[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51927-51967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26111]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE
Grant Guideline
AGENCY: State Justice Institute.
ACTION: Final grant guideline.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This guideline sets forth the administrative, programmatic,
and financial requirements attendant to Fiscal Year 1998 State Justice
Institute grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David I. Tevelin, Executive Director,
or Richard Van Duizend, Deputy Director, State Justice Institute, 1650
King St. (Suite 600), Alexandria, VA 22314, by phone ((703) 684-6100),
fax ((703) 684-7618), or e-mail ([email protected]). The guideline, forms,
and other information about SJI and its grants are available on the
Institute's web site at http://www.clark.net/pub/sji/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the State Justice Institute Act
of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 10701, et seq., as amended, the Institute is
authorized to award grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to
State and local courts, nonprofit organizations, and others for the
purpose of improving the quality of justice in the State courts of the
United States.
Status of FY 1998 Appropriations
The Senate has approved an FY 1998 appropriation for SJI of $13.55
million. The House Appropriations Committee has approved a $3 million
appropriation. A House-Senate conference will determine the Institute's
final appropriation later this fall. The scope of the grant program in
this Guideline and the funding targets noted for specific programs may
be adjusted depending on the final funding figure.
Types of Grants Available and Funding Schedules
The SJI grant program is designed to be responsive to the most
important needs of the State courts. To meet the full range of the
courts' diverse needs, the Institute offers five different categories
of grants. The types of grants available in FY 1998 and the funding
cycles for each program are provided below:
Project Grants
These grants are awarded to support innovative education, research,
demonstration, and technical assistance projects that can improve the
administration of justice in State courts nationwide. Except for
``Single Jurisdiction'' project grants awarded under section II.C. (see
below), project grants are intended to support innovative projects of
national significance. As provided in section V. of the Guideline,
project grants may ordinarily not exceed $200,000 a year; however,
grants in excess of $150,000 are likely to be rare, and awarded only to
support projects likely to have a significant national impact.
Applicants must ordinarily submit a concept paper (see section VI.)
and an application (see section VII.) in order to obtain a project
grant. As indicated in Section VI.C., the Board may make an
``accelerated'' grant of less than $40,000 on the basis of the concept
paper alone when (1) the need for the project is clear and (2) an
application would likely provide little additional information about
the operation of the project.
The FY 1998 mailing deadline for most project grant concept papers
is November 24, 1997. Papers must be postmarked or bear other evidence
of submission by that date. The Board of Directors will meet in late
February 1998 to invite formal applications based on the most promising
concept papers. Applications will be due in May and awards will be
approved by the Board in July.
Special funding cycles are established for concept papers that
follow up on the Symposium on the Future of the Juvenile Courts (see
section II.B.2.h.), the National Conference on Full Faith and Credit
(see section II.B.2.i.), and the National Sentencing Symposium (see
section II.B.2.k.); and papers that implement the national agenda on
assuring prompt and affordable justice (see section II.B.2.e.). Those
concept papers must be mailed by March 12, 1998.
Single Jurisdiction Project Grants
Section II.C. of the Guideline allocates funds for two types of
``Single Jurisdiction'' grants.
Section II.C.1. reserves up to $300,000 for Projects Addressing a
Critical Need of a Single State or Local Jurisdiction. To receive a
grant under this program, an applicant must demonstrate that (1) the
proposed project is essential to meeting a critical need of the
jurisdiction and (2) the need cannot be met solely with State and local
resources within the foreseeable future.
[[Page 51928]]
Applicants are encouraged to submit proposals to replicate approaches
or programs that have been evaluated as effective under an SJI grant.
Examples of projects that could be replicated are listed in Appendix
IV. See ``Issues Raised for Comment'' below, about continuation of the
Replication grant program.
Section II.C.2. reserves up to $400,000 for Technical Assistance
Grants. Under this program, a State or local court may receive a grant
of up to $30,000 to engage outside experts to provide technical
assistance to diagnose, develop, and implement a response to a
jurisdiction's problems.
Letters of application for a Technical Assistance grant may be
submitted at any time. Applicants submitting letters between October 1,
1997 and January 16, 1998 will be notified of the Board's decision by
March 27, 1998; those submitting letters between January 17, 1998 and
March 13, 1998 will be notified by May 29, 1998; and those submitting
letters between March 14, 1998 and June 12, 1998 will be notified by
August 28, 1998. Subject to the availability of appropriations in FY
1998, applicants submitting letters between June 13 and September 30,
1998 will be notified of the Board's decision by December 18, 1998.
Curriculum Adaptation Grants
A grant of up to $20,000 may be awarded to a State or local court
to replicate or modify a model training program developed with SJI
funds. The Guideline allocates up to $100,000 for these grants in FY
1998. See section II.B.2.b.ii.
Letters requesting Curriculum Adaptation grants may be submitted at
any time during the fiscal year. However, in order to permit the
Institute sufficient time to evaluate these proposals, letters must be
submitted no later than 90 days before the projected date of the
training program. See section II.B.2.b.ii.(c). See also ``Issues Raised
for Comment'' below, about the continuation of the Curriculum
Adaptation grant program.
Scholarships
The Guideline allocates up to $200,000 of FY 1998 funds for
scholarships to enable judges and court managers to attend out-of-State
education and training programs. See section II.B.2.b.iii.
The Guideline establishes four deadlines for scholarship requests:
October 1, 1997 for training programs beginning between January 1 and
March 31, 1998; January 7, 1998 for programs beginning between April 1
and June 30, 1998; April 1, 1998 for programs beginning between July 1
and September 30, 1998; and July 1, 1998 for programs beginning between
October 1 and December 31, 1998.
Renewal Grants
There are two types of renewal grants available from SJI:
Continuation grants (see sections III.G., V.C. and D., and IX.A.) and
On-going Support grants (see sections III.H., V.C. and D., and IX.B.).
Continuation grants are intended to enhance the specific program or
service begun during the initial grant period. On-going Support grants
may be awarded for up to a three-year period to support national-scope
projects that provide the State courts with critically needed services,
programs, or products.
The Guideline establishes a target for renewal grants of
approximately 25% of the total amount projected to be available for
grants in FY 1998. See section IX. Grantees should accordingly be aware
that the award of a grant to support a project does not constitute a
commitment to provide either continuation funding or on-going support.
An applicant for a continuation or on-going support grant must
submit a letter notifying the Institute of its intent to seek such
funding, no later than 120 days before the end of the current grant
period. The Institute will then notify the applicant of the deadline
for its renewal grant application. See section IX.
Special Interest Categories
The Guideline includes 12 Special Interest categories, i.e., those
topics that the Board has identified as being of particular importance
to the State courts this year. The selection of these categories was
based on the Board and staff's experience and observations over the
past year; the recommendations received from judges, court managers,
lawyers, members of the public, and other groups interested in the
administration of justice; and the issues identified in recent years'
concept papers and applications.
Section II.B.2. of the Guideline includes the following Special
Interest categories:
Improving Public Confidence in the Courts;
Education and Training for Judges and Other Key Court Personnel (this
category includes Curriculum Adaptation grants, Scholarships for Judges
and Key Court Personnel, and National Conferences);
Dispute Resolution and the Courts;
Application of Technology;
Court Management, Financing, and Planning;
Resolution of Current Evidentiary Issues;
Substance Abuse and the Courts;
Children and Families in Court;
Improving the Courts' Response to Domestic Violence;
Improving Sentencing Practices; Improving Court Security; and
The Relationship Between State and Federal Courts.
Conferences
The Institute is soliciting proposals to conduct two major national
conferences: a National Symposium on the Future of Judicial Education,
and a National Conference on Unrepresented Litigants in Court. See
section II.B.2.b.iv.
Issues Raised for Comment
In the Proposed Guideline published for public comment on August 20
(62 FR 44307), SJI requested comment on three issues: consultant rates,
and the continuation of the Curriculum Adaptation and Replication grant
programs.
Consultant Rates
The Proposed Guideline sought comment on the Institute's general
approach to examining and approving the compensation paid to
consultants working under SJI grants, as well as on three specific sets
of questions:
(1) Should SJI lower the maximum consultant rate that can be paid
from grant funds to below $900 a day? If so, what is the highest rate
that should be permitted? Are there certain criteria that would justify
the top rate, wherever it is set?
(2) Should practicing lawyers, as well as other legal and court
officials, be expected to provide their services to SJI-supported
grants without compensation? What circumstances might justify an
exception to this expectation?
(3) Are there other approaches that might better balance SJI's need
to exercise financial restraint with its interest in encouraging the
highest quality experts to work on Institute-supported projects?
SJI received two comments on this issue, from the National Council
of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the National Center for State
Courts. Both comments recommended retaining the $900 daily rate as the
maximum ceiling. The Council also observed that ``lawyers practicing in
the private sector could and perhaps should offer some of their time to
the public sector on a pro bono basis.'' The Institute will retain its
present approach to approving consultant rates but, absent
extraordinary circumstances, will not
[[Page 51929]]
approve the payment of SJI funds to a practicing attorney who is
participating in a judicial education or court improvement project.
Curriculum Adaptation Grants
In the Proposed Guideline, SJI noted that the number of Curriculum
Adaptation (CA) requests submitted in recent years has dropped sharply,
from 17 in FY 1995 to 4 in FY 1997. As a result, the amount allocated
for CA grants in the Proposed Guideline was reduced from $175,000 in FY
1997 to $100,000 in FY 1998. The Board noted its special interest in
receiving comments from State judicial educators about whether the
program should be discontinued or whether it might be modified in some
way to increase its usefulness.
The Institute received comments from a number of individual State
judicial educators as well as the National Association of State
Judicial Educators and the National Center for State Courts, all of
whom requested that the program be continued. The Final Guideline
continues the program, at the $100,000 level.
Replication Grants
Last fiscal year, SJI added the Replication grant program to the
Guideline. The program permits State and local courts to request up to
$30,000 to adapt programs, procedures, or strategies that have been
evaluated as successes under prior SJI grants. No court, however,
requested a Replication grant in FY 1997. The Proposed Guideline
continued the program, but dropped the $30,000 limitation, which some
observers believe may have been too low to accomplish the goals of the
program. The Board invited comment, particularly from State and local
courts, about whether the program should be discontinued, modified in
the way proposed, or modified in some other way to attract more
applications.
A number of commenters suggested that not many people knew about
the program. The National Center for State Courts endorsed the
recommendation that the $30,000 limit be removed. The Final Guideline
continues the program as proposed.
No changes other than technical corrections have been made in the
Final Guideline.
Recommendations to Grant Writers
Over the past 11 years, Institute staff have reviewed approximately
3,300 concept papers and 1,600 applications. On the basis of those
reviews, inquiries from applicants, and the views of the Board, the
Institute offers the following recommendations to help potential
applicants present workable, understandable proposals that can meet the
funding criteria set forth in this Guideline.
The Institute suggests that applicants make certain that they
address the questions and issues set forth below when preparing a
concept paper or application. Concept papers and applications should,
however, be presented in the formats specified in sections VI. and VII.
of the Guideline, respectively.
1. What Is the Subject or Problem You Wish To Address
Describe the subject or problem and how it affects the courts and
the public. Discuss how your approach will improve the situation or
advance the state of the art or knowledge, and explain why it is the
most appropriate approach to take. When statistics or research findings
are cited to support a statement or position, the source of the
citation should be referenced in a footnote or a reference list.
2. What Do You Want To Do
Explain the goal(s) of the project in simple, straightforward
terms. The goals should describe the intended consequences or expected
overall effect of the proposed project (e.g., to enable judges to
sentence drug-abusing offenders more effectively, or to dispose of
civil cases within 24 months), rather than the tasks or activities to
be conducted (e.g., hold three training sessions, or install a new
computer system).
To the greatest extent possible, an applicant should avoid a
specialized vocabulary that is not readily understood by the general
public. Technical jargon does not enhance a paper.
3. How Will You Do It
Describe the methodology carefully so that what you propose to do
and how you would do it are clear. All proposed tasks should be set
forth so that a reviewer can see a logical progression of tasks, and
relate those tasks directly to the accomplishment of the project's
goal(s). When in doubt about whether to provide a more detailed
explanation or to assume a particular level of knowledge or expertise
on the part of the reviewers, provide the additional information. A
description of project tasks also will help identify necessary budget
items. All staff positions and project costs should relate directly to
the tasks described. The Institute encourages applicants to attach
letters of cooperation and support from the courts and related agencies
that will be involved in or directly affected by the proposed project.
4. How Will You Know It Works
Include an evaluation component that will determine whether the
proposed training, procedure, service, or technology accomplished the
objectives it was designed to meet. Concept papers and applications
should present the criteria that will be used to evaluate the project's
effectiveness; identify program elements which will require further
modification; and describe how the evaluation will be conducted, when
it will occur during the project period, who will conduct it, and what
specific measures will be used. In most instances, the evaluation
should be conducted by persons not connected with the implementation of
the procedure, training, service, or technique, or the administration
of the project.
The Institute has also prepared a more thorough list of
recommendations to grant writers regarding the development of project
evaluation plans. Those recommendations are available from the
Institute upon request.
5. How Will Others Find Out About It
Include a plan to disseminate the results of the training,
research, or demonstration beyond the jurisdictions and individuals
directly affected by the project. The plan should identify the specific
methods which will be used to inform the field about the project, such
as the publication of law review or journal articles, or the
distribution of key materials. A statement that a report or research
findings ``will be made available to'' the field is not sufficient. The
specific means of distribution or dissemination as well as the types of
recipients should be identified. Reproduction and dissemination costs
are allowable budget items.
6. What Are the Specific Costs Involved
The budget in both concept papers and applications should be
presented clearly. Major budget categories such as personnel, benefits,
travel, supplies, equipment, and indirect costs should be identified
separately. The components of ``Other'' or ``Miscellaneous'' items
should be specified in the application budget narrative, and should not
include set-asides for undefined contingencies.
7. What, if any, Match Is Being Offered?
Courts and other units of State and local government (not including
publicly-supported institutions of higher education) are required by
the
[[Page 51930]]
State Justice Institute Act to contribute a match (cash, non-cash, or
both) of at least 50 percent of the grant funds requested from the
Institute. All other applicants also are encouraged to provide a
matching contribution to assist in meeting the costs of a project.
The match requirement works as follows: If, for example, the total
cost of a project is anticipated to be $150,000, a State or local court
or executive branch agency may request up to $100,000 from the
Institute to implement the project. The remaining $50,000 (50% of the
$100,000 requested from SJI) must be provided as match.
Cash match includes funds directly contributed to the project by
the applicant, or by other public or private sources. It does not
include income generated from tuition fees or the sale of project
products. Non-cash match refers to in-kind contributions by the
applicant, or other public or private sources. This includes, for
example, the monetary value of time contributed by existing personnel
or members of an advisory committee (but not the time spent by
participants in an educational program attending program sessions).
When match is offered, the nature of the match (cash or in-kind) should
be explained and, at the application stage, the tasks and line items
for which costs will be covered wholly or in part by match should be
specified.
8. Which of the Two Budget Forms Should Be Used
Section VII.A.3. of the SJI Grant Guideline encourages use of the
spreadsheet format of Form C1 if the application requests $100,000 or
more. Form C1 also works well for projects with discrete tasks,
regardless of the dollar value of the project. Form C, the tabular
format, is preferred for projects lacking a number of discrete tasks,
or for projects requiring less than $100,000 of Institute funding.
Generally, use the form that best lends itself to representing most
accurately the budget estimates for the project.
9. How Much Detail Should Be Included in the Budget Narrative?
The budget narrative of an application should provide the basis for
computing all project-related costs, as indicated in section VII.D. of
the SJI Grant Guideline. To avoid common shortcomings of application
budget narratives, applicants should include the following information:
Personnel estimates that accurately provide the amount of time to
be spent by personnel involved with the project and the total
associated costs, including current salaries for the designated
personnel (e.g., Project Director, 50% for one year, annual salary of
$50,000 = $25,000). If salary costs are computed using an hourly or
daily rate, the annual salary and number of hours or days in a work-
year should be shown.
Estimates for supplies and expenses supported by a complete
description of the supplies to be used, the nature and extent of
printing to be done, anticipated telephone charges, and other common
expenditures, with the basis for computing the estimates included
(e.g., 100 reports x 75 pages each x .05/page = $375.00). Supply
and expense estimates offered simply as ``based on experience'' are not
sufficient.
In order to expedite Institute review of the budget, make a final
comparison of the amounts listed in the budget narrative with those
listed on the budget form. In the rush to complete all parts of the
application on time, there may be many last-minute changes;
unfortunately, when there are discrepancies between the budget
narrative and the budget form or the amount listed on the application
cover sheet, it is not possible for the Institute to verify the amount
of the request. A final check of the numbers on the form against those
in the narrative will preclude such confusion.
10. What Travel Regulations Apply to the Budget Estimates
Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the
policies of the applicant organization, and a copy of the applicant's
travel policy should be submitted as an appendix to the application. If
the applicant does not have a travel policy established in writing,
then travel rates must be consistent with those established by the
Institute or the Federal Government (a copy of the Institute's travel
policy is available upon request). The budget narrative should state
which regulations are in force for the project.
The budget narrative also should include the estimated fare, the
number of persons traveling, the number of trips to be taken, and the
length of stay. The estimated costs of travel, lodging, ground
transportation, and other subsistence should be listed and explained
separately. It is preferable for the budget to be based on the actual
costs of traveling to and from the project or meeting sites. If the
points of origin or destination are not known at the time the budget is
prepared, an average airfare may be used to estimate the travel costs.
For example, if it is anticipated that a project advisory committee
will include members from around the country, a reasonable airfare from
a central point to the meeting site, or the average of airfares from
each coast to the meeting site may be used. Applicants should arrange
travel so as to be able to take advantage of advance-purchase price
discounts whenever possible.
11. May Grant Funds Be Used To Purchase Equipment?
Generally, grant funds may be used to purchase only the equipment
that is necessary to demonstrate a new technological application in a
court, or that is otherwise essential to accomplishing the objectives
of the project. The budget narrative must list the equipment to be
purchased and explain why the equipment is necessary to the success of
the project. Written prior approval is required when the amount of
computer hardware to be purchased or leased exceeds $10,000, or the
software to be purchased exceeds $3000.
12. To What Extent May Indirect Costs Be Included in the Budget
Estimates
It is the policy of the Institute that all costs should be budget
directly; however, if an applicant has been approved by a Federal
agency within the last two years, an indirect cost recovery estimate
may be included in the budget. A copy of the approved rate agreement
should be submitted as an appendix to the application.
If an applicant does not have an approved rate agreement, an
indirect cost rate proposal should be prepared in accordance with
Section XI.H.4. of the Grant Guideline, based on the applicant's
audited financial statements for the prior fiscal year. (Applicants
lacking an audit should budget all project costs directly.) If an
indirect cost rate proposal is to be submitted, the budget should
reflect estimates based on that proposal. Obviously, this requires that
the proposal be completed at the time of application so that the
appropriate estimates may be included; however, grantees have until
three months after the project start date to submit the indirect cost
proposal to the Institute for approval. An indirect cost rate worksheet
on computer diskette is available from the Institute upon request.
13. What Meeting Costs May Be Covered With Grant Funds
SJI grant funds may cover the reasonable cost of meeting rooms,
necessary audio-visual equipment, meeting supplies, and working meals.
However, they cannot be used to reimburse the cost of coffee or other
types of refreshment breaks, or for alcoholic beverages.
[[Page 51931]]
14. Does the Budget Truly Reflect All Costs Required To Complete the
Project
After preparing the program narrative portion of the application,
applicants may find it helpful to list all the major tasks or
activities required by the proposed project, including the preparation
of products, and note the individual expenses, including personnel
time, related to each. This will help to ensure that, for all tasks
described in the application (e.g., development of a videotape,
research site visits, distribution of a final report), the related
costs appear in the budget and are explained correctly in the budget
narrative.
Recommendations to Grantees
The Institute's staff works with grantees to help assure the smooth
operation of the project and compliance with the Guideline. On the
basis of monitoring more than 1,300 grants, the Institute staff offers
the following suggestions to aid grantees in meeting the administrative
and substantive requirements of their grants.
1. After the Grant Has Been Awarded, When Are the First Quarterly
Reports Due
Quarterly Progress Reports and Financial Status Reports must be
submitted within 30 days after the end of every calendar quarter--i.e.
no later than January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30--regardless
of the project's start date. The reporting periods covered by each
quarterly report end 30 days before the respective deadline for the
report. When an award period begins December 1, for example, the first
Quarterly Progress Report describing project activities between
December 1 and December 31 will be due on January 30. A Financial
Status Report should be submitted even if funds have not been obligated
or expended.
By documenting what has happened over the past three months,
Quarterly Progress Reports provide an opportunity for project staff and
Institute staff to resolve any questions before they become problems,
and make any necessary changes in the project time schedule, budget
allocations, etc. The Quarterly Project Report should describe project
activities, their relationship to the approved timeline, and any
problems encountered and how they were resolved, and outline the tasks
scheduled for the coming quarter. It is helpful to attach copies of
relevant memos, draft products, or other requested information. An
original and one copy of a Quarterly Progress Report and attachments
should be submitted to the Institute.
Additional Quarterly Progress Report or Financial Status Report
forms may be obtained from the grantee's Program Manager at SJI, or
photocopies may be made from the supply received with the award.
2. Do Reporting Requirements Differ for Renewal Grants
Recipients of a continuation or on-going support grant are required
to submit quarterly progress and financial status reports on the same
schedule and with the same information as recipients of a grant for a
single new project.
A continuation grant and each yearly grant under an on-going
support award should be considered as a separate phase of the project.
The reports should be numbered on a grant rather than project basis.
Thus, the first quarterly report filed under a continuation grant or a
yearly increment of an on-going support award should be designated as
number one, the second as number two, and so on, through the final
progress and financial status reports due within 90 days after the end
of the grant period.
3. What Information About Project Activities should be Communicated to
SJI
In general, grantees should provide prior notice of critical
project events such as advisory board meetings or training sessions so
that the Institute Program Manager can attend if possible. If
methodological, schedule, staff, budget allocations, or other
significant changes become necessary, the grantee should contact the
Program Manager prior to implementing any of these changes, so that
possible questions may be addressed in advance. Questions concerning
the financial requirements section of the Guideline, quarterly
financial reporting, or payment requests, should be addressed to the
Grants Financial Manager listed in the award letter.
It is helpful to include the grant number assigned to the award on
all correspondence to the Institute.
