NCJ Number
193301
Journal
Judicature Volume: 85 Issue: 3 Dated: November-December 2001 Pages: 125-128
Date Published
2001
Length
4 pages
Annotation
This article answers the criticisms of the methodology, findings, and conclusions of the National Center for State Courts' (NCSC) evaluation of Michigan's six demonstration projects in trial court consolidation; the criticisms were made by Professor James P. Hill in the current issue of "Judicature" (See NCJ-193300).
Abstract
The six projects initiated by the Michigan Supreme Court in 1996 involved consolidating local trial courts into a single court of general jurisdiction. The NCSC evaluation concluded that the consolidation project substantially improved the quality of court service to the public. Professor Hill's critique of the evaluation included criticism of the evaluation methodology. The response to this criticism focused on what it deemed "erroneous assertions" by Professor Hill. According to this response, Professor Hill indicates inaccurately that the trial court consolidation demonstration sites were not representative; that stakeholders did not participate in the identification of the evaluation criteria; that the evaluation improperly excluded members of the general public from participating in the evaluation; and that the evaluation should have differentiated between project impacts and the impact of recent family court legislation. This article explains why each of these assertions by Professor Hill are not accurate. 5 notes