysis 

of Limited Jurisdiction Courts 

For the latest information on projects, grant application deadlines, 

upcoming events hosted by our grantees, and SJI updates, connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. 
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 

Chase T. Rogers 

Chief Justice 

Supreme Court of Connecticut 

Hartford, CT 

Jonathan Lippman 

Chief Judge of the State of New York 

New York Court of Appeals 

New York, NY 

David V. Brewer 

Justice 

Oregon Supreme Court 

Salem, OR 

Wilfredo Martinez 

County Judge 

9th Judicial Circuit of Florida 

Orlando, FL 

Marsha J. Rabiteau 

Executive Director 

Legal Policy Strategies Group 

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 23, No. 10 July 2013 

Douglas County, Nebraska Juvenile Court 

Develops Comprehensive Business Processes 

In FY 2011, the Separate Juvenile Court of 

Douglas County, Nebraska obtained SJI assistance to refine its business practices to achieve 

greater efficiencies (SJI-11-T-007). 

The detailed assistance provided by the NCSC 

compared the new JUSTICE case management 

system to the Court’s previous criminal justice 

information system (CJIS). Analysis of the 

modules that the Court and their partners had 

access to determined that availability of information was consistent but needed to be utilized differently. The recommendation to establish baseline practices will help the jurisdiction monitor dependency caseloads and pull 

the required data for national dependency and 

juvenile justice cases. As a Model Court in 

the National Council of Juvenile and Family 

Court Judges (NCJFCJ) Courts Catalyzing 

Change project, the ability to access this data 

through the JUSTICE case management system and a specific collections process was 

considered essential. 

Further review of dependency and delinquency 

case filings revealed that Douglas County was 

experiencing more serious cases than its peer 

counties, which had a higher proportion of 

lower level cases. The data also suggests that 

Douglas County was doing a better job of 

strategic planning may be useful for aligning 

human resources with the greatest areas of need 

by caseload, including judicial, administrative, 

and probation staff. 

To review this report and other SJI-supported 

projects addressing data process improvement, 

please visit the NCSC Library eCollection. 

using diversion programs to 

reduce filings from the number of cases referred. This 

translated to valuable recommendations pertaining to 

caseloads, calendaring, and 

specific types of court actions, including petitions, 

motions, hearings, and supervision. Additional recommendations advised that