4. Why Is It Important to Address the Special Conditions That Are
Attached to the Award Document
In some instances, a list of special conditions is attached to the
award document. Special conditions may be imposed to establish a
schedule for reporting certain key information, to assure that the
Institute has an opportunity to offer suggestions at critical stages of
the project, and to provide reminders of some, but not all of the
requirements contained in the Grant Guideline. Accordingly, it is
important for grantees to check the special conditions carefully and
discuss with their Program Manager any questions or problems they may
have with the conditions. Most concerns about timing, response time,
and the level of detail required can be resolved in advance through a
telephone conversation. The Institute's primary concern is to work with
grantees to assure that their projects accomplish their objectives, not
to enforce rigid bureaucratic requirements. However, if a grantee fails
to comply with a special condition or with other grant requirements,
the Institute may, after proper notice, suspend payment of grant funds
or terminate the grant.
Sections X., XI., and XII. of the Grant Guideline contain the
Institute's administrative and financial requirements. Institute
Finance Division staff are always available to answer questions and
provide assistance regarding these provisions.
5. What is a Grant Adjustment
A Grant Adjustment is the Institute's form for acknowledging the
satisfaction of special conditions, or approving changes in grant
activities, schedule, staffing, sites, or budget allocations requested
by the project director. It also may be used to correct errors in grant
documents, add small amounts to a grant award, or deobligate funds from
the grant.
6. What Schedule should be Followed in Submitting Requests for
Reimbursements or Advance Payments
Requests for reimbursements or advance payments may be made at any
time after the project start date and before the end of the 90-day
close-out period. However, the Institute follows the U.S. Treasury's
policy limiting advances to the minimum amount required to meet
immediate cash needs. Given normal processing time, grantees should not
seek to draw down funds for periods greater than 30 days from the date
of the request.
7. Do Procedures for Submitting Requests for Reimbursement or Advance
Payment Differ for Renewal Grants
The basic procedures are the same for any grant. A continuation
grant or the yearly grant under an on-going support award should be
considered as a separate phase of the project. Payment requests should
be numbered on a grant rather than a project basis. The first request
for funds from a continuation grant or a yearly increment under an on-
going support award should be designated as number one, the second as
[[Page 51932]]
number two, and so on through the final payment request for that grant.
8. If Things Change During the Grant Period, Can Funds Be Reallocated
From One Budget Category to Another
The Institute recognizes that some flexibility is required in
implementing a project design and budget. Thus, grantees may shift
funds among direct cost budget categories. When any one reallocation or
the cumulative total of reallocations are expected to exceed five
percent of the approved project budget, a grantee must specify the
proposed changes, explain the reasons for the changes, and request
Institute approval.
The same standard applies to renewal grants. In addition, prior
written Institute approval is required to shift leftover funds from the
original award to cover activities to be conducted under the renewal
award, or to use renewal grant monies to cover costs incurred during
the original grant period.
9. What is the 90-Day Close-out Period
Following the last day of the grant, a 90-day period is provided to
allow for all grant-related bills to be received and posted, and grant
funds drawn down to cover these expenses. No obligations of grant funds
may be incurred during this period. The last day on which an
expenditure of grant funds can be obligated is the end date of the
grant period. Similarly, the 90-day period is not intended as an
opportunity to finish and disseminate grant products. This should occur
before the end of the grant period.
During the 90 days following the end of the award period, all
monies that have been obligated should be expended. All payment
requests must be received by the end of the 90-day ``close-out-
period.'' Any unexpended monies held by the grantee that remain after
the 90-day follow-up period must be returned to the Institute. Any
funds remaining in the grant that have not been drawn down by the
grantee will be deobligated.
10. Are Funds Granted by SJI ``Federal'' Funds
The State Justice Institute Act provides that, except for purposes
unrelated to this question, ``the Institute shall not be considered a
department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government.'' 42
U.S.C. Sec. 10704(c)(1). Because SJI receives appropriations from
Congress, some grantee auditors have reported SJI grants funds as
``Other Federal Assistance.'' This classification is acceptable to SJI
but is not required.
11. If SJI Is Not a Federal Agency, Do OMB Circulars Apply With Respect
to Audits
Except to the extent that they are inconsistent with the express
provisions of the SJI Grant Guideline, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circulars A-110, A-21, A-87, A-88, A-102, A-122, and A-133 are
incorporated into the Grant Guideline by reference. Because the
Institute's enabling legislation specifically requires the Institute to
``conduct, or require each recipient to provide for, an annual fiscal
audit'' (see 42 U.S.C. 10711(c)(1)), the Grant Guideline sets forth
options for grantees to comply with this statutory requirement. (See
Section XI.J.)
SJI will accept audits conducted in accordance with the Single
Audit Act of 1984 as amended and OMB Circular A-133, in satisfaction of
the annual fiscal audit requirement. Grantees that are required to
undertake these audits in conjunction with Federal grants may include
SJI funds as part of the audit even if the receipt of SJI funds would
not require such audits. This approach gives grantees an option to fold
SJI funds into the governmental audit rather than to undertake a
separate audit to satisfy SJI's Guideline requirements.
In sum, educational, governmental and nonprofit organizations that
receive payments from the Institute that are sufficient to meet the
applicability thresholds of OMB Circular A-133 must have their annual
audit conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued
by the Comptroller General of the United States rather than with
generally accepted auditing standards. Grantees in this category that
receive amounts below the minimum threshold referenced in Circular A-
133 must also submit an annual audit to SJI, but they would have the
option to conduct an audit of the entire grantee organization in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; include SJI
funds in an audit of Federal funds conducted in accordance with the
Single Audit Act of 1984 as amended and OMB Circular A-133; or conduct
an audit of only the SJI funds in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards. (See Guideline Section XI.J.) A copy of the above-
noted circular may be obtained by calling OMB at (202) 395-7250.
12. Does SJI Have a CFDA Number?
Auditors often request that a grantee provide the Institute's
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for guidance in
conducting an audit in accordance with Government Accounting Standards.
Because SJI is not a Federal agency, it has not been issued such a
number, and there are no additional compliance tests to satisfy under
the Institute's audit requirements beyond those of a standard
governmental audit.
Moreover, because SJI is not a Federal agency, SJI funds should not
be aggregated with Federal funds to determine if the applicability
threshold of Circular A-133 has been reached. For example, if in fiscal
year 1996 grantee ``X'' received $10,000 in Federal funds from a
Department of Justice (DOJ) grant program and $20,000 in grant funds
from SJI, the minimum A-133 threshold would not be met. The same
distinction would preclude an auditor from considering the additional
SJI funds in determining what Federal requirements apply to the DOJ
funds.
Grantees who are required to satisfy either the Single Audit Act,
OMB Circulars A-128, or A-133 and who include SJI grant funds in those
audits, need to remember that because of its status as a private non-
profit corporation, SJI is not on routing lists of cognizant Federal
agencies. Therefore, the grantee needs to submit a copy of the audit
report prepared for such a cognizant Federal agency directly to SJI.
The Institute's audit requirements may be found in Section XI.J. of the
Grant Guideline.
The following Grant Guideline is adopted by the State Justice
Institute for FY 1998:
State Justice Institute Grant Guideline
Table of Contents
I. BACKGROUND
II. SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM
III. DEFINITIONS
IV. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD
V. TYPES OF PROJECTS AND GRANTS; SIZE OF AWARDS
VI. CONCEPT PAPER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW PROJECTS
VII. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW PROJECTS
VIII. APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES
IX. RENEWAL FUNDING PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS
X. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
XI. FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
XII. GRANT ADJUSTMENTS
APPENDIX I LIST OF STATE CONTACTS REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF
INSTITUTE GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL COURTS
APPENDIX II SJI LIBRARIES: DESIGNATED SITES AND CONTACTS
APPENDIX III ILLUSTRATIVE LIST OF MODEL CURRICULA
APPENDIX IV ILLUSTRATIVE LIST OF REPLICABLE PROJECTS
APPENDIX V JUDICIAL EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION FORMS
APPENDIX VI PRELIMINARY BUDGET FORM (Form E)
[[Page 51933]]
APPENDIX VII CERTIFICATE OF STATE APPROVAL FORM (Form B)
I. Background
The Institute was established by Public Law 98-620 to improve the
administration of justice in the State courts in the United States.
Incorporated in the State of Virginia as a private, nonprofit
corporation, the Institute is charged, by statute, with the
responsibility to:
A. Direct a national program of financial assistance designed to
assure that each citizen of the United States is provided ready access
to a fair and effective system of justice;
B. Foster coordination and cooperation with the Federal judiciary;
C. Promote recognition of the importance of the separation of
powers doctrine to an independent judiciary; and
D. Encourage education for judges and support personnel of State
court systems through national and State organizations, including
universities.
To accomplish these broad objectives, the Institute is authorized
to provide funds to State courts, national organizations which support
and are supported by State courts, national judicial education
organizations, and other organizations that can assist in improving the
quality of justice in the State courts.
The Institute is supervised by an 11-member Board of Directors
appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate. The
Board is statutorily composed of six judges, a State court
administrator, and four members of the public, no more than two of whom
can be of the same political party.
Through the award of grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements,
the Institute is authorized to perform the following activities:
A. Support research, demonstrations, special projects, technical
assistance, and training to improve the administration of justice in
the State courts;
B. Provide for the preparation, publication, and dissemination of
information regarding State judicial systems;
C. Participate in joint projects with Federal agencies and other
private grantors;
D. Evaluate or provide for the evaluation of programs and projects
funded by the Institute to determine their impact upon the quality of
criminal, civil, and juvenile justice and the extent to which they have
contributed to improving the quality of justice in the State courts;
E. Encourage and assist in furthering judicial education;
F. Encourage, assist, and serve in a consulting capacity to State
and local justice system agencies in the development, maintenance, and
coordination of criminal, civil, and juvenile justice programs and
services; and
G. Be responsible for the certification of national programs that
are intended to aid and improve State judicial systems.
II. Scope of the Program
During FY 1998, the Institute will consider applications for
funding support that address any of the areas specified in its enabling
legislation. The Board, however, has designated 12 program categories
as being of ``special interest.'' See section II.B.
A. Authorized Program Areas
The Institute is authorized to fund projects addressing one or more
of the following program areas listed in the State Justice Institute
Act, the Battered Women's Testimony Act, the Judicial Training and
Research for Child Custody Litigation Act, and the International
Parental Kidnapping Crime Act.
1. Assistance to State and local court systems in establishing
appropriate procedures for the selection and removal of judges and
other court personnel and in determining appropriate levels of
compensation;
2. Education and training programs for judges and other court
personnel for the performance of their general duties and for
specialized functions, and national and regional conferences and
seminars for the dissemination of information on new developments and
innovative techniques;
3. Research on alternative means for using judicial and nonjudicial
personnel in court decisionmaking activities, implementation of
demonstration programs to test such innovative approaches, and
evaluations of their effectiveness;
4. Studies of the appropriateness and efficacy of court
organizations and financing structures in particular States, and
support to States to implement plans for improved court organization
and financing;
5. Support for State court planning and budgeting staffs and the
provision of technical assistance in resource allocation and service
forecasting techniques;
6. Studies of the adequacy of court management systems in State and
local courts, and implementation and evaluation of innovative responses
to records management, data processing, court personnel management,
reporting and transcription of court proceedings, and juror utilization
and management;
7. Collection and compilation of statistical data and other
information on the work of the courts and on the work of other agencies
which relates to and affects the work of courts;
8. Studies of the causes of trial and appellate court delay in
resolving cases, and establishing and evaluating experimental programs
for reducing case processing time;
9. Development and testing of methods for measuring the performance
of judges and courts, and experiments in the use of such measures to
improve the functioning of judges and the courts;
10. Studies of court rules and procedures, discovery devices, and
evidentiary standards to identify problems with the operation of such
rules, procedures, devices, and standards, and the development of
alternative approaches to better reconcile the requirements of due
process with the need for swift and certain justice, and testing of the
utility of those alternative approaches;
11. Studies of the outcomes of cases in selected areas to identify
instances in which the substance of justice meted out by the courts
diverges from public expectations of fairness, consistency, or equity,
and the development, testing, and evaluation of alternative approaches
to resolving cases in such problem areas;
12. Support for programs to increase court responsiveness to the
needs of citizens through citizen education, improvement of court
treatment of witnesses, victims, and jurors, and development of
procedures for obtaining and using measures of public satisfaction with
court processes to improve court performance;
13. Testing and evaluating experimental approaches to provide
increased citizen access to justice, including processes which reduce
the cost of litigating common grievances, and alternative techniques
and mechanisms for resolving disputes between citizens;
14. Collection and analysis of information regarding the
admissibility and quality of expert testimony on the experiences of
battered women offered as part of the defense in criminal cases under
State law, as well as sources of and methods to obtain funds to pay
costs incurred to provide such testimony, particularly in cases
involving indigent women defendants;
15. Development of training materials to assist battered women,
operators of domestic violence shelters, battered women's advocates,
and attorneys to use expert testimony on the experiences of
[[Page 51934]]
battered women in appropriate cases, and individuals with expertise in
the experiences of battered women to develop skills appropriate to
providing such testimony;
16. Research regarding State judicial decisions relating to child
custody litigation involving domestic violence;
17. Development of training curricula to assist State courts to
develop an understanding of, and appropriate responses to child custody
litigation involving domestic violence;
18. Dissemination of information and training materials and
provision of technical assistance regarding the issues listed in
paragraphs 14-17 above;
19. Development of national, regional, and in-State training and
educational programs dealing with criminal and civil aspects of
interstate and international parental child abduction;
20. Other programs, consistent with the purposes of the State
Justice Institute Act, as may be deemed appropriate by the Institute,
including projects dealing with the relationship between Federal and
State court systems such as where there is concurrent State-Federal
jurisdiction and where Federal courts, directly or indirectly, review
State court proceedings.
Funds will not be made available for the ordinary, routine
operation of court systems or programs in any of these areas.
B. Special Interest Program Categories
1. General Description
The Institute is interested in funding both innovative programs and
programs of proven merit that can be replicated in other jurisdictions.
Although applications in any of the statutory program areas are
eligible for funding in FY 1998, the Institute is especially interested
in funding those projects that:
a. Formulate new procedures and techniques, or creatively enhance
existing arrangements to improve the courts;
b. Address aspects of the State judicial systems that are in
special need of serious attention;
c. Have national significance by developing products, services, and
techniques that may be used in other States; and
d. Create and disseminate products that effectively transfer the
information and ideas developed to relevant audiences in State and
local judicial systems, or provide technical assistance to facilitate
the adaptation of effective programs and procedures in other State and
local jurisdictions.
A project will be identified as a ``Special Interest'' project if
it meets the four criteria set forth above and (1) it falls within the
scope of the ``special interest'' program areas designated below, or
(2) information coming to the attention of the Institute from the State
courts, their affiliated organizations, the research literature, or
other sources demonstrates that the project responds to another special
need or interest of the State courts.
Concept papers and applications which address a ``Special
Interest'' category will be accorded a preference in the rating
process. (See the selection criteria listed in sections VI.B.,
``Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects,'' and
VIII.B., ``Application Review Procedures.'')
2. Specific Categories
The Board has designated the areas set forth below as ``Special
Interest'' program categories. The order of listing does not imply any
ordering of priorities among the categories.
a. Improving Public Confidence in the Courts: This category
includes demonstration, evaluation, research, and education projects
designed to improve the responsiveness of courts to public concerns
regarding the fairness, accessibility, timeliness, and
comprehensibility of the court process, and test innovative methods for
increasing the public's confidence in the State courts.
The Institute is particularly interested in supporting innovative
projects that examine, develop, and test methods that trial or
appellate courts may use to:
Improve service to individual litigants and trial
participants, including innovative methods for handling cases involving
unrepresented litigants fairly and effectively; (See also section
II.B.2.b.iv.(b) regarding a National Conference on Unrepresented
Litigants in the Courts.)
Test methods for more clearly and effectively
communicating information to litigants and the public about judicial
decisions, the trial and appellate court process, and court operations;
Eliminate race, ethnic, and gender bias in the courts;
Address court-community problems resulting from the influx
of legal and illegal immigrants, including projects to inform judges
about the effects of recent Federal and State legislation regarding
immigrants; design and assess procedures for use in custody,
visitation, and other domestic relations cases when key family members
or property are outside the United States; and develop protocols to
facilitate service of process, the enforcement of orders of judgment,
and the disposition of criminal and juvenile cases when a non-U.S.
citizen or corporation is involved;
Demonstrate and evaluate approaches courts can use to
implement the concept of restorative justice, including methods for
involving the community in the sentencing process, such as community
impact statements, community oversight of compliance with community
service and probation conditions, or other innovative court-community
links focused on the sentencing process;
Test the impact of methods for improving juror
comprehension in criminal and civil cases, such as use of specially
qualified juries in complex cases, delivery of instructions throughout
the trial, testimony by court-appointed neutral experts, and access to
technology in the jury room to permit review of computerized exhibits
of evidence presented in the case;
Determine the incidence and causes of jury nullification
and identify appropriate measures that judges can take to induce jurors
to follow the law;
Assess the impact of live television coverage of trials on
court proceedings, public understanding, and fairness to litigants, and
develop materials to assist jurors in dealing with the media during or
following a trial.
Institute funds may not be used to directly or indirectly support
legal representation of individuals in specific cases
Previous SJI-supported projects that address these issues include:
Enhancing Court-Community Relationships: A National Town Hall
Meeting Videoconference and projects to implement the action plans
developed at the conference; educational materials for court employees
on serving the public; surveys and focus groups to identify concerns
about the courts and assess how courts are serving the needs of the
public; a demonstration of the use of community volunteers to monitor
adult probationers and to monitor guardianships; evaluation of
community-based court programs in New York City; and guidelines for
court-annexed day-care systems;
Serving Unrepresented Litigants: Preparing guidebooks for court-
based programs to assist pro se litigants and to respond to individuals
and groups unwilling to comply with legal and administrative
procedures; developing local and Statewide self-service centers,
touchscreen computer kiosks, videotapes, and written materials to
assist unrepresented litigants; assessing effective and efficient
methods for providing legal representation to
[[Page 51935]]
indigent parties in criminal and family cases; and examining the
methods courts in rural communities can use to assure access and
fairness for immigrants;
Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts: Presenting a
National Conference on Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts
and supporting projects to implement the action plans developed at the
conference; examining the applicability of various dispute resolution
procedures to different cultural groups; and developing educational
programs and materials for judges and court staff on diversity and
related issues;
Facilitating the Use of Qualified Court Interpreters: Preparing a
manual and other materials for managing and coordinating court
interpretation services; developing basic and graduate level curricula
and other materials for training and assisting court interpreters; and
assessing the feasibility and effectiveness of interpreting in court
via the telephone;
Improving Jury Service and Jury System Management: Developing a
manual for implementing innovations in jury selection, use, and
management; preparing a guide for making juries accessible to persons
with disabilities; documenting methods for reducing juror stress; and
assessing the effect of allowing jurors to discuss the evidence prior
to the deliberations on the verdict.
b. Education and Training for Judges and Other Key Court Personnel:
The Institute is interested in supporting an array of projects that
will continue to strengthen and broaden the availability of court
education programs at the State, regional, and national levels. This
category is divided into four subsections: (i) Innovative Educational
Programs; (ii) Curriculum Adaptation Projects; (iii) Scholarships; and
(iv) National Conferences.
i. Innovative Educational Programs. This category includes support
for the development and testing of educational programs for judges or
court personnel that address key substantive and administrative issues
of concern to the nation's courts, or help local courts or State court
systems develop or enhance their capacity to deliver quality continuing
education. Programs may be designed for presentation at the local,
State, regional, or national level. Ordinarily, court education
programs should be based on some form of assessment of the needs of the
target audience; include clearly stated learning objectives that
delineate the new knowledge or skills that participants will acquire;
incorporate adult education principles and multiple teaching/learning
methods; and result in the development of a curriculum as defined in
section III.J.
(a) The Institute is particularly interested in the development of
education programs that:
Include innovative self-directed learning packages for use
by judges and court personnel, and distance-learning approaches to
assist those who do not have ready access to classroom-centered
programs. These packages and approaches should include the appropriate
use of various media and technologies such as Internet-based
programming, interactive CD-ROM or floppy disk-based programs, videos,
or other audio and visual media, supported by written materials or
manuals. They also should include a meaningful program evaluation and a
self-evaluation process that assesses pre- and post-program knowledge
and skills; (See also section II.B.2.b.iv.(a) inviting proposals for a
National Symposium on the Future of Court Education.)
Familiarize faculty with the effective use of
instructional technology including methods for effectively presenting
information through distance learning approaches including the
Internet, videos, and satellite teleconferences;
Assist local courts, State court systems, and court
systems in a geographic region to develop or enhance a comprehensive
program of continuing education, training, and career development for
judges and court personnel as an integral part of court operations;
Test the effectiveness of including experiential
instructional approaches in court education programs such as field
studies and use of community resources; and
Encourage intergovernmental teambuilding, collaboration,
and planning among the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of
government, or courts within a metropolitan area or multi-State region;
(See also section II.B.2.e.ii., inviting proposals to support
teambuilding among courts, criminal justice agencies and service
providers.)
(b) The Institute also is interested in supporting the development
and testing of curricula on issues of critical importance to the
courts, including those listed in the other Special Interest categories
described in this Chapter.
ii. Curriculum Adaptation Projects. (a) Description of the Program.
The Board is reserving up to $100,000 to provide support for projects
that adapt and implement model curricula previously developed with SJI
support. An illustrative list of the curricula that may be appropriate
for the adaptation is contained in Appendix III.
The goal of the Curriculum Adaptation program is to provide State
and local courts with sufficient support to modify a model curriculum,
course module, or national or regional conference program developed
with SJI funds to meet a State's or local jurisdiction's educational
needs. Generally, it is anticipated that the adapted curriculum would
become part of the grantee's ongoing educational offerings, and that
local instructors would receive the training needed to enable them to
make future presentations of the curriculum.
Only State or local courts may apply for Curriculum Adaptation
funding. Grants to support adaptation of educational programs
previously developed with SJI funds are limited to no more than $20,000
each. As with other awards to State or local courts, cash or in-kind
match must be provided in an amount equal to at least 50% of the grant
amount requested.
(b) Review Criteria. Curriculum Adaptation grants will be awarded
on the basis of criteria including: the goals and objectives of the
proposed project; the need for outside funding to support the program;
the appropriateness of the educational approach in achieving the
project's educational objectives; the likelihood of effective
implementation and integration into the State's or local jurisdiction's
ongoing educational programming; and expressions of interest by the
judges and/or court personnel who would be directly involved in or
affected by the project. In making curriculum adaptation awards, the
Institute will also consider factors such as the reasonableness of the
amount requested, compliance with match requirements, diversity of
subject matter, geographic diversity, the level of appropriations
available in the current year, and the amount expected to be available
in succeeding fiscal years.
