based Rand Institute for &ilJustice released a major report on alternuti~ie dispute resolution, under thr Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 on, Jan. 29. Somr articlrs in, the legal press interpreted the report to say that it showed empirical evidence that court ALlR didn't work. CPR I Judicial Project Director Elizabeth Plafiinger discussed the risk ofmisintrrpretation of the Rand studj in a National LawJournal ADR supplement March 24. Since major funding and poliq recornmendations were being formuluted this spring regarding ttir futurr offedrrul court ADR, mrmbrrs of the CPRJudirialProject Advisory Council and other ADR experts belimed it was necessary to issue a formal "statemrnt qf concerns '' regarding the Rand ADR study. The statement calls on decision, makers to formulate ADR policy basrd on nfidl undrrstanding of the complex and nuunced Rand report in ronjunction with other ALIR studies and exfjerience. The March 14 CPR statement of concerns and recommendations apprars below, in the right column. It was issued under the auspices of the CPR Judicial Project fg 3'2 fedrral judges, .scholars and counsel. The statement was sent to frderal an,d .stute judges, legislators, and other ADR poliq makers. Estab lished in 1985 4 the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution, the CPR Judicial Project is a public poliry in,itiutive to examine AIjR's role in the justice system. A listing ofsiLpatories apfirars on pagr 73 at the end of the statement. The statement is accompanied below fg another commentary on the Rand report from two New Jmq-based court ADR praclit ioners.