(c) Application Procedures. In lieu of concept papers and formal
applications, applicants should submit a detailed letter and three
photocopies. Although there is no prescribed form for the letter, or a
minimum or maximum page limit, letters of application should include
the following information to assure that each of the review criteria
listed above is addressed:
Project Description. What is the title of the model
curriculum to be adapted and who developed it? What are the project's
goals and learning objectives? Why is this education program needed at
the present time? What program components would be implemented, and
what types of modifications, if any,
[[Page 51936]]
are anticipated in length, format, and content? Who will be responsible
for adapting the model curriculum? Who will the participants be, how
many will there be, how will they be recruited, and from where will
they come (e.g., from across the State, from a single local
jurisdiction, from a multi-State region)?
Need for Funding. Why are sufficient State or local
resources unavailable to fully support the modification and
presentation of the model curriculum? What is the potential for
replicating or integrating the program in the future using State or
local funds, once it has been successfully adapted and tested?
Likelihood of Implementation. What is the proposed
timeline for modifying and presenting the program? Who would serve as
faculty and how were they selected? What measures will be taken to
facilitate subsequent presentations of the adapted program?
(Ordinarily, an independent evaluation of a curriculum adaptation
project is not necessary; however, the results of any evaluation should
be included in the final report.)
Expressions of Interest By Judges and/or Court Personnel.
Does the proposed program have the support of the court system
leadership, and of judges, court managers, and judicial education
personnel who are expected to attend? (This may be demonstrated by
attaching letters of support.)
Budget and Matching State Contribution. Applicants should
attach a copy of budget Form E (see Appendix V) and a budget narrative
(see Section VII.B.) that describes the basis for the computation of
all project-related costs and the source of the match offered.
Chief Justice's Concurrence. Local courts should attach a
concurrence form signed by the Chief Justice of the State or his or her
designee. (See Form B, Appendix VI.)
Letters of application may be submitted at any time. However,
applicants should allow at least 90 days between the date of submission
and the date of the proposed program to allow sufficient time for
needed planning.
The Board of Directors has delegated its authority to approve
Curriculum Adaptation grants to its Judicial Education Committee. The
Committee anticipates acting upon applications within 45 days after
receipt. Grant funds will be available only after Committee approval,
and negotiation of the final terms of the grant.
(d) Grantee Responsibilities. A recipient of a Curriculum
Adaptation grant must:
(1) Comply with the same quarterly reporting requirements as other
Institute grantees (see Section X.L.);
(2) Include in each grant product a prominent acknowledgment that
support was received from the Institute, along with the ``SJI'' logo
and a disclaimer paragraph (See section X.Q.); and
(3) Submit two copies of the manuals, handbooks, or conference
packets developed under the grant at the conclusion of the grant
period, along with a final report that includes any evaluation results
and explains how the grantee intends to present the program in the
future.
iii. Scholarships for Judges and Court Personnel. The Institute is
reserving up to $200,000 to support a scholarship program for State
court judges and court managers.
(a) Program Description/Scholarship Amounts. The purposes of the
Institute scholarship program are to: enhance the knowledge, skills,
and abilities of judges and court managers; enable State court judges
and court managers to attend out-of-State educational programs
sponsored by national and State providers that they could not otherwise
attend because of limited State, local and personal budgets; and
provide States, judicial educators, and the Institute with evaluative
information on a range of judicial and court-related education
programs.
Scholarships will be granted to individuals only for the purpose of
attending an out-of-State educational program within the United States.
The annual or midyear meeting of a State or national organization of
which the applicant is a member does not qualify as an out-of-State
educational program for scholarship purposes, even though it may
include workshops or other training sessions.
A scholarship may cover the cost of tuition and transportation up
to a maximum total of $1,500 per scholarship. (Transportation expenses
include round-trip coach airfare or train fare. Recipients who drive to
the site of the program may receive $.31/mile up to the amount of the
advanced purchase round-trip airfare between their home and the program
site.) Funds to pay tuition and transportation expenses in excess of
$1,500, and other costs of attending the program such as lodging,
meals, materials, and local transportation (including rental cars) at
the site of the education program, must be obtained from other sources
or be borne by the scholarship recipient.
Scholarship applicants are encouraged to check other sources of
financial assistance and to combine aid from various sources whenever
possible.
Scholarship recipients are also encouraged to check with their tax
advisor to determine whether the scholarship constitutes taxable income
under Federal and State law.
(b) Eligibility Requirements. Because of the limited amount of
funds available, scholarships can be awarded only to full-time judges
of State or local trial and appellate courts; full-time professional,
State or local court personnel with management responsibilities; and
supervisory and management probation personnel in judicial branch
probation offices. Senior judges, part-time judges, quasi-judicial
hearing officers including referees and commissioners, State
administrative law judges, staff attorneys, law clerks, line staff, law
enforcement officers, and other executive branch personnel are not
eligible to receive a scholarship.
(c) Application Procedures. Judges and court managers interested in
receiving a scholarship must submit the Institute's Judicial Education
Scholarship Application Form (Form S1, see Appendix V). An applicant
may apply for a scholarship for only one educational program during any
one application cycle. Applications must be submitted by:
October 1, 1997, for programs beginning between January 1 and March
31, 1998; January 7, 1998, for programs beginning between April 1 and
June 30, 1998; April 1, 1998, for programs beginning between July 1 and
September 30, 1998; and July 1, 1998, for programs beginning between
October 1 and December 31, 1998; and Subject to the availability of
appropriations, October 1, 1998, for programs beginning between January
1 and March 31, 1999.
No exceptions or extensions will be granted. Applicants are
encouraged not to wait for the decision on the scholarship to register
for the educational program they wish to attend.
(d) Concurrence Requirement. All scholarship applicants must obtain
the written concurrence of the Chief Justice of their State's Supreme
Court (or the Chief Justice's designee) on the Institute's Judicial
Education Scholarship Concurrence form (Form S2, see Appendix V). Court
managers, other than elected clerks of court, also must submit a letter
of support from their supervisor. The Concurrence form may accompany
the application or be sent separately. However, the original signed
Concurrence form must be received by the Institute within two weeks
after the appropriate application mailing deadline (i.e. by October 15,
[[Page 51937]]
1997, or January 21, April 15, July 15, or October 15, 1998). No
application will be reviewed if a signed Concurrence form has not been
received by the required date.
(e) Review Procedures/Selection Criteria. The Board of Directors
has delegated the authority to approve or deny scholarships to its
Judicial Education Committee. The Institute intends to notify each
applicant whose scholarship has been approved within 60 days after the
relevant application deadline. The Committee will reserve sufficient
funds each quarter to assure the availability of scholarships
throughout the year.
The factors that the Institute will consider in selecting
scholarship recipients are:
The applicant's need for education in the particular
course subject and how the applicant would apply the information/skills
gained;
The direct benefits to the applicant's court or the
State's court system that would be derived from the applicant's
participation in the specific educational program, including a
description of the current legal, procedural, administrative, or other
problems affecting the State's courts that are related to topics to be
addressed at the educational;
The absence of educational programs in the applicant's
State addressing the particular topic;
How the applicant will disseminate the knowledge gained
(e.g., by developing/teaching a course or providing in-service training
for judges or court personnel at the State or local level);
The length of time that the applicant intends to serve as
a judge or court manager, assuming reelection or reappointment, where
applicable;
The likelihood that the applicant would be able to attend
the program without a scholarship;
The unavailability of State or local funds to cover the
costs of attending the program;
The quality of the educational program to be attended as
demonstrated by the sponsoring organization's experience in judicial
education, evaluations by participants or other professionals in the
field, or prior SJI support for this or other programs sponsored by the
organization;
Geographic balance;
The balance of scholarships among types of applicants and
courts;
The balance of scholarships among educational programs;
and
The level of appropriations available to the Institute in
the current year and the amount expected to be available in succeeding
fiscal years.
(f) Non-transferability. A scholarship is not transferable to
another individual. It may be used only for the course specified in the
application unless the recipient submits a letter requesting to attend
a different course. The letter must explain the reasons for the change;
the need for the information or skills to be provided by the new
course; how the information or skills will be used to benefit the
individual, his or her court, and/or the courts of the State; and how
the knowledge or skills gained will be disseminated. Requests to use a
scholarship for a different course must be approved by the Judicial
Education Committee of the Institute's Board of Directors. Ordinarily,
decisions on such requests will be made within 30 days after the
receipt of the request letter.
(g) Responsibilities of Scholarship Recipients. In order to receive
the funds authorized by a scholarship award, recipients must submit a
Scholarship Payment Voucher (Form S3) together with a tuition statement
from the program sponsor, and a transportation fare receipt (or
statement of the driving mileage to and from the recipient's home to
the site of the educational program). Recipients also must submit to
the Institute a certificate of attendance at the program, an evaluation
of the educational program they attended, and a copy of the notice of
any scholarship funds received from other sources. A copy of the
evaluation must be sent to the Chief Justice of their State.
A State or a local jurisdiction may impose additional requirements
on scholarship recipients that are consistent with SJI's criteria and
requirements, e.g., a requirement to serve as faculty on the subject at
a State-or locally- sponsored judicial education program.
iv. National Conferences. This category includes support for
national conferences on topics of major concern to State court judges
and personnel across the nation. Applicants are encouraged to consider
the use of videoconference and other technologies to increase
participation and limit travel expenses in planning and presenting
conferences. In planning a conference, applicants should provide for a
written, video, or computer-based product that would widely disseminate
information, findings, and any recommendations resulting from the
conference.
The Institute is particularly interested in supporting:
(a) A National Symposium on the Future of Court Education to
provide guidance to the courts, judicial education providers, the
Institute, and other grantmaking organizations. The Symposium should
provide a forum for discussing:
The best methods for using technologically-based
educational approaches, and the most effective ways of integrating
those approaches into effective court education programs;
The design and implementation of programs that address all
adult learning styles;
The incorporation of educational programs and
opportunities as an integral part of on-going court operations;
The appropriate and effective use of experiential learning
approaches;
The most practical and informative methods for evaluating
learning and its impact on the knowledge and skills of individual
learners, the effect on the operations of their courts, and the impact
on the quality of the services provided to those who use the courts;
and
How judicial education may change over the next 10 to 20
years, strategic plans for realizing those changes, and recommendations
for how SJI, other grantmakers, and adult education providers can
assist in implementing those changes.
(b) A National Conference on Unrepresented Litigants in Court
involving judges, court managers, policymakers, bar leaders, scholars
and the public, to:
Develop a clearer understanding of the proportion and
nature of litigants who choose to represent themselves in courts;
Obtain information about the nature and effectiveness of
innovative programs, procedures, programs, and materials developed by
jurisdictions throughout the country;
Identify problem areas that remain; and
Prepare action plans and recommendations on how to address
those problems at the local, State, and national levels.
c. Dispute Resolution and the Courts: This category includes
research, evaluation, and demonstration projects to evaluate or enhance
the effectiveness of court-connected dispute resolution programs. The
Institute is interested in projects that facilitate comparison among
research studies by using similar measures and definitions; address the
nature and operation of ADR programs within the context of the court
system as a whole; and compare dispute resolution processes to attorney
settlement as well as trial. Specific topics of interest include:
[[Page 51938]]
Determining the appropriate timing for referrals to
dispute resolution services to enhance settlements and reduce time to
disposition;
Assessing the effect of different referral methods
including any differences in outcome between voluntary and mandatory
referrals;
Comparing the appropriateness and effectiveness of
facilitative and evaluative mediation in various types of cases;
Testing innovative approaches that provide rural courts
and other under-served areas with adequate court-connected dispute
resolution services;
Evaluating innovative court-connected dispute resolution
programs for resolving specific types of cases such as guardianship
petitions, probate proceedings, land-use disputes, and complex and
multi-party litigation;
Testing of methods that courts can use to assure the
quality of court-connected dispute resolution programs; and
Developing guidelines on what actions by non-lawyer
mediators may constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
Applicants should be aware that the Institute will not provide
operational support for on-going ADR programs or start-up costs of non-
innovative ADR programs. Courts also should be advised that it is
preferable for the applicant to use its funds to support the
operational costs of an innovative program and request Institute funds
to support related technical assistance, training, and evaluation
elements of the program.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported projects to
evaluate the use of mediation in civil, domestic relations, juvenile,
medical malpractice, appellate, and minor criminal cases, as well as in
resolving grievances of court employees. SJI grants also have supported
assessments of the impact of private judging on State courts; multi-
door courthouse programs; arbitration of civil cases; screening and
intake procedures for mediation; the relationship of mediator training
and qualifications to case outcome and party satisfaction; early
referrals to mediation in divorce proceedings; and trial and appellate
level civil settlement programs.
In addition, SJI has supported two national conferences on court-
connected dispute resolution; a national ADR resource center and a
national database of court-connected dispute resolution programs;
training programs for judges and mediators; the testing of Statewide
and trial court-based ADR monitoring/evaluation systems and
implementation manuals; the promulgation and implementation of
principles and policies regarding the qualifications, selection, and
training of court-connected neutrals; development of standards for
court-annexed mediation programs; and an examination of the
applicability of various dispute resolution procedures to different
cultural groups.
d. Application of Technology: This category includes the testing of
innovative applications of technology to improve the operation of court
management systems and judicial practices at both the trial and
appellate court levels.
The Institute seeks to support local experiments with promising but
untested applications of technology in the courts that include an
evaluation of the impact of the technology in terms of costs, benefits,
and staff workload, and a training component to assure that staff is
appropriately educated about the purpose and use of the new technology.
In this context, ``untested'' refers to novel applications of
technology developed for the private sector and other fields that have
not previously been applied to the courts.
The Institute is particularly interested in supporting efforts to:
Evaluate the use of the Internet for case and document
filing, and develop model rules governing electronic filing and notice;
Establish standards for judicial electronic data
interchange (EDI), and test local, Statewide, and/or interstate
demonstrations of the courts' use of EDI;
Demonstrate and evaluate the use of videoconferencing
technology to present testimony by witnesses in remote locations, and
appellate arguments (but see the limitations specified below); and
Assess the impact of the use of multimedia CD-ROM-based
briefs on the courts, parties, counsel, and the trial or appellate
process.
Ordinarily, the Institute will not provide support for the purchase
of equipment or software in order to implement a technology that is
commonly used by courts, such as videoconferencing between courts and
jails, optical imaging for recordkeeping, and automated management
information systems. (See also section XI.H.2.b. regarding other limits
on the use of grant funds to purchase equipment and software.)
In previous funding cycles, grants have been awarded to support
projects that: demonstrate and evaluate the availability of electronic
forms and information on the Internet to assist pro se litigants;
access to case data via the Internet; electronic filing and document
transfer; an electronic document management system; a court management
information display system; the integration of bar-coding technology
with an existing automated case management system; an on-bench
automated system for generating and processing court orders; an
automated judicial education management system; a document management
system for small courts using imaging technology; a computerized
citizen intake and referral service; an ``analytic judicial desktop
system'' to assist judges in making sentencing decisions; and the use
of automated teller machines for paying jurors.
Grants have also supported national court technology conferences; a
court technology laboratory to provide judges and court managers an
opportunity to test automated court-related hardware and software; a
technical information service to respond to specific inquiries
concerning court-related technologies; development of recommendations
for electronic transfer of court documents, model rules on the use of
computer-generated demonstrative evidence and electronic documentary
evidence, and guidelines on privacy and public access to electronic
court information and on court access to the information superhighway;
implementation and evaluation of a Statewide automated integrated case
docketing and record-keeping system; and computer simulation models to
assist State courts in evaluating potential strategies for improving
civil caseflow.
e. Court Planning, Management, Financing: The Institute is
interested in supporting projects that explore emerging issues that
will affect the State courts as they enter the 21st Century, as well as
projects that develop and test innovative approaches for managing the
courts, securing and managing the resources required to fully meet the
responsibilities of the judicial branch, and institutionalizing long-
range planning processes. In particular the Institute is interested in:
i. Demonstration, evaluation, education, research, and technical
assistance projects to:
Develop, implement, and assess innovative case management
techniques for specialized calendars including but not limited to drug
courts, domestic violence courts, juvenile courts, and family courts;
Facilitate communication, information sharing, and
coordination between the juvenile and criminal courts;
Assess the effects of innovative management approaches
designed to assure quality services to court users;
[[Page 51939]]
Strengthen the leadership skills of presiding judges and
court managers;
Develop and test methods for facilitating and implementing
change and for encouraging excellence in court operations;
Demonstrate and assess the effective use of staff teams in
court operations;
Institutionalize long-range planning approaches in
individual States and local jurisdictions, including development of an
ongoing internal capacity to conduct environmental scanning, trends
analysis, and benchmarking; and
Develop and test mechanisms for linking assessments of
effectiveness such as the Trial Court Performance Standards to fiscal
planning and budgeting, including service efforts and accomplishments
approaches (SEA), performance audits, and performance budgeting; and
Test innovative programs and procedures for providing
clear and open communications between the judicial and legislative
branches of government.
ii. Education, technical assistance, and other projects to
facilitate the establishment, maintenance, and institutionalization of
effective partnerships among courts, criminal justice agencies,
treatment providers, and other organizations (e.g., shelters for
victims of domestic violence) that promote effective responses to
particular types of cases or classes of offenders. These partnerships
can take many forms such as drug courts, family violence coordinating
councils, sex offender management teams, and intermediate sanctions
working groups. Although many jurisdictions have already undertaken one
or more such team efforts, the promise of these collaborations has too
often been squandered as a result of the difficulties the participating
courts and agencies face in reconciling their distinct and, in some
cases, adversarial responsibilities with the idea of working together
toward a common goal.
The Institute anticipates joining together with several Federal
grant agencies to support one or more teambuilding projects that will
help each agency achieve its respective statutory mission. These
activities could include:
Preparing and presenting educational programs to foster
development of effective teams;
Delivering on-site technical assistance to develop a team
or enhance an existing partnership;
Providing information on teambuilding through a national
resource center; and
Preparing manuals, guides, and other written and visual
products to assist the development and operation of effective teams.
Applicants should address how they would enter into collaborative
relationships with other organizations to provide the diverse services
and the full range of necessary expertise to interested jurisdictions
in a timely fashion.
iii. Demonstration, evaluation, education, technical assistance,
and research projects to implement the National Agenda on Assuring
Prompt and Affordable Justice being developed under grant no. SJI-97-
004, due to be completed this fall. The key elements of the agenda will
be published in the winter issue of SJI News. Concept papers addressing
this topic must be mailed by March 12, 1998.
iv. The preparation of ``think pieces'' exploring possible changes
in the court process or judicial administration and their implications
for judges, court managers, policymakers, and the public. Grants
supporting such projects are limited to no more than $10,000. The
resulting essay should be directed to the court community and be of
publishable quality.
Possible topics include, but are not limited to: what the new
``community courts'' can learn from the old justice of the peace
courts; the ramifications of ``virtual trials'' (i.e. proceedings in
which one or more trial participants including the parties, counsel,
witnesses, the judge, and the jury may not be physically in the
courtroom); the implications of the use of technology-enhanced
courtroom presentations, especially when there is an imbalance of
resources among the parties; the appropriateness of modifying methods
of selecting, qualifying, and using juries; and the uses of technology
to better prepare and inform jurors.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported national
and Statewide ``future and the courts'' conferences and training;
curricula, guidebooks, a video on visioning, and a long-range planning
guide for trial courts; and technical assistance to courts conducting
futures and long-range planning.
SJI has also supported executive management programs for teams of
judges and court administrators; a test of the feasibility of
implementing the Trial Court Performance Standards in four States;
Appellate Court Performance Standards and Measures; a TQM guidebook and
training materials for trial courts; revision of the Standards on
Judicial Administration; projects identifying the causes of delay in
trial and appellate courts; the preparation of a national agenda for
reducing litigation cost and delay; the testing of various types of
weighted caseload systems; a National Interbranch Conference on Funding
the State Courts; and National Symposia on Court Management.
f. Resolution of Current Evidentiary Issues: This category includes
educational programs, the development of model rules and jury
instructions, and other projects to assist judges in deciding questions
regarding:
The admissibility and effectiveness of new forms of
demonstrative evidence, including computer simulations;
The admissibility and weight to be given to complex
scientific or technical evidence under the standards set forth in
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
The admissibility of genetic evidence generally, and the
findings of the 1996 National Academy of Sciences report evaluating
forensic DNA evidence, in particular; and
The appropriateness of awards of punitive damages.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported the
analysis of issues related to the use of expert testimony in criminal
cases involving domestic violence; a computer-assisted training program
on evidentiary problems for juvenile and family court judges; training
on medical/legal and scientific evidence issues and regional seminars
on evidentiary questions; a videotape and other materials on scientific
evidence; a workshop on the use of DNA evidence in criminal
proceedings; and benchbooks on evidentiary issues pertaining to
psychiatric evidence and testimony, and to testimony by child
witnesses.
g. Substance Abuse: This category includes education, technical
assistance, research, and evaluation projects to assist courts in
handling a large volume of substance abuse-related criminal, civil,
juvenile, and domestic relations cases fairly and expeditiously
The Institute is particularly interested in projects to:
Assess the effect of managed health-care plans on the
availability and cost of drug treatment services for court-enforced
treatment programs, and assist courts in shaping managed care plans to
enhance the availability of necessary services at a reasonable cost;
Prepare and test measures, forms, and other tools to
facilitate self-evaluation of court-enforced substance abuse treatment
programs; and
Develop and deliver educational programs or technical
assistance to help courts in designing, managing, or evaluating drug
court programs for
[[Page 51940]]
adults or juveniles. (This does not include providing support for
planning, establishing, operating, or enhancing a local drug court.
Applicants interested in obtaining such operational support should
contact the Drug Court Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice.)
The Institute has supported the presentation of the 1995 National
Symposium on the Implementation and Operation of Court-Enforced Drug
Treatment Programs as well as the 1991 National Conference on Substance
Abuse and the Courts, and efforts to implement the State and local
plans developed at these Conferences.
It has also supported projects to evaluate court-enforced treatment
programs, special court-ordered programs for women offenders, and other
court-based alcohol and drug assessment programs; test the
applicability of drug courts in non-urban sites; involve community
groups and families in drug court programs; assess the impact of
legislation and court decisions dealing with drug-affected infants;
develop strategies for coping with increasing caseload pressures, and
benchbooks and other educational materials on child abuse and neglect
cases involving parental substance abuse and appropriate sentences for
pregnant substance abusers; test the use of a dual diagnostic treatment
model for domestic violence cases in which substance abuse was a
factor; and present local and regional educational programs for judges
and other court personnel on substance abuse and its treatment. In
addition, SJI has supported an information system that permits courts,
criminal justice agencies, and drug treatment providers to share
information electronically.
h. Children and Families in Court: This category includes
education, demonstration, evaluation, technical assistance, and
research projects to identify and inform judges of innovative,
effective approaches for handling cases involving children and
families. The Institute is particularly interested in projects that:
i. Assist courts in addressing the special needs of children in
cases involving family violence including the development and testing
of innovative protocols, procedures, educational programs, and other
measures for improving the capacity of courts to:
Coordinate and adjudicate child custody and family
violence cases involving the same family;
Determine and address the service needs of children
exposed to family violence and the methods for mitigating those effects
when issuing protection, custody, visitation, or other orders; and
Adjudicate and monitor child abuse and neglect litigation
and reconcile the need to protect the child with the requirement to
make reasonable efforts to maintain or reunite the family.
ii. Enhance the fairness and effectiveness of proceedings regarding
a juvenile accused of committing a delinquent or criminal offense,
including projects that:
Prepare and test curricula and materials for judges on how
to manage cases involving gang members fairly, safely, and effectively,
including the use of appropriate procedures for determining pre-
adjudication release, protecting witnesses, and developing effective
dispositions;
Develop and test effective approaches for the detention,
adjudication, and disposition of juveniles under age 13 who are accused
of involvement in a violent offense; and
Develop and test effective policies, procedures, and
educational materials for judges regarding cases in which a juvenile is
tried as an adult.
iii. Improve the fairness and effectiveness of proceedings to
determine custody, visitation, and support issues, including projects
that develop and test guidelines, curricula, and other materials to
assist trial judges in:
Determining the best interest of a child;
Enforcing visitation orders fairly and effectively; and
Establishing and enforcing custody, and support orders in
cases in which a child's parents were never married to each other.
iv. Improve the effectiveness and operating efficiency of juvenile
and family courts, including projects to:
Develop and test innovative techniques for improving
communication, sharing information, and coordinating juvenile and
criminal courts and divisions; and
Implement the action agenda developed at the National
Symposium on Reviewing the Past and Looking Toward the Future of the
Juvenile Court held in Reno, Nevada on September 28--October 1, 1997.
The key elements in the agenda will be published in the winter issue of
SJI News. Concept papers addressing this topic must be mailed by March
12, 1998.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute supported national and
State conferences on courts, children, and the family; a review of
juvenile courts in light of the upcoming 100th anniversary of the
founding of the first juvenile court; validation of a risk assessment
tool for juvenile offenders; a symposium on the resolution of
interstate child welfare issues; and educational materials on the
questioning of child witnesses, making reasonable efforts to preserve
families, adjudicating allegations of child sexual abuse when custody
is in dispute, child victimization, handling child abuse and neglect
cases when parental substance abuse is involved, and on children as the
silent victims of spousal abuse.
Other Institute grants have supported the development of computer-
based training on the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, and the
examination of supervised visitation programs, effective court
responses when domestic violence and custody disputes coincide, and
foster care review procedures.
In addition, the Institute has supported projects to enhance
coordination of cases involving the same family that are being heard in
different courts; assist States considering establishment of a family
court; develop national and State-based training materials for
guardians ad litem; examine the authority of the juvenile court to
enforce treatment orders and the role of juvenile court judges; test
the use of differentiated case management in juvenile court; and
develop innovative approaches for coordinating services for children
and youth.
i. Improving the Courts' Response to Domestic Violence: This
category includes innovative education, demonstration, technical
assistance, evaluation, and research projects to improve the fair and
effective processing, consideration, and disposition of cases
concerning domestic violence and gender-related violent crimes,
including projects on:
The effective use and enforcement of intra-and inter-State
protective orders including implementation of the court-related
findings and recommendations resulting from the National Conference on
Full Faith and Credit: A Passport to Safety to be held in Albuquerque,
NM in October, 1997. The key findings and recommendations from the
conference will be published in the winter issue of SJI News. Concept
papers proposing projects that follow up on the conference must be
mailed by March 12, 1998;
The effective use of information contained in protection
order files stored in court electronic databases consistent with the
protection of the privacy and safety of victims of violence;
The effectiveness of specialized calendars or divisions
for considering
[[Page 51941]]
domestic violence cases and related matters, including their impact on
victims, offenders, and court operations;
Determining when it may be appropriate to refer a case
involving family violence for mediation and what procedures and
safeguards should be employed;
Effective ways to coordinate the response to domestic
violence and gender-related crimes of violence among courts, criminal
justice agencies, and social services programs, and to assure that
courts are fully accessible to victims of domestic violence and other
gender-related violent crimes;
Special precautions that should be taken and information
that should be provided when participants referred by the court to a
parent education program may include parents from violent homes; and
Effective sentencing approaches in cases involving
domestic violence and other gender-related crimes.
Institute funds may not be used to provide operational support to
programs offering direct services or compensation to victims of crimes.
(Applicants interested in obtaining such operational support should
contact the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, or the agency in their State that
awards OVC funds to State and local victim assistance and compensation
programs.)
In previous funding cycles, the Institute supported national and
State conferences on family violence and the courts as well as projects
to implement the action plans developed at these conferences; symposia
and guides on the implementation of the full faith and credit
requirements included in the Violence Against Women Act; curricula for
judges on a range of topics regarding the handling of family violence,
rape, and sexual assault cases; and preparation of descriptions of
innovative court practices in family violence cases, including programs
for battered mothers and their children, and procedures for
coordinating multiple cases involving a single family.
The Institute also has funded evaluations of the effectiveness of
specialized domestic violence calendars, court-ordered treatment for
family violence offenders, the use of alternatives to adjudication in
child abuse cases, and procedures to improve the effectiveness of civil
protection orders for family violence victims; development of
recommendations on how to improve access to rural courts for victims of
family violence, and to collect and report dispositional and other data
concerning family violence cases; research and judicial education on
the use of mediation in domestic relations cases involving allegations
of violence, the relevancy of culture in adjudicating and disposing of
family violence cases, and effective sentencing of sex offenders;
videotapes and other educational programs for the parties in divorce
actions and their children; analyses of the issues related to the use
of expert testimony in criminal cases involving domestic violence; and
development of electronic links among courts, criminal justice
agencies, and service providers to share information and assist victims
of violence.
j. Improving Sentencing Practices. This category includes
education, demonstration, technical assistance, evaluation, and
research projects to address and implement the findings and
recommendations reached at the National Symposium on Sentencing: The
Judicial Response to Crime, to be held in San Diego, CA on November 1-
4, 1997. The key findings and recommendations will be published in the
winter issue of SJI News. Concept papers submitted under this category
must be mailed by March 12, 1998.
k. Improving Court Security. This category includes demonstration,
evaluation, technical assistance, education, and research projects to
enhance the security of courthouses and the people who use and work in
them. The Institute is particularly interested in supporting innovative
projects to:
Develop policies, protocols, and procedures designed to
prevent harassment, threats, and incidents endangering the lives and
property of judges, court employees, jurors, litigants, witnesses, and
other members of the public in court facilities;
Evaluate innovative applications of technology to prevent
courthouse incidents that endanger the lives and property of judges,
court personnel, and courtroom participants; and
Develop and test model training programs that will assist
judges and court personnel in protecting their safety and that of
jurors, litigants, witnesses, and other members of the public in court
facilities, and in managing cases involving individuals or
organizations unwilling to cooperate with legal or administrative
procedures.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported a
demonstration project to organize sharing of court security staff
between counties; a court security clearinghouse; and an educational
program and benchbook on the common law court movement.
l. The Relationship Between State and Federal Courts: This category
includes education, research, demonstration, and evaluation projects
designed to facilitate appropriate and effective communication,
cooperation, and coordination between State and Federal courts. The
Institute is particularly interested in innovative projects that:
i. Develop and test curricula and disseminate information regarding
effective methods being used at the trial court, State, and Circuit
levels to coordinate cases and administrative activities; and
ii. Develop and test new approaches to:
Implement the habeas corpus provisions of the Anti-
Terrorism Act of 1996;
Handle capital habeas corpus cases fairly and efficiently;
Coordinate and process mass tort cases fairly and
efficiently at the trial and appellate levels;
Coordinate the adjudication of related State and Federal
criminal cases;
Coordinate related State and Federal cases that may be
brought under the Violence Against Women Act;
Exchange information and coordinate calendars among State
and Federal courts; and
Share facilities, jury pools, alternative dispute
resolution programs, information regarding persons on pretrial release
or probation, and court services.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported national
and regional conferences on State-Federal judicial relationships, a
national conference on mass tort litigation, and the Chief Justices'
Special Committee on Mass Tort Litigation.
In addition, the Institute has supported projects testing the use
common electronic filing process for the State and Federal courts in
New Mexico, and other methods of State and Federal trial and appellate
court cooperation; developing judicial impact statement procedures for
national legislation affecting State courts; establishing procedures
for facilitating certification of questions of law; assessing the
impact on the State courts of diversity cases and cases brought under
section 1983, the procedures used in Federal habeas corpus review of
State court criminal cases, and the factors that motivate litigants to
select Federal or State courts; and the mechanisms for transferring
cases between Federal and State courts, as well as the methods for
effectively consolidating, deciding, and managing complex litigation.
The Institute has also supported a clearinghouse of information on
State constitutional law decisions; educational programs for State
judges on coordination of Federal bankruptcy
[[Page 51942]]
cases with State litigation; and the assignment of specialized law
clerks to trial courts hearing capital cases in order to improve the
fairness and efficiency of death penalty litigation at the trial level.
C. Single Jurisdiction Projects
The Board will consider supporting a limited number of projects
submitted by State or local courts that address the needs of only the
applicant State or local jurisdiction. The Institute has established
two categories of Single Jurisdiction Projects:
1. Projects Addressing a Critical Need of a Single State or Local
Jurisdiction
a. Description of the Program. The Board will set aside up to
$300,000 to support projects submitted by State or local courts that
address the needs of only the applicant State or local jurisdiction. A
project under this section may address any of the topics included in
the Special Interest Categories or Statutory Program Areas.
Concept papers for single jurisdiction projects may be submitted by
a State court system, an appellate court, or a limited or general
jurisdiction trial court. All awards under this category are subject to
the matching requirements set forth in section X.B.1.
In particular, the Institute is interested in awarding replication
grants to support the implementation of programs, procedures, or
strategies that have been developed, demonstrated, or evaluated by SJI-
supported projects. (A list of examples of such projects is contained
in Appendix IV.) Ordinarily, the Institute will not provide support
solely for the purchase of equipment or software.
b. Application Procedures. Concept papers and applications
requesting funds for projects under this section must meet the
requirements of sections VI. (``Concept Paper Submission Requirements
for New Projects'') and VII. (``Application Requirements''),
respectively, and must demonstrate that:
i. The proposed project is essential to meeting a critical need of
the jurisdiction; and
ii. The need cannot be met solely with State and local resources
within the foreseeable future.
2. Technical Assistance Grants
a. Description of the Program. The Board will set aside up to
$400,000 to support the provision of technical assistance to State and
local courts. The exact amount to be awarded for these grants will
depend on the number and quality of the applications submitted in this
category and other categories of the Guideline. The Committee will
reserve sufficient funds each quarter to assure the availability of
technical assistance grants throughout the year. The program is
designed to provide State and local courts with sufficient support to
obtain technical assistance to diagnose a problem, develop a response
to that problem, and initiate implementation of any needed changes.
Technical Assistance grants are limited to no more than $30,000
each, and may cover the cost of obtaining the services of expert
consultants; travel by a team of officials from one court to examine a
practice, program, or facility in another jurisdiction that the
applicant court is interested in replicating; or both. Technical
assistance grant funds ordinarily may not be used to support production
of a videotape. Normally, the technical assistance must be completed
within 12 months after the start-date of the grant.
b. Eligibility for Technical Assistance Grants. Only a State or
local court may apply for a Technical Assistance grant. As with other
awards to State or local courts, cash or in-kind match must be provided
equal to at least 50% of the grant amount.
c. Review Criteria. Technical Assistance grants will be awarded on
the basis of criteria including: Whether the assistance would address a
critical need of the court; the soundness of the technical assistance
approach to the problem; the qualifications of the consultant(s) to be
hired, or the specific criteria that will be used to select the
consultant(s); commitment on the part of the court to act on the
consultant's recommendations; and the reasonableness of the proposed
budget. The Institute also will consider factors such as the level and
nature of the match that would be provided, diversity of subject
matter, geographic diversity, the level of appropriations available to
the Institute in the current year, and the amount expected to be
available in succeeding fiscal years.
The Board has delegated its authority to approve these grants to
its Technical Assistance Committee.
d. Application Procedures. In lieu of formal applications,
applicants for Technical Assistance grants may submit, at any time, an
original and three copies of a detailed letter describing the proposed
project and addressing the issues listed below. Letters from an
individual trial or appellate court must be signed by the presiding
judge or manager of that court. Letters from the State court system
must be signed by the Chief Justice or State Court Administrator.
Although there is no prescribed form for the letter nor a minimum
or maximum page limit, letters of application should include the
following information to assure that each of the criteria is addressed:
i. Need for Funding. What is the critical need facing the court?
How will the proposed technical assistance help the court meet this
critical need? Why cannot State or local resources fully support the
costs of the required consultant services?
ii. Project Description. What tasks would the consultant be
expected to perform and how would they be accomplished? Which
organization or individual would be hired to provide the assistance and
how was this consultant selected? If a consultant has not yet been
identified, what procedures and criteria would be used to select the
consultant? (Applicants are expected to follow their jurisdiction's
normal procedures for procuring consultant services.) What is the time
frame for completion of the technical assistance? How would the court
oversee the project and provide guidance to the consultant, and who at
the court would be responsible for coordinating all project tasks and
submitting quarterly progress and financial status reports?
If the consultant has been identified, the applicant should provide
a letter from that individual or organization documenting interest in
and availability for the project, as well as the consultant's ability
to complete the assignment within the proposed time period and for the
proposed cost. The consultant must agree to submit a detailed written
report to the court and the Institute upon completion of the technical
assistance.
iii. Likelihood of Implementation. What steps have been/will be
taken to facilitate implementation of the consultant's recommendations
upon completion of the technical assistance? For example, if the
support or cooperation of specific court officials or committees, other
agencies, funding bodies, organizations, or a court other than the
applicant will be needed to adopt the changes recommended by the
consultant and approved by the court, how will they be involved in the
review of the recommendations and development of the implementation
plan?
iv. Budget and Matching State Contribution. A completed Form E,
``Preliminary Budget'' (see Appendix V) and budget narrative must be
included with the applicant's letter requesting technical assistance.
The estimated cost of the technical assistance services should be
broken down into the
[[Page 51943]]
categories listed on the budget form rather than aggregated under the
Consultant/Contractual category.
The budget narrative should provide the basis for all project-
related costs, including the basis for determining the estimated
consultant costs, if compensation of the consultant is required (e.g.,
number of days per task times the requested daily consultant rate).
Applicants should be aware that consultant rates above $300 per day
must be approved in advance by the Institute, and that grant funds
cannot be paid to a consultant at a rate in excess of $900 per day.
Ordinarily, attorneys in private practice are expected to provide
consulting services to court improvement or education projects on a pro
bono basis.
In addition, the budget should provide for submission of two copies
of the consultant's final report to the Institute.
Recipients of technical assistance grants do not have to submit an
audit, but must maintain appropriate documentation to support
expenditures. (See section X.M.)
v. Support for the Project from the State Supreme Court or its
Designated Agency or Council. Written concurrence on the need for the
technical assistance must be submitted. This concurrence may be a copy
of SJI Form B (see Appendix VI) signed by the Chief Justice of the
State Supreme Court or the Chief Justice's designee, or a letter from
the State Chief Justice or designee. The concurrence may be submitted
with the applicant's letter or under separate cover prior to
consideration of the application. The concurrence also must specify
whether the State Supreme Court would receive, administer, and account
for the grant funds, if awarded, or would designate the local court or
a specified agency or council to receive the funds directly.
Letters of application may be submitted at any time; however, all
of the letters received during a calendar quarter will be considered at
one time. Applicants submitting letters between June 14 and September
30, 1997 will be notified of the Board's decision by December 5, 1997;
those submitting letters between October 1, 1997 and January 16, 1998
will be notified by March 27, 1998; notification of the Board's
decisions concerning letters mailed between January 17 and March 13,
1998, will be made by May 29, 1998; notice of decisions regarding
letters submitted between March 14 and June 12, 1998 will be made by
August 28, 1998. Subject to the availability of sufficient
appropriations for fiscal year 1999, applicants submitting letters
between June 13 and September 30, 1998, will be notified by December
18, 1998.
If the support or cooperation of agencies, funding bodies,
organizations, or courts other than the applicant, would be needed in
order for the consultant to perform the required tasks, written
assurances of such support or cooperation should accompany the
application letter. Support letters also may be submitted under
separate cover; however, to ensure that there is sufficient time to
bring them to the attention of the Board's Technical Assistance
Committee, letters sent under separate cover must be received not less
than two weeks prior to the Board meeting at which the technical
assistance requests will be considered (i.e., by October 31, 1997, and
February 12, April 17, July 10, 1998, and October 30, 1998).
vi. Grantee Responsibilities. Technical Assistance grant recipients
are subject to the same quarterly reporting requirements as other
Institute grantees. At the conclusion of the grant period, a Technical
Assistance grant recipient must complete a Technical Assistance
Evaluation Form. The grantee also must submit to the Institute two
copies of a final report that explains how it intends to act on the
consultant's recommendations, as well as two copies of the consultant's
written report.
III. Definitions
The following definitions apply for the purposes of this guideline:
A. Institute
The State Justice Institute.
B. State Supreme Court
The highest appellate court in a State, or, for the purposes of the
Institute program, a constitutionally or legislatively established
judicial council that acts in place of that court. In States having
more than one court with final appellate authority, State Supreme Court
shall mean that court which also has administrative responsibility for
the State's judicial system. State Supreme Court also includes the
office of the court or council, if any, it designates to perform the
functions described in this Guideline.
C. Designated Agency or Council
The office or judicial body which is authorized under State law or
by delegation from the State Supreme Court to approve applications for
funds and to receive, administer, and be accountable for those funds.
D. Grantee
The organization, entity, or individual to which an award of
Institute funds is made. For a grant based on an application from a
State or local court, grantee refers to the State Supreme Court or its
designee.
E. Subgrantee
A State or local court which receives Institute funds through the
State Supreme Court.
F. Match
The portion of project costs not borne by the Institute. Match
includes both in-kind and cash contributions. Cash match is the direct
outlay of funds by the grantee to support the project. In-kind match
consists of contributions of time, services, space, supplies, etc.,
made to the project by the grantee or others (e.g., advisory board
members) working directly on the project. Under normal circumstances,
allowable match may be incurred only during the project period. When
appropriate, and with the prior written permission of the Institute,
match may be incurred from the date of the Board of Directors' approval
of an award. Match does not include project-related income such as
tuition or revenue from the sale of grant products, or the time of
participants attending an education program. Amounts contributed as
cash or in-kind match may not be recovered through the sale of grant
products during or following the grant period.
G. Continuation Grant
A grant of no more than 24 months to permit completion of
activities initiated under an existing Institute grant or enhancement
of the products or services produced during the prior grant period.
H. On-Going Support Grant
A grant of up to 36 months to support a project that is national in
scope and that provides the State courts with services, programs or
products for which there is a continuing critical need.
I. Human Subjects
Individuals who are participants in an experimental procedure or
who are asked to provide information about themselves, their attitudes,
feelings, opinions and/or experiences through an interview,
questionnaire, or other data collection technique.
J. Curriculum
The materials needed to replicate an education or training program
developed with grant funds including, but not limited to: The learning
[[Page 51944]]
objectives; the presentation methods; a sample agenda or schedule; an
outline of presentations and other instructors' notes; copies of
overhead transparencies or other visual aids; exercises, case studies,
hypotheticals, quizzes and other materials for involving the
participants; background materials for participants; evaluation forms;
and suggestions for replicating the program including possible faculty
or the preferred qualifications or experience of those selected as
faculty.
K. Products
Tangible materials resulting from funded projects including, but
not limited to: Curricula; monographs; reports; books; articles;
manuals; handbooks; benchbooks; guidelines; videotapes; audiotapes;
computer software; and CD-ROM disks.
IV. Eligibility for Award
In awarding funds to accomplish these objectives and purposes, the
Institute has been authorized by Congress to award grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts to State and local courts and their agencies
(42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(1)(A)); national nonprofit organizations controlled
by, operating in conjunction with, and serving the judicial branches of
State governments (42 U.S.C. 10705 (b)(1)(B)); and national nonprofit
organizations for the education and training of judges and support
personnel of the judicial branch of State governments (42 U.S.C.
10705(b)(1)(C)).
An applicant will be considered a national education and training
applicant under section 10705(b)(1)(C) if: (1) The principal purpose or
activity of the applicant is to provide education and training to State
and local judges and court personnel; and (2) the applicant
demonstrates a record of substantial experience in the field of
judicial education and training.
The Institute also is authorized to make awards to other nonprofit
organizations with expertise in judicial administration, institutions
of higher education, individuals, partnerships, firms, corporations,
and private agencies with expertise in judicial administration,
provided that the objectives of the relevant program area(s) can be
served better. In making this judgment, the Institute will consider the
likely replicability of the projects' methodology and results in other
jurisdictions. For-profit organizations are also eligible for grants
and cooperative agreements; however, they must waive their fees.
The Institute may also make awards to Federal, State or local
agencies and institutions other than courts for services that cannot be
adequately provided through nongovernmental arrangements.
In addition, the Institute may enter into inter-agency agreements
with other public or private funders to support projects consistent
with the purpose of the State Justice Institute Act.
Each application for funding from a State or local court must be
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court or
its designated agency or council. The latter shall receive all
Institute funds awarded to such courts and be responsible for assuring
proper administration of Institute funds, in accordance with section
XI.B.2. of this Guideline. A list of persons to contact in each State
regarding approval of applications from State and local courts and
administration of Institute grants to those courts is contained in
Appendix I.
V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of Awards
A. Types of Projects
Except as expressly provided in section II.B.2.b. and II.C. above,
the Institute has placed no limitation on the overall number of awards
or the number of awards in each special interest category. The general
types of projects are:
1. Education and training;
2. Research and evaluation;
3. Demonstration; and
4. Technical assistance.
B. Types of Grants
The Institute has established the following types of grants:
1. Project grants (See sections II.B., and C.1., VI., and VII.).
2. Continuation grants (See sections III.H. and IX.A).
3. On-going Support grants (See sections III.I. and IX.B.).
4. Technical Assistance grants (See section II.C.2).
5. Curriculum Adaptation grants (See section II.B.2.b.ii.).
6. Scholarships (See section II.B.2.b.iii).
C. Maximum Size of Awards
1. Except as specified below, applications for new project grants
and applications for continuation grants may request funding in amounts
up to $200,000, although new and continuation awards in excess of
$150,000 are likely to be rare and to be made, if at all, only for
highly promising proposals that will have a significant impact
nationally.
2. Applications for on-going support grants may request funding in
amounts up to $600,000 over three years, although awards in excess of
$450,000 are likely to be rare. At the discretion of the Board, the
funds for on-going support grants may be awarded either entirely from
the Institute's appropriations for the fiscal year of the award or from
the Institute's appropriations for successive fiscal years beginning
with the fiscal year of the award. When funds to support the full
amount of an on-going support grant are not awarded from the
appropriations for the fiscal year of award, funds to support any
subsequent years of the grant will be made available upon (1) the
satisfactory performance of the project as reflected in the Quarterly
Progress Reports required to be filed and grant monitoring; (2) the
availability of appropriations for that fiscal year; and (3) the Board
of Directors' determination that the project continues to fall within
the Institute's priorities.
3. Applications for technical assistance grants may request funding
in amounts up to $30,000.
4. Applications for curriculum adaptation grants may request
funding in amounts up to $20,000.
5. Applications for scholarships may request funding in amounts up
to $1,500.
D. Length of Grant Periods
1. Grant periods for all new and continuation projects ordinarily
will not exceed 15 months.
2. Grant periods for on-going support grants ordinarily will not
exceed 36 months.
3. Grant periods for technical assistance grants and curriculum
adaptation grants ordinarily will not exceed 12 months.
VI. Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects
Concept papers are an extremely important part of the application
process because they enable the Institute to learn the topics of
primary interest to the courts and to explore innovative ideas, without
imposing heavy burdens on prospective applicants. The use of concept
papers also permits the Institute to better project the nature and
amount of grant awards. The concept paper requirement and the
submission deadlines for concept papers and applications may be waived
by the Executive Director for good cause (e.g., the proposed project
could provide a significant benefit to the State courts or the
opportunity to conduct the project did not arise until after the
deadline).
[[Page 51945]]
A. Format and Content
All concept papers must include a cover sheet, a program narrative,
and a preliminary budget.
1. The Cover Sheet
The cover sheet for all concept papers must contain:
a. A title describing the proposed project;
b. The name and address of the court, organization, or individual
submitting the paper;
c. The name, title, address (if different from that in b.), and
telephone number of a contact person who can provide further
information about the paper;
d. The letter of the Special Interest Category (see section
II.B.2.) or the number of the statutory Program Area (see section
II.A.) that the proposed project addresses most directly; and
e. The estimated length of the proposed project.
Applicants requesting the Board to waive the application
requirement and approve a grant of less than $40,000 based on the
concept paper, should add application waiver requested to the
information on the cover page.
2. The Program Narrative
The program narrative of a concept paper should be no longer than
necessary, but may exceed eight (8) double-spaced pages on 8\1/2\ by 11
inch paper. Margins must be at least 1 inch and type size must be at
least 12 point and 12 cpi. The narrative should describe:
a. Why is this project needed and how will it benefit State courts?
If the project is to be conducted in a specific location(s), applicants
should discuss the particular needs of the project site(s) to be
addressed by the project, why those needs are not being met through the
use of existing materials, programs, procedures, services, or other
resources, and the benefits that would be realized by the proposed
site(s).
If the project is not site-specific, applicants should discuss the
problems that the proposed project will address, why existing
materials, programs, procedures, services, or other resources do not
adequately resolve those problems, and the benefits that would be
realized from the project by State courts generally.
b. What will be done if a grant is awarded? Applicants should
include a summary description of the project to be conducted and the
approach to be taken, including the anticipated length of the grant
period. Applicants requesting a waiver of the application requirement
for a grant of less than $40,000 should explain the proposed methods
for conducting the project as fully as space allows, and include a
detailed task schedule as an attachment to the concept paper.
c. How will the effects and quality of the project be determined?
Applicants should include a summary description of how the project will
be evaluated, including the evaluation criteria.
d. How will others find out about the project and be able to use
the results? Applicants should describe the products that will result,
the degree to which they will be applicable to courts across the
nation, and to whom the products and results of the project will be
disseminated in addition to the SJI-designated libraries (e.g., State
chief justices, specified groups of trial judges, State court
administrators, specified groups of trial court administrators, State
judicial educators, or other audiences).
3. The Budget
a. Preliminary Budget. A preliminary budget must be attached to the
narrative that includes the information specified on Form E included in
Appendix VI of this Guideline. Applicants should be aware that prior
written Institute approval is required for any consultant rate in
excess of $300 per day, and that Institute funds may not be used to pay
a consultant in excess of $900 per day. (See section XI.H.2.c)
b. Concept Papers Requesting Accelerated Award of a Grant of Less
than $40,000. Applicants requesting a waiver of the application
requirement and approval of a grant based on a concept paper under
section VI.C., must attach to Form E (see Appendix VI) a budget
narrative that explains the basis for each of the items listed, and
indicates whether the costs would be paid from grant funds, through a
matching contribution, or from other sources.
4. Letters of Cooperation or Support
The Institute encourages concept paper applicants to attach letters
of cooperation and support from the courts and related agencies that
will be involved in or directly affected by the proposed project.
Letters of support also may be sent under separate cover. However, in
order to ensure that there is sufficient time to bring them to the
Board's attention, support letters sent under separate cover must be
received no later than January 6, 1998.
5. Page Limits
a. The Institute will not accept concept papers with program
narratives exceeding the limits set in sections VI.A.2. The page limit
does not include the cover page, budget form, the budget narrative if
required under section VI.A.3.b., the task schedule if required under
section VI.A.2.b., and any letters of cooperation or endorsements.
Additional material should not be attached unless it is essential to
impart a clear understanding of the project.
b. Applicants submitting more than one concept paper may include
material that would be identical in each concept paper in a cover
letter, and incorporate that material by reference in each paper. The
incorporated material will be counted against the eight-page limit for
each paper. A copy of the cover letter should be attached to each copy
of each concept paper.
6. Sample Concept Papers
Sample concept papers from previous funding cycles are available
from the Institute upon request.
B. Selection Criteria
1. All concept papers will be evaluated on the basis of the
following criteria:
a. The demonstration of need for the project;
b. The soundness and innovativeness of the approach described;
c. The benefits to be derived from the project;
d. The reasonableness of the proposed budget;
e. The proposed project's relationship to one of the ``Special
Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B; and
f. The degree to which the findings, procedures, training,
technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other
jurisdictions.
``Single jurisdiction'' concept papers submitted pursuant to
section II.C. will be rated on the proposed project's relation to one
of the ``Special Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B., and
on the special requirements listed in section II.C.1.
2. In determining which concept papers will be approved for award
or selected for development into full applications, the Institute will
also consider the availability of financial assistance from other
sources for the project; the amount and nature (cash or in-kind) of the
applicant's anticipated match; whether the applicant is a State court,
a national court support or education organization, a non-court unit of
government, or another type of entity eligible to receive grants under
the Institute's enabling legislation (see 42 U.S.C. 10705(b), as
amended and section IV above); the extent to which the proposed project
would also benefit the Federal courts or help the State
[[Page 51946]]
courts enforce Federal constitutional and legislative requirements, and
the level of appropriations available to the Institute in the current
year and the amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal
years.
C. Review Process
Concept papers will be reviewed competitively by the Board of
Directors. Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary and a
rating sheet assigning points for each relevant selection criterion for
those concept papers which fall within the scope of the Institute's
funding program and merit serious consideration by the Board. Staff
will also prepare a list of those papers that, in the judgment of the
Executive Director, propose projects that lie outside the scope of the
Institute's funding program or are not likely to merit serious
consideration by the Board. The narrative summaries, rating sheets, and
list of non-reviewed papers will be presented to the Board for its
review. Committees of the Board will review concept paper summaries
within assigned program areas and prepare recommendations for the full
Board. The full Board of Directors will then decide which concept paper
applicants should be invited to submit formal applications for funding.
The decision to invite an application is solely that of the Board of
Directors.
The Board may waive the application requirement and approve a grant
based on a concept paper for a project requiring less than $40,000,
when the need for and benefits of the project are clear, and the
methodology and budget require little additional explanation.
Applicants considering whether to request consideration for an
accelerated award should make certain that the proposed budget is
sufficient to accomplish the project objectives in a quality manner.
Because the Institute's experience has been that projects to conduct
empirical research or a program evaluation ordinarily require a more
thorough explanation of the methodology to be used than can be provided
within the space limitations of a concept paper, the Board is unlikely
to waive the application requirement for such projects.
D. Submission Requirements
Except as noted below, an original and three copies of all concept
papers submitted for consideration in Fiscal Year 1998 must be sent by
first class or overnight mail or by courier no later than November 24,
1997.
Concept papers proposing projects on the following topics must be
sent by first class or overnight mail or by courier no later than March
12, 1998:
The National Agenda on Assuring Prompt and Affordable
Justice (section II.B.2.e.iii.);
The action agenda developed at the National Symposium on
Reviewing the Past and Looking Toward the Future of the Juvenile Court
(section II.B.2.h.iv.);
The findings and recommendations resulting from the
National Conference on Full Faith and Credit: A Passport to Safety
(section II.B.2.i.); and
The findings and recommendations resulting from the
National Symposium on Sentencing: The Judicial Response to Crime
(section II.B.2.j.)
A postmark or courier receipt will constitute evidence of the
submission date. All envelopes containing concept papers should be
marked Concept Paper and should be sent to: State Justice Institute,
1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
The Institute will send written notice to all persons submitting
concept papers, informing them of the Board's decisions regarding their
papers and of the key issues and questions that arose during the review
process. A decision by the Board not to invite an application may not
be appealed, but does not prohibit resubmission of the concept paper or
a revision thereof in a subsequent round of funding. The Institute will
also notify the designated State contact listed in Appendix I when the
Board invites applications that are based on concept papers which are
submitted by courts within their State or which specify a participating
site within their State.
Receipt of each concept paper will be acknowledged in writing.
Extensions of the deadline for submission of concept papers will not be
granted.
VII. Application Requirements for New Projects
An application for Institute funding support must include an
application form; budget forms (with appropriate documentation); a
project abstract and program narrative; a disclosure of lobbying form,
when applicable; and certain certifications and assurances. These
required application forms are described below will be sent to
applicants when an application is invited. Applicants may photocopy the
forms to make completion easier.
A. Forms
1. Application Form (Form A)
The application form requests basic information regarding the
proposed project, the applicant, and the total amount of funding
support requested from the Institute. It also requires the signature of
an individual authorized to certify on behalf of the applicant that the
information contained in the application is true and complete, that
submission of the application has been authorized by the applicant, and
that if funding for the proposed project is approved, the applicant
will comply with the requirements and conditions of the award,
including the assurances set forth in Form D.
2. Certificate of State Approval (Form B)
An application from a State or local court must include a copy of
Form B signed by the State's Chief Justice or Chief Judge, the director
of the designated agency, or the head of the designated council. The
signature denotes that the proposed project has been approved by the
State's highest court or the agency or council it has designated. It
denotes further that if funding for the project is approved by the
Institute, the court or the specified designee will receive,
administer, and be accountable for the awarded funds.
3. Budget Forms (Form C or C1)
Applicants may submit the proposed project budget either in the
tabular format of Form C or in the spreadsheet format of Form C1.
Applicants requesting $100,000 or more are strongly encouraged to use
the spreadsheet format. If the proposed project period is for more than
a year, a separate form should be submitted for each year or portion of
a year for which grant support is requested, as well as for the total
length of the project.
In addition to Form C or C1, applicants must provide a detailed
budget narrative providing an explanation of the basis for the
estimates in each budget category. (See section VII.D.)
If funds from other sources are required to conduct the project,
either as match or to support other aspects of the project, the source,
current status of the request, and anticipated decision date must be
provided.
4. Assurances (Form D)
This form lists the statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements
and conditions with which recipients of Institute funds must comply.
5. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
This form requires applicants other than units of State or local
government to disclose whether they, or another entity that is part of
the same organization as the applicant, have advocated a position
before Congress on any issue, and to identify the specific
[[Page 51947]]
subjects of their lobbying efforts. (See section X.D.)
B. Project Abstract
The abstract should highlight the purposes, goals, methods and
anticipated benefits of the proposed project. It should not exceed one
single-spaced page on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper.
C. Program Narrative
The program narrative for an application should not exceed 25
double-spaced pages on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper. Margins must be at
least 1 inch, and type size must be at least 12-point and 12 cpi. The
page limit does not include the forms, the abstract, the budget
narrative, and any appendices containing resumes and letters of
cooperation or endorsement. Additional background material should be
attached only if it is essential to impart a clear understanding of the
proposed project. Numerous and lengthy appendices are strongly
discouraged.
The program narrative should address the following topics:
1. Project Objectives
The applicant should include a clear, concise statement of what the
proposed project is intended to accomplish. In stating the objectives
of the project, applicants should focus on the overall programmatic
objective (e.g., to enhance understanding and skills regarding a
specific subject, or to determine how a certain procedure affects the
court and litigants) rather than on operational objectives (e.g.,
provide training for 32 judges and court managers, or review data from
300 cases).
2. Program Areas To Be Covered
The applicant should list the Special Interest Category or
Categories that are addressed by the proposed project (see section
II.B.). If the proposed project does not fall within one of the
Institute's Special Interest Categories, the applicant should list the
Statutory Program Area or Areas that are addressed by the proposed
project. (See section II.A.)
3. Need for the Project
If the project is to be conducted in a specific location(s), the
applicant should discuss the particular needs of the project site(s) to
be addressed by the project and why those needs are not being met
through the use of existing materials, programs, procedures, services,
or other resources.
If the project is not site-specific, the applicant should discuss
the problems that the proposed project would address, and why existing
materials, programs, procedures, services, or other resources do not
adequately resolve those problems. The discussion should include
specific references to the relevant literature and to the experience in
the field.
4. Tasks, Methods and Evaluation
a. Tasks and Methods. The applicant should delineate the tasks to
be performed in achieving the project objectives and the methods to be
used for accomplishing each task. For example:
i. For research and evaluation projects, the applicant should
include the data sources, data collection strategies, variables to be
examined, and analytic procedures to be used for conducting the
research or evaluation and ensuring the validity and general
applicability of the results. For projects involving human subjects,
the discussion of methods should address the procedures for obtaining
respondents' informed consent, ensuring the respondents' privacy and
freedom from risk or harm, and the protection of others who are not the
subjects of research but would be affected by the research. If the
potential exists for risk or harm to the human subjects, a discussion
should be included that explains the value of the proposed research and
the methods to be used to minimize or eliminate such risk.
ii. For education and training projects, the applicant should
include the adult education techniques to be used in designing and
presenting the program, including the teaching/learning objectives of
the educational design, the teaching methods to be used, and the
opportunities for structured interaction among the participants; how
faculty will be recruited, selected, and trained; the proposed number
and length of the conferences, courses, seminars, or workshops to be
conducted and the estimated number of persons who will attend them; the
materials to be provided and how they will be developed; and the cost
to participants.
iii. For demonstration projects, the applicant should include the
demonstration sites and the reasons they were selected, or if the sites
have not been chosen, how they will be identified and their cooperation
obtained; and how the program or procedures will be implemented and
monitored.
iv. For technical assistance projects, the applicant should explain
the types of assistance that will be provided; the particular issues
and problems for which assistance will be provided; how requests will
be obtained and the type of assistance determined; how suitable
providers will be selected and briefed; how reports will be reviewed;
and the cost to recipients.
b. Evaluation. Every project design must include an evaluation plan
to determine whether the project met its objectives. The evaluation
should be designed to provide an objective and independent assessment
of the effectiveness or usefulness of the training or services
provided; the impact of the procedures, technology, or services tested;
or the validity and applicability of the research conducted. In
addition, where appropriate, the evaluation process should be designed
to provide on-going or periodic feedback on the effectiveness or
utility of particular programs, educational offerings, or achievements
which can then be further refined as a result of the evaluation
process. The plan should present the qualifications of the
evaluator(s); describe the criteria, related to the project's
programmatic objectives, that will be used to evaluate the project's
effectiveness; explain how the evaluation will be conducted, including
the specific data collection and analysis techniques to be used;
discuss why this approach is appropriate; and present a schedule for
completion of the evaluation within the proposed project period.
The evaluation plan should be appropriate to the type of project
proposed. For example:
i. Research. An evaluation approach suited to many research
projects is a review by an advisory panel of the research methodology,
data collection instruments, preliminary analyses, and products as they
are drafted. The panel should be comprised of independent researchers
and practitioners representing the perspectives affected by the
proposed project.
ii. Education and Training. The most valuable approaches to
evaluating educational or training programs will serve to reinforce the
participants' learning experience while providing useful feedback on
the impact of the program and possible areas for improvement. One
appropriate evaluation approach is to assess the acquisition of new
knowledge, skills, attitudes or understanding through participant
feedback on the seminar or training event. Such feedback might include
a self-assessment on what was learned along with the participant's
response to the quality and effectiveness of faculty presentations, the
format of sessions, the value or usefulness of the material presented,
and other relevant factors. Another appropriate approach would be to
use an independent
[[Page 51948]]
observer who might request both verbal and written responses from
participants in the program. When an education project involves the
development of curricular materials, an advisory panel of relevant
experts can be coupled with a test of the curriculum to obtain the
reactions of participants and faculty as indicated above.
iii. Demonstration. The evaluation plan for a demonstration project
should encompass an assessment of program effectiveness (e.g., How well
did it work?); user satisfaction, if appropriate; the cost-
effectiveness of the program; a process analysis of the program (e.g.,
Was the program implemented as designed? Did it provide the services
intended to the targeted population?); the impact of the program (e.g.,
What effect did the program have on the court? What benefits resulted
from the program?); and the replicability of the program or components
of the program.
iv. Technical Assistance. For technical assistance projects,
applicants should explain how the quality, timeliness, and impact of
the assistance provided will be determined, and should develop a
mechanism for feedback from both the users and providers of the
technical assistance.
v. Evaluation plans involving human subjects should include a
discussion of the procedures for obtaining respondents' informed
consent, ensuring the respondents' privacy and freedom from risk or
harm, and the protection of others who are not the subjects of
evaluation but would be affected by it. Other than the provision of
confidentiality to respondents, human subject protection issues
ordinarily are not applicable to participants evaluating an education
program.
5. Project Management
The applicant should present a detailed management plan including
the starting and completion date for each task; the time commitments to
the project of key staff and their responsibilities regarding each
project task; and the procedures that will be used to ensure that all
tasks are performed on time, within budget, and at the highest level of
quality. In preparing the project time line, Gantt Chart, or schedule,
applicants should make certain that all project activities, including
publication or reproduction of project products and their initial
dissemination will occur within the proposed project period. The
management plan must also provide for the submission of Quarterly
Progress and Financial Reports within 30 days after the close of each
calendar quarter (i.e., no later than January 30, April 30, July 30,
and October 30).
Applicants should be aware that the Institute is unlikely to
approve more than one limited extension of the grant period. Therefore,
the management plan should be as realistic as possible and fully
reflect the time commitments of the proposed project staff and
consultants.
6. Products
The application should contain a description of the products to be
developed by the project (e.g., training curricula and materials,
videotapes, articles, manuals, or handbooks), including when they will
be submitted to the Institute.
a. Dissemination Plan. The application must explain how and to whom
the products will be disseminated; describe how they will benefit the
State courts, including how they can be used by judges and court
personnel; identify development, production, and dissemination costs
covered by the project budget; and present the basis on which products
and services developed or provided under the grant will be offered to
the courts community and the public at large (i.e., whether products
will be distributed at no cost to recipients, or if costs are involved,
the reason for charging recipients and the estimated price of the
product). (See section X.V.) Ordinarily, applicants should schedule all
product preparation and distribution activities within the project
period. Applicants also must submit a diskette containing a one page
abstract summarizing the products resulting from a project in Word,
WordPerfect, or ASCII. The abstract should include the grant number and
the name of a contact person together with that individual's address,
telephone number, and e-mail address (if applicable).
A copy of each product must be sent to the library established in
each State to collect the materials developed with Institute support.
(A list of these libraries is contained in Appendix II.) To facilitate
their use, all videotaped products should be distributed in VHS format.
Twenty copies of all project products must be submitted to the
Institute. A master copy of each videotape, in addition to 20 copies of
each videotape product, must also be provided to the Institute.
b. Types of Products. The type of product to be prepared depends on
the nature of the project. For example, in most instances, the products
of a research, evaluation, or demonstration project should include an
article summarizing the project findings that is publishable in a
journal serving the courts community nationally, an executive summary
that will be disseminated to the project's primary audience, or both.
Applicants proposing to conduct empirical research or evaluation
projects with national import should describe how they will make their
data available for secondary analysis after the grant period. (See
section X.W.)
The curricula and other products developed by education and
training projects should be designed for use outside the classroom so
that they may be used again by original participants and others in the
course of their duties.
c. Institute Review. Applicants must provide for submitting a final
draft of all written grant products to the Institute for review and
approval at least 30 days before the products are submitted for
publication or reproduction. For products in a videotape or CD-ROM
format, applicants must provide for incremental Institute review of the
product at the treatment, script, rough-cut, and final stages of
development, or their equivalents. No grant funds may be obligated for
publication or reproduction of a final grant product without the
written approval of the Institute.
d. Acknowledgment, Disclaimer, and Logo. Applicants must also
provide for including in all project products a prominent
acknowledgment that support was received from the Institute and a
disclaimer paragraph based on the example provided in section X.Q. of
the Guideline. The ``SJI'' logo must appear on the front cover of a
written product, or in the opening frames of a video product, unless
the Institute approves another placement.
7. Applicant Status
An applicant that is not a State or local court and has not
received a grant from the Institute within the past two years should
state whether it is either a national non-profit organization
controlled by, operating in conjunction with, and serving the judicial
branches of State governments; or a national non-profit organization
for the education and training of State court judges and support
personnel. See section IV. If the applicant is a nonjudicial unit of
Federal, State, or local government, it must explain whether the
proposed services could be adequately provided by non-governmental
entities.
8. Staff Capability
The applicant should include a summary of the training and
experience of the key staff members and
[[Page 51949]]
consultants that qualify them for conducting and managing the proposed
project. Resumes of identified staff should be attached to the
application. If one or more key staff members and consultants are not
known at the time of the application, a description of the criteria
that will be used to select persons for these positions should be
included. The applicant also should identify the person who would be
responsible for the financial management and financial reporting for
the proposed project.
9. Organizational Capacity
Applicants that have not received a grant from the Institute within
the past two years should include a statement describing the capacity
of the applicant to administer grant funds including the financial
systems used to monitor project expenditures (and income, if any), and
a summary of the applicant's past experience in administering grants,
as well as any resources or capabilities that the applicant has that
will particularly assist in the successful completion of the project.
Unless requested otherwise, an applicant that has received a grant
from the Institute within the past two years should describe only the
changes in its organizational capacity, tax status, or financial
capability that may affect its capacity to administer a grant.
If the applicant is a non-profit organization (other than a
university), it must also provide documentation of its 501(c) tax
exempt status as determined by the Internal Revenue Service and a copy
of a current certified audit report. For purposes of this requirement,
``current'' means no earlier than two years prior to the current
calendar year.
If a current audit report is not available, the Institute will
require the organization to complete a financial capability
questionnaire which must be signed by a Certified Public Accountant.
Other applicants may be required to provide a current audit report, a
financial capability questionnaire, or both, if specifically requested
to do so by the Institute.
10. Statement of Lobbying Activities
Non-governmental applicants must submit the Institute's Disclosure
of Lobbying Activities Form that requires them to state whether they,
or another entity that is a part of the same organization as the
applicant, have advocated a position before Congress on any issue, and
identifies the specific subjects of their lobbying efforts.
11. Letters of Cooperation or Support
If the cooperation of courts, organizations, agencies, or
individuals other than the applicant is required to conduct the
project, the applicant should attach written assurances of cooperation
and availability to the application, or send them under separate cover.
In order to ensure that there is sufficient time to bring them to the
Board's attention, letters of support sent under separate cover must be
received no more than 30 days after the deadline for mailing the
application.
D. Budget Narrative
The budget narrative should provide the basis for the computation
of all project-related costs. When the proposed project would be
partially supported by grants from other funding sources, applicants
should make clear what costs would be covered by those other grants.
Additional background or schedules may be attached if they are
essential to obtaining a clear understanding of the proposed budget.
Numerous and lengthy appendices are strongly discouraged.
The budget narrative should cover the costs of all components of
the project and clearly identify costs attributable to the project
evaluation. Under OMB grant guidelines incorporated by reference in
this Guideline, grant funds may not be used to pay for coffee breaks
during seminars or meetings, or to purchase alcoholic beverages.
1. Justification of Personnel Compensation
The applicant should set forth the percentages of time to be
devoted by the individuals who will serve as the staff of the proposed
project, the annual salary of each of those persons, and the number of
work days per year used for calculating the percentages of time or
daily rate of those individuals. The applicant should explain any
deviations from current rates or established written organization
policies. If grant funds are requested to pay the salary and related
costs for a current employee of a court or other unit of government,
the applicant should explain why this would not constitute a
supplantation of State or local funds in violation of 42 U.S.C.
10706(d)(1). An acceptable explanation may be that the position to be
filled is a new one established in conjunction with the project or that
the grant funds will be supporting only the portion of the employee's
time that will be dedicated to new or additional duties related to the
project.
2. Fringe Benefit Computation
The applicant should provide a description of the fringe benefits
provided to employees. If percentages are used, the authority for such
use should be presented as well as a description of the elements
included in the determination of the percentage rate.
3. Consultant/Contractual Services and Honoraria
The applicant should describe the tasks each consultant will
perform, the estimated total amount to be paid to each consultant, the
basis for compensation rates (e.g., number of days x the daily
consultant rates), and the method for selection. Rates for consultant
services must be set in accordance with section XI.H.2.c. Honorarium
payments must be justified in the same manner as other consultant
payments. Prior written Institute approval is required for any
consultant rate in excess of $300 per day; Institute funds may not be
used to pay a consultant at a rate in excess of $900 per day.
4. Travel
Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the
policies of the applicant organization. If the applicant does not have
an established travel policy, then travel rates must be consistent with
those established by the Institute or the Federal Government. (A copy
of the Institute's travel policy is available upon request.) The budget
narrative should include an explanation of the rate used, including the
components of the per diem rate and the basis for the estimated
transportation expenses. The purpose of the travel should also be
included in the narrative.
5. Equipment
Grant funds may be used to purchase only the equipment that is
necessary to demonstrate a new technological application in a court, or
that is otherwise essential to accomplishing the objectives of the
project. Equipment purchases to support basic court operations
ordinarily will not be approved. The applicant should describe the
equipment to be purchased or leased and explain why the acquisition of
that equipment is essential to accomplish the project's goals and
objectives. The narrative should clearly identify which equipment is to
be leased and which is to be purchased. The method of procurement
should also be described. Purchases for automatic data processing
equipment must comply with section XI.H.2.b.
[[Page 51950]]
6. Supplies
The applicant should provide a general description of the supplies
necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives of the grant. In
addition, the applicant should provide the basis for the amount
requested for this expenditure category.
7. Construction
Construction expenses are prohibited except for the limited
purposes set forth in section X.H.2. Any allowable construction or
renovation expense should be described in detail in the budget
narrative.
8. Telephone
Applicants should include anticipated telephone charges,
distinguishing between monthly charges and long distance charges in the
budget narrative. Also, applicants should provide the basis used in
developing the monthly and long distance estimates.
9. Postage
Anticipated postage costs for project-related mailings should be
described in the budget narrative. The cost of special mailings, such
as for a survey or for announcing a workshop, should be distinguished
from routine operational mailing costs. The bases for all postage
estimates should be included in the justification material.
10. Printing/Photocopying
Anticipated costs for printing or photocopying should be included
in the budget narrative. Applicants should provide the details
underlying these estimates in support of the request.
11. Indirect Costs
Applicants should describe the indirect cost rates applicable to
the grant in detail. If costs often included within an indirect cost
rate are charged directly (e.g., a percentage of the time of senior
managers to supervise product activities), the applicant should specify
that these costs are not included within their approved indirect cost
rate. These rates must be established in accordance with section
XI.H.4. If the applicant has an indirect cost rate or allocation plan
approved by any Federal granting agency, a copy of the approved rate
agreement should be attached to the application.
12. Match
The applicant should describe the source of any matching
contribution and the nature of the match provided. Any additional
contributions to the project should be described in this section of the
budget narrative as well. If in-kind match is to be provided, the
applicant should describe how the amount and value of the time,
services, or materials actually contributed will be documented
sufficiently clearly to permit them to be included in an audit of the
grant. Applicants should be aware that the time spent by participants
in education courses does not qualify as in-kind match.
Applicants that do not contemplate making matching contributions
continuously throughout the course of the project or on a task-by-task
basis must provide a schedule within 30 days after the beginning of the
project period indicating at what points during the project period the
matching contributions will be made. (See sections III.F., VIII.B.,
X.B. and XI.D.1.)
E. Submission Requirements
1. Every applicant must submit one set of the application forms
with an original signature on Form A and on Form B, if the application
is from a State or local court, or on the Disclosure of Lobbying Form
if the applicant is not a unit of State or local government. Applicants
may send four photocopies of the Program Narrative, Budget Forms (Form
C or C-1), Budget Narrative and any appendices; a diskette with this
material in Microsoft Word or ASCII format; or transmit the material to
the Institute via E-mail. Applicants may not send a portion of the
application material in written form (other than the application forms
themselves) and a portion in electronic form, or a portion on diskette
and a portion via E-mail.
All invited applications based on concept papers submitted by
November 24, 1997, must be mailed, sent by courier, or E-Mailed no
later than May 8, 1998. All invited applications based on concept
papers addressing the topics with a special submission deadline of
March 12, 1998, must be mailed, sent by courier, or E-mailed no later
than June 18, 1998.
A postmark or courier receipt will constitute evidence of the
submission date. Please mark Application on all application package
envelopes and send to: State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite
600, Alexandria, VA 22314.
The Institute's E-Mail address is: [email protected]
Receipt of each proposal will be acknowledged in writing.
Extensions of the deadline for submission of applications will not be
granted. See section VII.C.11. for receipt deadlines for letters of
support.
2. Applicants submitting more than one application may include
material that would be identical in each application in a cover letter,
and incorporate that material by reference in each application. The
incorporated material will be counted against the 25-page limit for the
program narrative. A copy of the cover letter should be attached to
each copy of each application.
VIII. Application Review Procedures
A. Preliminary Inquiries
The Institute staff will answer inquiries concerning application
procedures. The staff contact will be named in the Institute's letter
acknowledging receipt of the application.
B. Selection Criteria
1. All applications will be rated on the basis of the criteria set
forth below. The Institute will accord the greatest weight to the
following criteria:
a. The soundness of the methodology;
b. The demonstration of need for the project;
c. The appropriateness of the proposed evaluation design;
d. The applicant's management plan and organizational capabilities;
e. The qualifications of the project's staff;
f. The products and benefits resulting from the project including
the extent to which the project will have long-term benefits for State
courts across the nation;
g. The degree to which the findings, procedures, training,
technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other
jurisdictions.
h. The reasonableness of the proposed budget;
i. The demonstration of cooperation and support of other agencies
that may be affected by the project; and
j. The proposed project's relationship to one of the ``Special
Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B.
2. In determining which applicants to fund, the Institute will also
consider whether the applicant is a State court, a national court
support or education organization, a non-court unit of government, or
other type of entity eligible to receive grants under the Institute's
enabling legislation (see 42 U.S.C. 10705(6) (as amended) and Section
IV above); the availability of financial assistance from other sources
for the project; the amount and nature (cash or in-kind) of the
applicant's match; the extent to which the proposed project would also
benefit the Federal courts or help State courts enforce Federal
constitutional and legislative requirements; and the level of
appropriations available to the Institute in the current year and the
amount
[[Page 51951]]
expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.
C. Review and Approval Process
Applications will be reviewed competitively by the Board of
Directors. The Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary of each
application, and a rating sheet assigning points for each relevant
selection criterion. When necessary, applications may also be reviewed
by outside experts. Committees of the Board will review applications
within assigned program categories and prepare recommendations to the
full Board. The full Board of Directors will then decide which
applications to approve for a grant. The decision to award a grant is
solely that of the Board of Directors.
Awards approved by the Board will be signed by the Chairman of the
Board on behalf of the Institute.
D. Return Policy
Unless a specific request is made, unsuccessful applications will
not be returned. Applicants are advised that Institute records are
subject to the provisions of the Federal Freedom of Information Act, 5
U.S.C. 552.
E. Notification of Board Decision
The Institute will send written notice to applicants concerning all
Board decisions to approve, defer, or deny their respective
applications and the key issues and questions that arose during the
review process. A decision by the Board to deny an application may not
be appealed, but does not prohibit resubmission of a proposal based on
that application in a subsequent round of funding. The Institute will
also notify the designated State contact listed in Appendix I when
grants are approved by the Board to support projects that will be
conducted by or involve courts in their State.
F. Response to Notification of Approval
Applicants have 30 days from the date of the letter notifying them
that the Board has approved their application to respond to any
revisions requested by the Board. If the requested revisions (or a
reasonable schedule for submitting such revisions) have not been
submitted to the Institute within 30 days after notification, the
approval may* be automatically rescinded and the application presented
to the Board for reconsideration.
IX. Renewal Funding Procedures and Requirements
The Institute recognizes two types of renewal funding as described
below--``continuation grants'' and ``on-going support grants.'' The
award of an initial grant to support a project does not constitute a
commitment by the Institute to renew funding. The Board of Directors
anticipates allocating no more than 25% of available FY 1998 grant
funds for renewal grants.
A. Continuation Grants
1. Purpose and Scope
Continuation grants are intended to support projects with a limited
duration that involve the same type of activities as the previous
project. They are intended to enhance the specific program or service
produced or established during the prior grant period. They may be
used, for example, when a project is divided into two or more
sequential phases, for secondary analysis of data obtained in an
Institute-supported research project, or for more extensive testing of
an innovative technology, procedure, or program developed with SJI
grant support.
In order for a project to be considered for continuation funding,
the grantee must have completed the project tasks and met all grant
requirements and conditions in a timely manner, absent extenuating
circumstances or prior Institute approval of changes to the project
design. Continuation grants are not intended to provide support for a
project for which the grantee has underestimated the amount of time or
funds needed to accomplish the project tasks.
2. Application Procedures--Letters of Intent
In lieu of a concept paper, a grantee seeking a continuation grant
must inform the Institute, by letter, of its intent to submit an
application for such funding as soon as the need for renewal funding
becomes apparent but no less than 120 days before the end of the
current grant period.
a. A letter of intent must be no more than 3 single-spaced pages on
8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper and must contain a concise but thorough
explanation of the need for continuation; an estimate of the funds to
be requested; and a brief description of anticipated changes in the
scope, focus, or audience of the project.
b. Within 30 days after receiving a letter of intent, Institute
staff will review the proposed activities for the next project period
and inform the grantee of specific issues to be addressed in the
continuation application and the date by which the application for a
continuation grant must be submitted.
3. Application Format
An application for a continuation grant must include an application
form, budget forms (with appropriate documentation), a project abstract
conforming to the format set forth in section VII.B., a program
narrative, a budget narrative, a disclosure of lobbying form (from
applicants other than units of State or local government), and certain
certifications and assurances.
The program narrative should conform to the length and format
requirements set forth in section VII.C. However, rather than the
topics listed in section VII.C., the program narrative of an
application for a continuation grant should include:
a. Project Objectives. The applicant should clearly and concisely
state what the continuation project is intended to accomplish.
b. Need for Continuation. The applicant should explain why
continuation of the project is necessary to achieve the goals of the
project, and how the continuation will benefit the participating courts
or the courts community generally. That is, to what extent will the
original goals and objectives of the project be unfulfilled if the
project is not continued, and conversely, how will the findings or
results of the project be enhanced by continuing the project?
c. Report of Current Project Activities. The applicant should
discuss the status of all activities conducted during the previous
project period. Applicants should identify any activities that were not
completed, and explain why.
d. Evaluation Findings. The applicant should present the key
findings, impact, or recommendations resulting from the evaluation of
the project, if they are available, and how they will be addressed
during the proposed continuation. If the findings are not yet
available, applicants should provide the date by which they will be
submitted to the Institute. Ordinarily, the Board will not consider an
application for continuation funding until the Institute has received
the evaluator's report.
e. Tasks, Methods, Staff and Grantee Capability. The applicant
should fully describe any changes in the tasks to be performed, the
methods to be used, the products of the project, and how and to whom
those products will be disseminated, as well as any changes in the
assigned staff or the grantee's organizational capacity. Applicants
should include, in addition, the criteria and methods by which the
proposed continuation project would be evaluated.
f. Task Schedule. The applicant should present a detailed task
schedule and timeline for the next project period.
[[Page 51952]]
g. Other Sources of Support. The applicant should indicate why
other sources of support are inadequate, inappropriate or unavailable.
4. Budget and Budget Narrative
The applicant should provide a complete budget and budget narrative
conforming to the requirements set forth in paragraph VII.D. Changes in
the funding level requested should be discussed in terms of
corresponding increases or decreases in the scope of activities or
services to be rendered. In addition, the applicant should estimate the
amount of grant funds that will remain unobligated at the end of the
current grant period.
5. References to Previously Submitted Material
An application for a continuation grant should not repeat
information contained in a previously approved application or other
previously submitted materials, but should provide specific references
to such materials where appropriate.
6. Submission Requirements, Review and Approval Process, and
Notification of Decision
The submission requirements set forth in section VII.E., other than
the deadline for mailing, apply to applications for a continuation
grant. Such applications will be rated on the selection criteria set
forth in section VIII.B. The key findings and recommendations resulting
from an evaluation of the project and the proposed response to those
findings and recommendations will also be considered. The review and
approval process, return policy, and notification procedures are the
same as those for new projects set forth in sections VIII.C.-VIII.E.
B. On-Going Support Grants
1. Purpose and Scope
On-going support grants are intended to support projects that are
national in scope and that provide the State courts with services,
programs or products for which there is a continuing critical need. An
on-going support grant may also be used to fund longitudinal research
that directly benefits the State courts. On-going support grants are
subject to the limits on size and duration set forth in V.C.2. and
V.D.2. The Board will consider awarding an on-going support grant for a
period of up to 36 months. The total amount of the grant will be fixed
at the time of the initial award. Funds ordinarily will be made
available in annual increments as specified in section V.C.2.
A project is eligible for consideration for an on-going support
grant if:
a. The project is supported by and has been evaluated under a grant
from the Institute;
b. The project is national in scope and provides a significant
benefit to the State courts;
c. There is a continuing critical need for the services, programs
or products provided by the project as indicated by the level of use
and support by members of the court community;
d. The project is accomplishing its objectives in an effective and
efficient manner; and
e. It is likely that the service or program provided by the project
would be curtailed or significantly reduced without Institute support.
Each project supported by an on-going support grant must include an
evaluation component assessing its effectiveness and operation
throughout the grant period. The evaluation should be independent, but
may be designed collaboratively by the evaluator and the grantee. The
design should call for regular feedback from the evaluator to the
grantee throughout the project period concerning recommendations for
mid-course corrections or improvement of the project, as well as
periodic reports to the Institute at relevant points in the project.
An interim evaluation report must be submitted 18 months into the
grant period. The decision to obligate Institute funds to support the
third year of the project will be based on the interim evaluation
findings and the applicant's response to any deficiencies noted in the
report.
A final evaluation assessing the effectiveness, operation of, and
continuing need for the project must be submitted 90 days before the
end of the 3-year project period. In addition, a detailed annual task
schedule must be submitted not later than 45 days before the end of the
first and second years of the grant period, along with an explanation
of any necessary revisions in the projected costs for the remainder of
the project period. (See also section IX.B.3.h.)
2. Letters of Intent
In lieu of a concept paper, a grantee seeking an on-going support
grant must inform the Institute, by letter, of its intent to submit an
application for such funding as soon as the need for renewal funding
becomes apparent but no less than 120 days before the end of the
current grant period. The letter of intent should be in the same format
as that prescribed for continuation grants in section IX.A.2.a.
3. Format
An application for an on-going support grant must include an
application form, budget forms (with appropriate documentation), a
project abstract conforming to the format set forth in section VII.B.,
a program narrative, a budget narrative, and certain certifications and
assurances.
The program narrative should conform to the length and format
requirements set forth in section VII.C. However, rather than the
topics listed in section VII.C., the program narrative of applications
for on-going support grants should address:
a. Description of Need for and Benefits of the Project. The
applicant should provide a detailed discussion of the benefits provided
by the project to the State courts around the country, including the
degree to which State courts, State court judges, or State court
managers and personnel are using the services or programs provided by
the project.
b. Demonstration of Court Support. The applicant should demonstrate
support for the continuation of the project from the courts community.
c. Report on Current Project Activities. The applicant should
discuss the extent to which the project has met its goals and
objectives, identify any activities that have not been completed, and
explain why.
d. Evaluation Findings. The applicant should attach a copy of the
final evaluation report regarding the effectiveness, impact, and
operation of the project, specify the key findings or recommendations
resulting from the evaluation, and explain how they will be addressed
during the proposed renewal period. Ordinarily, the Board will not
consider an application for on-going support until the Institute has
received the evaluator's report.
e. Objectives, Tasks, Methods, Staff and Grantee Capability. The
applicant should describe fully any changes in the objectives; tasks to
be performed; the methods to be used; the products of the project; how
and to whom those products will be disseminated; the assigned staff;
and the grantee's organizational capacity. The grantee also should
describe the steps it will take to obtain support from other sources
for the continued operation of the project.
f. Task Schedule. The applicant should present a general schedule
for the full proposed project period and a detailed task schedule for
the first year of the proposed new project period.
g. Other Sources of Support. The applicant should describe what
efforts it
[[Page 51953]]
has taken to secure support for the project from other sources and
discuss why other sources of support are inadequate, inappropriate, or
unavailable.
4. Budget and Budget Narrative
The applicant should provide a complete three-year budget and
budget narrative conforming to the requirements set forth in paragraph
VII.D., and estimate the amount of grant funds that will remain
unobligated at the end of the current grant period. Changes in the
funding level requested should be discussed in terms of corresponding
increases or decreases in the scope of activities or services to be
rendered. A complete budget narrative should be provided for the full
project as well as for each year, or portion of a year, for which grant
support is requested. Changes in the funding level requested should be
discussed in terms of corresponding increases or decreases in the scope
of activities or services to be rendered. The budget should provide for
realistic cost-of-living and staff salary increases over the course of
the requested project period. Applicants should be aware that the
Institute is unlikely to approve a supplemental budget increase for an
on-going support grant in the absence of well-documented, unanticipated
factors that clearly justify the requested increase.
5. References to Previously Submitted Material
An application for an on-going support grant should not repeat
information contained in a previously approved application or other
previously submitted materials, but should provide specific references
to such materials where appropriate.
6. Submission Requirements, Review and Approval Process, and
Notification of Decision
The submission requirements set forth in section VII.E., other than
the deadline for mailing, apply to applications for an on-going support
grant. Such applications will be rated on the selection criteria set
forth in section VIII.B. The key findings and recommendations resulting
from an evaluation of the project and the proposed response to those
findings and recommendations will also be considered. The review and
approval process, return policy, and notification procedures are the
same as those for new projects set forth in sections VIII.C.-VIII.E.
X. Compliance Requirements
The State Justice Institute Act contains limitations and conditions
on grants, contracts and cooperative agreements of which applicants and
recipients should be aware. In addition to eligibility requirements
which must be met to be considered for an award from the Institute, all
applicants should be aware of and all recipients will be responsible
for ensuring compliance with the following:
A. State and Local Court Systems
Each application for funding from a State or local court must be
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court, or
its designated agency or council. The Supreme Court or its designee
shall receive, administer, and be accountable for all funds awarded on
the basis of such an application. 42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(4). Appendix I to
this Guideline lists the person to contact in each State regarding the
administration of Institute grants to State and local courts.
B. Matching Requirements
1. All awards to courts or other units of State or local government
(not including publicly supported institutions of higher education)
require a match from private or public sources of not less than 50% of
the total amount of the Institute's award. For example, if the total
cost of a project is anticipated to be $150,000, a State court or
executive branch agency may request up to $100,000 from the Institute
to implement the project. The remaining $50,000 (50% of the $100,000
requested from SJI) must be provided as a match. A cash match, non-cash
match, or both may be provided, but the Institute will give preference
to those applicants that provide a cash match to the Institute's award.
(For a further definition of match, see section III.F.)
The requirement to provide match may be waived in exceptionally
rare circumstances upon the request of the Chief Justice of the highest
court in the State and approval by the Board of Directors. 42 U.S.C.
10705(d).
2. Other eligible recipients of Institute funds are not required to
provide a match, but are encouraged to contribute to meeting the costs
of the project. In instances where match is proposed, the grantee is
responsible for ensuring that the total amount proposed is actually
contributed. If a proposed contribution is not fully met, the Institute
may reduce the award amount accordingly, in order to maintain the ratio
originally provided for in the award agreement (see sections VIII.B.
above and XI.D.).
C. Conflict of Interest
Personnel and other officials connected with Institute-funded
programs shall adhere to the following requirements:
1. No official or employee of a recipient court or organization
shall participate personally through decision, approval, disapproval,
recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise in
any proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other
determination, contract, grant, cooperative agreement, claim,
controversy, or other particular matter in which Institute funds are
used, where to his/her knowledge he/she or his/her immediate family,
partners, organization other than a public agency in which he/she is
serving as officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee or any
person or organization with whom he/she is negotiating or has any
arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial
interest.
2. In the use of Institute project funds, an official or employee
of a recipient court or organization shall avoid any action which might
result in or create the appearance of:
a. Using an official position for private gain; or
b. Affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the
integrity of the Institute program.
3. Requests for proposals or invitations for bids issued by a
recipient of Institute funds or a subgrantee or subcontractor will
provide notice to prospective bidders that the contractors who develop
or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, and/or
requests for proposals for a proposed procurement will be excluded from
bidding on or submitting a proposal to compete for the award of such
procurement.
D. Lobbying
Funds awarded to recipients by the Institute shall not be used,
indirectly or directly, to influence Executive orders or similar
promulgations by Federal, State or local agencies, or to influence the
passage or defeat of any legislation by Federal, State or local
legislative bodies. 42 U.S.C. 10706(a).
It is the policy of the Board of Directors to award funds only to
support applications submitted by organizations that would carry out
the objectives of their applications in an unbiased manner. Consistent
with this policy and the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 10706, the Institute
will not knowingly award a grant to an applicant that has, directly or
through an entity that is part of the same organization as the
applicant,
[[Page 51954]]
advocated a position before Congress on the specific subject matter of
the application.
E. Political Activities
No recipient shall contribute or make available Institute funds,
program personnel, or equipment to any political party or association,
or the campaign of any candidate for public or party office. Recipients
are also prohibited from using funds in advocating or opposing any
ballot measure, initiative, or referendum. Officers and employees of
recipients shall not intentionally identify the Institute or recipients
with any partisan or nonpartisan political activity associated with a
political party or association, or the campaign of any candidate for
public or party office. 42 U.S.C. 10706(a).
F. Advocacy
No funds made available by the Institute may be used to support or
conduct training programs for the purpose of advocating particular
nonjudicial public policies or encouraging nonjudicial political
activities. 42 U.S.C. 10706(b).
G. Prohibition Against Litigation Support
No funds made available by the Institute may be used directly or
indirectly to support legal assistance to parties in litigation,
including cases involving capital punishment.
H. Supplantation and Construction
To ensure that funds are used to supplement and improve the
operation of State courts, rather than to support basic court services,
funds shall not be used for the following purposes:
1. To supplant State or local funds supporting a program or
activity (such as paying the salary of court employees who would be
performing their normal duties as part of the project, or paying rent
for space which is part of the court's normal operations);
2. To construct court facilities or structures, except to remodel
existing facilities or to demonstrate new architectural or
technological techniques, or to provide temporary facilities for new
personnel or for personnel involved in a demonstration or experimental
program; or
3. Solely to purchase equipment.
I. Confidentiality of Information
Except as provided by Federal law other than the State Justice
Institute Act, no recipient of financial assistance from SJI may use or
reveal any research or statistical information furnished under the Act
by any person and identifiable to any specific private person for any
purpose other than the purpose for which the information was obtained.
Such information and copies thereof shall be immune from legal process,
and shall not, without the consent of the person furnishing such
information, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any
action, suit, or other judicial, legislative, or administrative
proceedings.
J. Human Research Protection
All research involving human subjects shall be conducted with the
informed consent of those subjects and in a manner that will ensure
their privacy and freedom from risk or harm and the protection of
persons who are not subjects of the research but would be affected by
it, unless such procedures and safeguards would make the research
impractical. In such instances, the Institute must approve procedures
designed by the grantee to provide human subjects with relevant
information about the research after their involvement and to minimize
or eliminate risk or harm to those subjects due to their participation.
K. Nondiscrimination
No person may, on the basis of race, sex, national origin,
disability, color, or creed be excluded from participation in, denied
the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity supported by Institute funds. Recipients of
Institute funds must immediately take any measures necessary to
effectuate this provision.
L. Reporting Requirements
Recipients of Institute funds, other than scholarships awarded
under section II.B.2.b.iii., shall submit Quarterly Progress and
Financial Reports within 30 days of the close of each calendar quarter
(that is, no later than January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30).
Two copies of each report must be sent. The Quarterly Progress Reports
shall include a narrative description of project activities during the
calendar quarter, the relationship between those activities and the
task schedule and objectives set forth in the approved application or
an approved adjustment thereto, any significant problem areas that have
developed and how they will be resolved, and the activities scheduled
during the next reporting period.
The quarterly financial status report shall be submitted in
accordance with section XI.G.2. of this Guideline. A final project
progress report and financial status report shall be submitted within
90 days after the end of the grant period in accordance with section
XI.K.2. of this Guideline.
M. Audit
Recipients, other than those noted below, must provide for an
annual fiscal audit which shall include an opinion on whether the
financial statements of the grantee present fairly its financial
position and financial operations are in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. (See section XI.J. of the Guideline for
the requirements of such audits.) Recipients of a scholarship,
curriculum adaptation, or technical assistance grant are not required
to submit an audit, but must maintain appropriate documentation to
support all expenditures.
N. Suspension of Funding
After providing a recipient reasonable notice and opportunity to
submit written documentation demonstrating why fund termination or
suspension should not occur, the Institute may terminate or suspend
funding of a project that fails to comply substantially with the Act,
the Guideline, or the terms and conditions of the award. 42 U.S.C.
10708(a).
O. Title to Property
At the conclusion of the project, title to all expendable and
nonexpendable personal property purchased with Institute funds shall
vest in the recipient court, organization, or individual that purchased
the property if certification is made to and approved by the Institute
that the property will continue to be used for the authorized purposes
of the Institute-funded project or other purposes consistent with the
State Justice Institute Act. If such certification is not made or the
Institute disapproves such certification, title to all such property
with an aggregate or individual value of $1,000 or more shall vest in
the Institute, which will direct the disposition of the property.
P. Original Material
All products prepared as the result of Institute-supported projects
must be originally-developed material unless otherwise specified in the
award documents. Material not originally developed that is included in
such products must be properly identified, whether the material is in a
verbatim or extensive paraphrase format.
Q. Acknowledgment and Disclaimer
Recipients of Institute funds shall acknowledge prominently on all
products developed with grant funds that support was received from the
[[Page 51955]]
Institute. The ``SJI'' logo must appear on the front cover of a written
product, or in the opening frames of a video product, unless another
placement is approved in writing by the Institute. This includes final
products printed or otherwise reproduced during the grant period, as
well as reprintings or reproductions of those materials following the
end of the grant period. A camera-ready logo sheet is available from
the Institute upon request.
Recipients also shall display the following disclaimer on all grant
products:
This [document, film, videotape, etc.] was developed under
[grant/cooperative agreement, number SJI-(insert number)] from the
State Justice Institute. The points of view expressed are those of
the [author(s), filmmaker(s), etc.] and do not necessarily represent
the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.
R. Institute Approval of Grant Products
No grant funds may be obligated for publication or reproduction of
a final product developed with grant funds without the written approval
of the Institute. Grantees shall submit a final draft of each written
product to the Institute for review and approval. These drafts shall be
submitted at least 30 days before the product is scheduled to be sent
for publication or reproduction to permit Institute review and
incorporation of any appropriate changes agreed upon by the grantee and
the Institute. Grantees shall provide for timely reviews by the
Institute of videotape or CD-ROM products at the treatment, script,
rough cut, and final stages of development or their equivalents, prior
to initiating the next stage of product development.
S. Distribution of Grant Products
In addition to the distribution specified in the grant application,
grantees shall send:
1. Twenty copies of each final product developed with grant funds
to the Institute, unless the product was developed under either a
curriculum adaptation or a technical assistance grant, in which case
submission of 2 copies is required.
2. A mastercopy of each videotape produced with grant funds to the
Institute.
3. A one-page abstract to the Institute summarizing the products
produced during the project for posting on the Internet together with a
diskette containing the abstract in Word, WordPerfect, or ASCII. The
abstract should include the grant number, a contact name, address,
telephone numbers, and e-mail address (if applicable).
4. One copy of each final product developed with grant funds to the
library established in each State to collect materials prepared with
Institute support. (A list of these libraries is contained in Appendix
II. Labels for these libraries are available from the Institute upon
request.) Recipients of curriculum adaptation and technical assistance
grants are not required to submit final products to State libraries.
T. Copyrights
Except as otherwise provided in the terms and conditions of an
Institute award, a recipient is free to copyright any books,
publications, or other copyrightable materials developed in the course
of an Institute-supported project, but the Institute shall reserve a
royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish,
or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the materials for
purposes consistent with the State Justice Institute Act.
U. Inventions and Patents
If any patentable items, patent rights, processes, or inventions
are produced in the course of Institute-sponsored work, such fact shall
be promptly and fully reported to the Institute. Unless there is a
prior agreement between the grantee and the Institute on disposition of
such items, the Institute shall determine whether protection of the
invention or discovery shall be sought. The Institute will also
determine how the rights in the invention or discovery, including
rights under any patent issued thereon, shall be allocated and
administered in order to protect the public interest consistent with
``Government Patent Policy'' (President's Memorandum for Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies, February 18, 1983, and statement of
Government Patent Policy).
V. Charges for Grant-Related Products/Recovery of Costs
When Institute funds fully cover the cost of developing, producing,
and disseminating a product, (e.g., a report, curriculum, videotape or
software), the product should be distributed to the field without
charge. When Institute funds only partially cover the development,
production, or dissemination costs, the grantee may, with the
Institute's prior written approval, recover its costs for developing,
producing, and disseminating the material to those requesting it, to
the extent that those costs were not covered by Institute funds or
grantee matching contributions.
Applicants should disclose their intent to sell grant-related
products in both the concept paper and the application. Grantees must
obtain the written, prior approval of the Institute of their plans to
recover project costs through the sale of grant products. Written
requests to recover costs ordinarily should be received during the
grant period and should specify the nature and extent of the costs to
be recouped, the reason that such costs were not budgeted (if the
rationale was not disclosed in the approved application), the number of
copies to be sold, the intended audience for the products to be sold,
and the proposed sale price. If the product is to be sold for more than
$25.00, the written request also should include a detailed itemization
of costs that will be recovered and a certification that the costs were
not supported by either Institute grant funds or grantee matching
contributions.
In the event that the sale of grant products results in revenues
that exceed the costs to develop, produce, and disseminate the product,
the revenue must continue to be used for the authorized purposes of the
Institute-funded project or other purposes consistent with the State
Justice Institute Act that have been approved by the Institute. See
sections III.F. and XI.F. for requirements regarding project-related
income realized during the project period.
W. Availability of Research Data for Secondary Analysis
Upon request, grantees must make available for secondary analysis a
diskette(s) or data tape(s) containing research and evaluation data
collected under an Institute grant and the accompanying code manual.
Grantees may recover the actual cost of duplicating and mailing or
otherwise transmitting the data set and manual from the person or
organization requesting the data. Grantees may provide the requested
data set in the format in which it was created and analyzed.
X. Approval of Key Staff
If the qualifications of an employee or consultant assigned to a
key project staff position are not described in the application or if
there is a change of a person assigned to such a position, a recipient
shall submit a description of the qualifications of the newly assigned
person to the Institute. Prior written approval of the qualifications
of the new person assigned to a key staff position
[[Page 51956]]
must be received from the Institute before the salary or consulting fee
of that person and associated costs may be paid or reimbursed from
grant funds.
XI. Financial Requirements
A. Accounting Systems and Financial Records
All grantees, subgrantees, contractors, and other organizations
directly or indirectly receiving Institute funds are required to
establish and maintain accounting systems and financial records to
accurately account for funds they receive. These records shall include
total program costs, including Institute funds, State and local
matching shares, and any other fund sources included in the approved
project budget.
1. Purpose
The purpose of this section is to establish accounting system
requirements and offer guidance on procedures which will assist all
grantees/subgrantees in:
a. Complying with the statutory requirements for the awarding,
disbursement, and accounting of funds;
b. Complying with regulatory requirements of the Institute for the
financial management and disposition of funds;
c. Generating financial data which can be used in the planning,
management and control of programs; and
d. Facilitating an effective audit of funded programs and projects.
2. References
Except where inconsistent with specific provisions of this
Guideline, the following regulations, directives and reports are
applicable to Institute grants and cooperative agreements under the
same terms and conditions that apply to Federal grantees. These
materials supplement the requirements of this section for accounting
systems and financial recordkeeping and provide additional guidance on
how these requirements may be satisfied. (Circulars may be obtained
from OMB by calling 202-395-7250.)
a. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-21, Cost
Principles for Educational Institutions.
b. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost
Principles for State and Local Governments.
c. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-88 (revised),
Indirect Cost Rates, Audit and Audit Follow-up at Educational
Institutions.
d. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102, Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local
Governments.
e. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110, Grants and
Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and other
Non-Profit Organizations.
f. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-128, Audits of
State and Local Governments.
g. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-122, Cost
Principles for Non-profit Organizations.
h. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of
Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non-profit Institutions.
B. Supervision and Monitoring Responsibilities
1. Grantee Responsibilities
All grantees receiving direct awards from the Institute are
responsible for the management and fiscal control of all funds.
Responsibilities include accounting for receipts and expenditures,
maintaining adequate financial records, and refunding expenditures
disallowed by audits.
2. Responsibilities of State Supreme Court
Each application for funding from a State or local court must be
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court, or
its designated agency or council.
The State Supreme Court or its designee shall receive all Institute
funds awarded to such courts; be responsible for assuring proper
administration of Institute funds; and be responsible for all aspects
of the project, including proper accounting and financial recordkeeping
by the subgrantee. These responsibilities include:
a. Reviewing Financial Operations. The State Supreme Court or its
designee should be familiar with, and periodically monitor, its
subgrantees' financial operations, records system and procedures.
Particular attention should be directed to the maintenance of current
financial data.
b. Recording Financial Activities. The subgrantee's grant award or
contract obligation, as well as cash advances and other financial
activities, should be recorded in the financial records of the State
Supreme Court or its designee in summary form. Subgrantee expenditures
should be recorded on the books of the State Supreme Court or evidenced
by report forms duly filed by the subgrantee. Non-Institute
contributions applied to projects by subgrantees should likewise be
recorded, as should any project income resulting from program
operations.
c. Budgeting and Budget Review. The State Supreme Court or its
designee should ensure that each subgrantee prepares an adequate budget
as the basis for its award commitment. The detail of each project
budget should be maintained on file by the State Supreme Court.
d. Accounting for Non-Institute Contributions. The State Supreme
Court or its designee will ensure, in those instances where subgrantees
are required to furnish non-Institute matching funds, that the
requirements and limitations of the Guideline are applied to such
funds.
e. Audit Requirement. The State Supreme Court or its designee is
required to ensure that subgrantees have met the necessary audit
requirements set forth by the Institute (see sections X.M. and XI.J).
f. Reporting Irregularities. The State Supreme Court, its
designees, and its subgrantees are responsible for promptly reporting
to the Institute the nature and circumstances surrounding any financial
irregularities discovered.
C. Accounting System
The grantee is responsible for establishing and maintaining an
adequate system of accounting and internal controls for itself and for
ensuring that an adequate system exists for each of its subgrantees and
contractors. An acceptable and adequate accounting system is considered
to be one which:
1. Properly accounts for receipt of funds under each grant awarded
and the expenditure of funds for each grant by category of expenditure
(including matching contributions and project income);
2. Assures that expended funds are applied to the appropriate
budget category included within the approved grant;
3. Presents and classifies historical costs of the grant as
required for budgetary and evaluation purposes;
4. Provides cost and property controls to assure optimal use of
grant funds;
5. Is integrated with a system of internal controls adequate to
safeguard the funds and assets covered, check the accuracy and
reliability of the accounting data, promote operational efficiency, and
assure conformance with any general or special conditions of the grant;
6. Meets the prescribed requirements for periodic financial
reporting of operations; and
7. Provides financial data for planning, control, measurement, and
evaluation of direct and indirect costs.
[[Page 51957]]
D. Total Cost Budgeting and Accounting
Accounting for all funds awarded by the Institute shall be
structured and executed on a ``total project cost'' basis. That is,
total project costs, including Institute funds, State and local
matching shares, and any other fund sources included in the approved
project budget shall be the foundation for fiscal administration and
accounting. Grant applications and financial reports require budget and
cost estimates on the basis of total costs.
1. Timing of Matching Contributions
Matching contributions need not be applied at the exact time of the
obligation of Institute funds. However, the full matching share must be
obligated during the award period, except that, with the prior written
permission of the Institute, contributions made following approval of
the grant by the Institute's Board of Directors but before the
beginning of the grant may be counted as match. Grantees that do not
contemplate making matching contributions continuously throughout the
course of a project, or on a task-by-task basis, are required to submit
a schedule within 30 days after the beginning of the project period
indicating at what points during the project period the matching
contributions will be made. In instances where a proposed cash match is
not fully met, the Institute may reduce the award amount accordingly,
in order to maintain the ratio originally provided for in the award
agreement.
2. Records for Match
All grantees must maintain records which clearly show the source,
amount, and timing of all matching contributions. In addition, if a
project has included, within its approved budget, contributions which
exceed the required matching portion, the grantee must maintain records
of those contributions in the same manner as it does the Institute
funds and required matching shares. For all grants made to State and
local courts, the State Supreme Court has primary responsibility for
grantee/subgrantee compliance with the requirements of this section.
(See section XI.B.2.)
E. Maintenance and Retention of Records
All financial records, supporting documents, statistical records
and all other records pertinent to grants, subgrants, cooperative
agreements or contracts under grants shall be retained by each
organization participating in a project for at least three years for
purposes of examination and audit. State Supreme Courts may impose
record retention and maintenance requirements in addition to those
prescribed in this chapter.
1. Coverage
The retention requirement extends to books of original entry,
source documents supporting accounting transactions, the general
ledger, subsidiary ledgers, personnel and payroll records, canceled
checks, and related documents and records. Source documents include
copies of all grant and subgrant awards, applications, and required
grantee/subgrantee financial and narrative reports. Personnel and
payroll records shall include the time and attendance reports for all
individuals reimbursed under a grant, subgrant or contract, whether
they are employed full-time or part-time. Time and effort reports will
be required for consultants.
2. Retention Period
The three-year retention period starts from the date of the
submission of the final expenditure report or, for grants which are
renewed annually, from the date of submission of the annual expenditure
report.
3. Maintenance
Grantees and subgrantees are expected to see that records of
different fiscal years are separately identified and maintained so that
requested information can be readily located. Grantees and subgrantees
are also obligated to protect records adequately against fire or other
damage. When records are stored away from the grantee's/subgrantee's
principal office, a written index of the location of stored records
should be on hand, and ready access should be assured.
4. Access
Grantees and subgrantees must give any authorized representative of
the Institute access to and the right to examine all records, books,
papers, and documents related to an Institute grant.
F. Project-Related Income
Records of the receipt and disposition of project-related income
must be maintained by the grantee in the same manner as required for
the project funds that gave rise to the income and must be reported to
the Institute. (See section XI.G.2.) The policies governing the
disposition of the various types of project-related income are listed
below.
1. Interest
A State and any agency or instrumentality of a State, including
State institutions of higher education and State hospitals, shall not
be held accountable for interest earned on advances of project funds.
When funds are awarded to subgrantees through a State, the subgrantees
are not held accountable for interest earned on advances of project
funds. Local units of government and nonprofit organizations that are
direct grantees must refund any interest earned. Grantees shall ensure
minimum balances in their respective grant cash accounts.
2. Royalties
The grantee/subgrantee may retain all royalties received from
copyrights or other works developed under projects or from patents and
inventions, unless the terms and conditions of the grant provide
otherwise.
3. Registration and Tuition Fees
Registration and tuition fees shall be used to pay project-related
costs not covered by the grant, or to reduce the amount of grant funds
needed to support the project. Registration and tuition fees may be
used for other purposes only with the prior written approval of the
Institute. Estimates of registration and tuition fees, and any expenses
to be offset by the fees, should be included in the application budget
forms and narrative.
4. Income From the Sale of Grant Products
When grant funds fully cover the cost of producing and
disseminating a limited number of copies of a product, the grantee may,
with the written prior approval of the Institute, sell additional
copies reproduced at its expense only at a price intended to recover
actual reproduction and distribution costs that were not covered by
Institute grant funds or grantee matching contributions to the project.
When grant funds only partially cover the costs of developing,
producing and disseminating a product, the grantee may, with the
written prior approval of the Institute, recover costs for developing,
reproducing, and disseminating the material to the extent that those
costs were not covered by Institute grant funds or grantee matching
contributions. If the grantee recovers its costs in this manner, then
amounts expended by the grantee to develop, produce, and disseminate
the material may not be considered match.
If the sale of products occurs during the project period, the costs
and income generated by the sales must be reported on the Quarterly
Financial Status Reports and documented in an auditable manner.
Whenever possible, the intent to sell a product should be disclosed in
[[Page 51958]]
the concept paper and application or reported to the Institute in
writing once a decision to sell products has been made. The grantee
must request approval to recover its product development, reproduction,
and dissemination costs as specified in section X.V.
5. Other
Other project income shall be treated in accordance with
disposition instructions set forth in the grant's terms and conditions.
G. Payments and Financial Reporting Requirements
1. Payment of Grant Funds
The procedures and regulations set forth below are applicable to
all Institute grant funds and grantees.
a. Request for Advance or Reimbursement of Funds. Grantees will
receive funds on a ``Check-Issued'' basis. Upon receipt, review, and
approval of a Request for Advance or Reimbursement by the Institute, a
check will be issued directly to the grantee or its designated fiscal
agent. A request must be limited to the grantee's immediate cash needs.
The Request for Advance or Reimbursement, along with the instructions
for its preparation, will be included in the official Institute award
package.
b. Continuation and On-Going Support Awards. For purposes of
submitting Requests for Advance or Reimbursement, recipients of
continuation and on-going support grants should treat each grant as a
new project and number their requests accordingly (i.e. on a grant
rather than a project basis). For example, the first request for
payment from a continuation grant or each year of an on-going support
would be number 1, the second number 2, etc. (See Recommendations to
Grantees in the Introduction for further guidance.)
c. Termination of Advance and Reimbursement Funding. When a grantee
organization receiving cash advances from the Institute:
i. Demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to attain program or
project goals, or to establish procedures that will minimize the time
elapsing between cash advances and disbursements, or cannot adhere to
guideline requirements or special conditions;
ii. Engages in the improper award and administration of subgrants
or contracts; or
iii. Is unable to submit reliable and/or timely reports; the
Institute may terminate advance financing and require the grantee
organization to finance its operations with its own working capital.
Payments to the grantee shall then be made by check to reimburse the
grantee for actual cash disbursements. In the event the grantee
continues to be deficient, the Institute may suspend reimbursement
payments until the deficiencies are corrected.
d. Principle of Minimum Cash on Hand. Recipient organizations
should request funds based upon immediate disbursement requirements.
Grantees should time their requests to ensure that cash on hand is the
minimum needed for disbursements to be made immediately or within a few
days. Idle funds in the hands of subgrantees will impair the goals of
good cash management.
2. Financial Reporting
a. General Requirements. In order to obtain financial information
concerning the use of funds, the Institute requires that grantees/
subgrantees of these funds submit timely reports for review.
Three copies of the Financial Status Report are required from all
grantees, other than recipients of scholarships under section
II.B.2.b.iii., for each active quarter on a calendar-quarter basis.
This report is due within 30 days after the close of the calendar
quarter. It is designed to provide financial information relating to
Institute funds, State and local matching shares, project income, and
any other sources of funds for the project, as well as information on
obligations and outlays. A copy of the Financial Status Report, along
with instructions for its preparation, will be included in the official
Institute Award package. In circumstances where an organization
requests substantial payments for a project prior to the completion of
a given quarter, the Institute may request a brief summary of the
amount requested, by object class, in support of the Request for
Advance or Reimbursement.
b. Additional Requirements for Renewal Grants. Grantees receiving a
continuation or on-going support grant should number their quarterly
Financial Status Reports on a grant rather than a project basis. For
example, the first quarterly report for a continuation grant or each
year of an on-going support award should be number 1, the second number
2, etc.
3. Consequences of Non-Compliance With Submission Requirements
Failure of the grantee organization to submit required financial
and program reports may result in a suspension or termination of grant
payments.
H. Allowability of Costs
1. General
Except as may be otherwise provided in the conditions of a
particular grant, cost allowability shall be determined in accordance
with the principles set forth in OMB Circulars A-87, Cost Principles
for State and Local Governments; A-21, Cost Principles Applicable to
Grants and Contracts with Educational Institutions; and A-122, Cost
Principles for Non-Profit Organizations. No costs may be recovered to
liquidate obligations which are incurred after the approved grant
period. Copies of these circulars may be obtained from OMB by calling
(202) 395-7250.
2. Costs Requiring Prior Approval
a. Pre-agreement Costs. The written prior approval of the Institute
is required for costs which are considered necessary to the project but
occur prior to the award date of the grant.
b. Equipment. Grant funds may be used to purchase or lease only
that equipment which is essential to accomplishing the goals and
objectives of the project. The written prior approval of the Institute
is required when the amount of automated data processing (ADP)
equipment to be purchased or leased exceeds $10,000 or the software to
be purchased exceeds $3,000.
c. Consultants. The written prior approval of the Institute is
required when the rate of compensation to be paid a consultant exceeds
$300 a day. Institute funds may not be used to pay a consultant at a
rate in excess of $900 per day. Ordinarily, attorneys in private
practice are expected to provide consulting services to court
improvement or education projects on a pro bono basis.
3. Travel Costs
Transportation and per diem rates must comply with the policies of
the applicant organization. If the applicant does not have an
established written travel policy, then travel rates shall be
consistent with those established by the Institute or the Federal
Government. Institute funds may not be used to cover the transportation
or per diem costs of a member of a national organization to attend an
annual or other regular meeting of that organization.
4. Indirect Costs
These are costs of an organization that are not readily assignable
to a particular project, but are necessary to the operation of the
organization and the performance of the project. The cost of operating
and maintaining facilities,
[[Page 51959]]
depreciation, and administrative salaries are examples of the types of
costs that are usually treated as indirect costs. It is the policy of
the Institute that all costs should be budgeted directly; however, if a
recipient has an indirect cost rate approved by a Federal agency as set
forth below, the Institute will accept that rate.
a. Approved Plan Available. i. The Institute will accept an
indirect cost rate or allocation plan approved for a grantee during the
preceding two years by any Federal granting agency on the basis of
allocation methods substantially in accord with those set forth in the
applicable cost circulars. A copy of the approved rate agreement must
be submitted to the Institute.
ii. Where flat rates are accepted in lieu of actual indirect costs,
grantees may not also charge expenses normally included in overhead
pools, e.g., accounting services, legal services, building occupancy
and maintenance, etc., as direct costs.
iii. Organizations with an approved indirect cost rate, utilizing
total direct costs as the base, usually exclude contracts under grants
from any overhead recovery. The negotiated agreement will stipulate
that contracts are excluded from the base for overhead recovery.
b. Establishment of Indirect Cost Rates. In order to be reimbursed
for indirect costs, a grantee or organization must first establish an
appropriate indirect cost rate. To do this, the grantee must prepare an
indirect cost rate proposal and submit it to the Institute within three
months after the start of the grant period to assure recovery of the
full amount of allowable indirect costs. The rate must be developed in
accordance with principles and procedures appropriate to the type of
grantee institution involved as specified in the applicable OMB
Circular. Copies of OMB Circulars may be obtained directly from OMB by
calling (202) 395-7250.
c. No Approved Plan. If an indirect cost proposal for recovery of
actual indirect costs is not submitted to the Institute within three
months after the start of the grant period, indirect costs will be
irrevocably disallowed for all months prior to the month that the
indirect cost proposal is received. This policy is effective for all
grant awards.
I. Procurement and Property Management Standards
1. Procurement Standards
For State and local governments, the Institute adopts the standards
set forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular A-102. Institutions of higher
education, hospitals; other non-profit organizations will be governed
by the standards set forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular A-110.
2. Property Management Standards
The property management standards as prescribed in Attachment N of
OMB Circulars A-102 and A-110 shall be applicable to all grantees and
subgrantees of Institute funds except as provided in section X.O.
All grantees/subgrantees are required to be prudent in the
acquisition and management of property with grant funds. If suitable
property required for the successful execution of projects is already
available within the grantee or subgrantee organization, expenditures
of grant funds for the acquisition of new property will be considered
unnecessary.
J. Audit Requirements
1. Implementation
Each recipient of a grant from the Institute other than a
scholarship, curriculum adaptation, or technical assistance grant
(including a State or local court receiving a subgrant from the State
Supreme Court) shall provide for an annual fiscal audit. The audit may
be of the entire grantee organization (e.g., a university) or of the
specific project funded by the Institute. Audits conducted in
accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 as amended and OMB
Circular A-133 will satisfy the requirement for an annual fiscal audit.
The audit shall be conducted by an independent Certified Public
Accountant, or a State or local agency authorized to audit government
agencies.
Grantees who receive funds from a Federal agency and who satisfy
audit requirements of the cognizant Federal agency should submit a copy
of the audit report prepared for that Federal agency to the Institute
in order to satisfy the provisions of this section. Cognizant Federal
agencies do not send reports to the Institute. Therefore, each grantee
must send this report directly to the Institute.
2. Resolution and Clearance of Audit Reports
Timely action on recommendations by responsible management
officials is an integral part of the effectiveness of an audit. Each
grant recipient shall have policies and procedures for acting on audit
recommendations by designating officials responsible for: follow-up,
maintaining a record of the actions taken on recommendations and time
schedules, responding to and acting on audit recommendations, and
submitting periodic reports to the Institute on recommendations and
actions taken.
3. Consequences of Non-Resolution of Audit Issues
It is the general policy of the State Justice Institute not to make
new grant awards to an applicant having an unresolved audit report
involving Institute awards. Failure of the grantee organization to
resolve audit questions may also result in the suspension or
termination of payments for active Institute grants to that
organization.
K. Close-Out of Grants
1. Definition
Close-out is a process by which the Institute determines that all
applicable administrative and financial actions and all required work
of the grant have been completed by both the grantee and the Institute.
2. Grantee Close-Out Requirements
Within 90 days after the end date of the grant or any approved
extension thereof (See section XI.K.3), the following documents must be
submitted to the Institute by the grantee other than a recipient of a
scholarship under section II.B.2.b.iii. These reporting requirements
apply at the conclusion of any non-scholarship grant, even when the
project will receive renewal funding through a continuation or on-going
support grant.
a. Financial Status Report. The final report of expenditures must
have no unliquidated obligations and must indicate the exact balance of
unobligated funds. Any unobligated/unexpended funds will be deobligated
from the award by the Institute. Final payment requests for obligations
incurred during the award period must be submitted to the Institute
prior to the end of the 90-day close-out period. Grantees on a check-
issued basis, who have drawn down funds in excess of their obligations/
expenditures, must return any unused funds as soon as it is determined
that the funds are not required. In no case should any unused funds
remain with the grantee beyond the submission date of the final
financial status report.
b. Final Progress Report. This report should describe the project
activities during the final calendar quarter of the project and the
close-out period, including to whom project products have been
disseminated; provide a summary of activities during the entire
project; specify whether all the objectives set forth in the approved
[[Page 51960]]
application or an approved adjustment thereto have been met and, if any
of the objectives have not been met, explain the reasons therefor; and
discuss what, if anything, could have been done differently that might
have enhanced the impact of the project or improved its operation.
3. Extension of Close-out Period
Upon the written request of the grantee, the Institute may extend
the close-out period to assure completion of the Grantee's close-out
requirements. Requests for an extension must be submitted at least 14
days before the end of the close-out period and must explain why the
extension is necessary and what steps will be taken to assure that all
the grantee's responsibilities will be met by the end of the extension
period.
XII. Grant Adjustments
All requests for program or budget adjustments requiring Institute
approval must be submitted in a timely manner by the project director.
All requests for changes from the approved application will be
carefully reviewed for both consistency with this Guideline and the
enhancement of grant goals and objectives.
A. Grant Adjustments Requiring Prior Written Approval
There are several types of grant adjustments which require the
prior written approval of the Institute. Examples of these adjustments
include:
1. Budget revisions among direct cost categories which,
individually or in the aggregate, exceed or are expected to exceed five
percent of the approved original budget or the most recently approved
revised budget. For the purposes of this section, the Institute will
view budget revisions cumulatively.
For continuation and on-going support grants, funds from the
original award may be used during the renewal grant period and funds
awarded by a continuation or on-going support grant may be used to
cover project-related expenditures incurred during the original award
period, with the prior written approval of the Institute.
2. A change in the scope of work to be performed or the objectives
of the project (see section XII.D.).
3. A change in the project site.
4. A change in the project period, such as an extension of the
grant period and/or extension of the final financial or progress report
deadline (see section XII.E.).
5. Satisfaction of special conditions, if required.
6. A change in or temporary absence of the project director (see
sections XII.F. and G.).
7. The assignment of an employee or consultant to a key staff
position whose qualifications were not described in the application, or
a change of a person assigned to a key project staff position (see
section X.X.).
8. A change in or temporary absence of the person responsible for
the financial management and financial reporting for the grant.
9. A change in the name of the grantee organization.
10. A transfer or contracting out of grant-supported activities
(see section XII.H.).
11. A transfer of the grant to another recipient.
12. Preagreement costs, the purchase of automated data processing
equipment and software, and consultant rates, as specified in section
XI.H.2.
13. A change in the nature or number of the products to be prepared
or the manner in which a product would be distributed.
B. Request for Grant Adjustments
All grantees and subgrantees must promptly notify their SJI Program
Manager, in writing, of events or proposed changes which may require an
adjustment to the approved application. In requesting an adjustment,
the grantee must set forth the reasons and basis for the proposed
adjustment and any other information the program manager determines
would help the Institute's review.
C. Notification of Approval/Disapproval
If the request is approved, the grantee will be sent a Grant
Adjustment signed by the Executive Director or his designee. If the
request is denied, the grantee will be sent a written explanation of
the reasons for the denial.
D. Changes in the Scope of the Grant
A grantee/subgrantee may make minor changes in methodology,
approach, or other aspects of the grant to expedite achievement of the
grant's objectives with subsequent notification of the SJI Program
Manager. Major changes in scope, duration, training methodology, or
other significant areas must be approved in advance by the Institute.
E. Date Changes
A request to change or extend the grant period must be made at
least 30 days in advance of the end date of the grant. A revised task
plan should accompany requests for a no-cost extension of the grant
period, along with a revised budget if shifts among budget categories
will be needed. A request to change or extend the deadline for the
final financial report or final progress report must be made at least
14 days in advance of the report deadline (see section XI.K.3.).
F. Temporary Absence of the Project Director
Whenever absence of the project director is expected to exceed a
continuous period of one month, the plans for the conduct of the
project director's duties during such absence must be approved in
advance by the Institute. This information must be provided in a letter
signed by an authorized representative of the grantee/subgrantee at
least 30 days before the departure of the project director, or as soon
as it is known that the project director will be absent. The grant may
be terminated if arrangements are not approved in advance by the
Institute.
G. Withdrawal of/Change in Project Director
If the project director relinquishes or expects to relinquish
active direction of the project, the Institute must be notified
immediately. In such cases, if the grantee/subgrantee wishes to
terminate the project, the Institute will forward procedural
instructions upon notification of such intent. If the grantee wishes to
continue the project under the direction of another individual, a
statement of the candidate's qualifications should be sent to the
Institute for review and approval. The grant may be terminated if the
qualifications of the proposed individual are not approved in advance
by the Institute.
H. Transferring or Contracting Out of Grant-Supported Activities
A principal activity of the grant-supported project shall not be
transferred or contracted out to another organization without specific
prior approval by the Institute. All such arrangements should be
formalized in a contract or other written agreement between the parties
involved. Copies of the proposed contract or agreement must be
submitted for prior approval at the earliest possible time. The
contract or agreement must state, at a minimum, the activities to be
performed, the time schedule, the policies and procedures to be
followed, the dollar limitation of the agreement, and the cost
principles to be followed in determining what costs, both direct and
indirect, are to be allowed. The contract or other written agreement
must not affect the grantee's
[[Page 51961]]
overall responsibility for the direction of the project and
accountability to the Institute.
State Justice Institute Board of Directors
David A. Brock, Co-Chairman, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of New
Hampshire, Concord, NH
John F. Daffron, Jr., Co-Chairman, Judge, Chesterfield Circuit Court,
Chesterfield, VA
Sandra A. O'Connor, Secretary, States Attorney of Baltimore County,
Towson, MD
Terrence B. Adamson, Esq., Executive Committee Member, Kaye, Scholer,
Fierman, Hays & Handler, Washington, D.C
Joseph F. Baca, Chief Justice, New Mexico Supreme Court, Santa Fe, NM
Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, State Court Administrator, Virginia Supreme
Court, Richmond, VA
Carlos R. Garza, Esq., Administrative Judge (ret.), Vienna, VA
Tommy Jewell, Judge, 2nd Judicial District Court, Albuquerque, NM
Keith McNamara, Esq., McNamara & McNamara, Columbus, OH
Florence K. Murray, Associate Justice (ret.), Rhode Island Supreme
Court, Providence, RI
Janie L. Shores, Justice, Alabama Supreme Court, Birmingham, AL
David I. Tevelin, Executive Director (ex officio)
David I. Tevelin,
Executive Director.
Appendix I--List of Contacts Regarding Administration of Institute
Grants to State and Local Courts
Mr. Frank Gregory, Administrative Director, Administrative Office of
the Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36130, (205) 834-7990
Ms. Stephanie J. Cole, Administrative Director, Alaska Court System,
303 K Street, Anchorage, AK 99501, (907) 264-0547
Mr. David K. Byers, Administrative Director, Supreme Court of
Arizona, 1501 West Washington Street, Suite 411, Phoenix, AZ 85007-
3330, (602) 542-9301
Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, Administrative Office of the
Courts, 625 Marshall, Little Rock, AR 72201, (501) 682-9400
Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court Administrator, Administrative
Office of the Courts, 303 Second Street, South Tower, San Francisco,
CA 94107, (415) 396-9115
Mr. Steven V. Berson, State Court Administrator, Colorado Judicial
Department, 1301 Pennsylvania Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80203-
2416, (303) 861-1111, ext. 585
Honorable Aaron Ment, Chief Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Connecticut, 231 Capitol Avenue, Drawer N, Station A, Hartford, CT
06106, (860) 566-4461
Mr. Lowell Groundland, Director, Administrative Office of the
Courts, Carvel State Office Building, 820 N. French Street,
Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 577-2480
Mr. Ulysses Hammond, Executive Officer, Courts of the District of
Columbia, 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, (202)
879-1700
Mr. Kenneth Palmer, State Courts Administrator, Florida State Courts
System, Supreme Court Building, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900, (904)
922-5081
Mr. Robert L. Doss, Jr., Director, Administrative Office of the
Georgia Courts, The Judicial Council of Georgia, 244 Washington
Street, S.W., Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30334-5900, (404) 656-5171
Administrative Director, Superior Court of Guam, Judiciary Building,
120 West O'Brien Drive, Agana, Guam 96910, 011 (671) 475-3544
Mr. Michael F. Broderick, Administrative Director of the Courts, 417
S. King Street, Room 206, Honolulu, HI 96813, (808) 539-4900
Ms. Patricia Tobias, Administrative Director of the Courts, Idaho
Supreme Court, 451 West State Street, Boise, ID 83720-0101, (208)
334-2246
Honorable Joseph A. Schillaci, Administrative Director of the
Courts, 222 N. LaSalle Street, 13th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, (312)
793-8191
Ms. Lilia G. Judson, Acting Executive Director, Supreme Court of
Indiana, 115 W. Washington, Suite 1080, Indianapolis, IN 46204-3417,
(317) 232-2542
Mr. William J. O'Brien, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Iowa, State House, Des Moines, IA 50319, (515) 281-5241
Dr. Howard P. Schwartz, Judicial Administrator, Kansas Judicial
Center, 301 West 10th Street, Topeka, KS 66612, (913) 296-4873
Mr. Paul F. Isaacs, Administrative Director, Administrative Office
of the Courts, 100 Mill Creek Park, Frankfort, KY 40601-9230, (502)
573-2350
Dr. Hugh M. Collins, Judicial Administrator, Supreme Court of
Louisiana, 301 Loyola Avenue, Room 109, New Orleans, LA 70112, (504)
568-5747
Mr. James T. Glessner, State Court Administrator, Administrative
Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 4820, Downtown Station, Portland, ME
04112-4820, (207) 822-0792
Mr. George B. Riggin, Jr., State Court Administrator, Administrative
Office of the Courts, Courts of Appeal Bldg., 361 Rowe Boulevard,
Annapolis, MD 21401, (410) 974-2141
Honorable John J. Irwin, Jr., Chief Justice for Administration and
Management, The Trial Court, Administrative Office of the Trial
Court, Two Center Plaza, Suite 540, Boston, MA 02108, (617) 742-8575
Mr. John D. Ferry, Jr., State Court Administrator, Michigan Supreme
Court, 309 N. Washington Square, P.O. Box 30048, Lansing, MI 48909,
(517) 373-0130
Ms. Sue K. Dosal, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Minnesota, 25 Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155, (617) 296-
2474
Mr. Richard Patt, Acting Director, Administrative Office of the
Courts, Supreme Court of Mississippi, P.O. Box 117, Jackson, MS
39205, (601) 354-7408
Mr. Ron Larkin, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Missouri, P.O. Box 104480, Jefferson City, MO 65110, (314) 751-3585
Mr. Patrick A. Chenovick, State Court Administrator, Montana Supreme
Court, Justice Building, Room 315, 215 North Sanders, Helena, MT
59620-3001, (406) 444-2621
Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Nebraska, State Capitol Building, Room 1220, Lincoln, NE 68509,
(404) 471-3730
Ms. Georgia J. Rohrs, Acting State Court Administrator,
Administrative Office of the Courts, Capitol Complex, Carson City,
NV 89710, (702) 687-5076
Mr. Donald Goodnow, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of New
Hampshire, Frank Rowe Kenison Building, Concord, NH 03301, (603)
271-2521
Mr. James J. Ciancia, Administrative Director, Administrative Office
of the Courts, CN-037, RJH Justice Complex, Trenton, NJ 08625, (609)
984-0275,
Honorable Jonathan Lippman, Chief Administrative Judge, Office of
Court Administration, 270 Broadway, New York, NY 10007, (212) 417-
2007
Mr. John M. Greacen, State Court Administrator, Administrative
Office of the Courts, Supreme Court of New Mexico, Supreme Court
Building, Room 25, Sante Fe, NM 87503, (505) 827-4800
Mr. Dallas A. Cameron, Jr., Administrative Director, Administrative
Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 2448, Raleigh, NC 27602, (919) 733-
7107
Mr. Keithe E. Nelson, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
North Dakota, State Capitol Building, Bismarck, ND 58505, (701) 328-
4216
Mr. Stephan W. Stover, Administrative Director of the Courts,
Supreme Court of Ohio, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street,
Columbus, OH 43266-0419, (614) 466-2653
Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Administrative Director, Administrative
Office of the Courts, 1925 N. Stiles, Suite 305, Oklahoma City, OK
73105, (405) 521-2450
Ms. Kingsley Click, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Oregon, Supreme Court Building, Salem, OR 97310, (503) 986-5900
Ms. Nancy M. Sobolevitch, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414, Philadelphia, PA 19102,
(215) 560-6337
Dr. Robert C. Harrall, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, RI 02903, (401) 277-
3263
Mr. George A. Markert, Director, South Carolina Court
Administration, P.O. Box 50447, Columbia, SC 29250, (803) 734-1800
Mr. Michael L. Buenger, State Court Administrator, Unified Judicial
System, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501, (605) 773-3474
[[Page 51962]]
Mr. Charles E. Ferrell, Administrative Director of the Courts,
Nashville City Center, Suite 600, 511 Union Street, Nashville, TN
37243-0607, (615) 741-2687
Mr. Jerry L. Benedict, Administrative Director, Office of Court
Administration of the Texas Judicial System, 205 West 14th Street,
Suite 600, Austin, TX 78701, (512) 463-1625
Mr. Daniel Becker, State Court Administrator, Administrative Office
of the Courts, 230 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84102, (801)
578-3800
Mr. Lee Suskin, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Vermont, 109
State Street, Montpelier, VT 05602, (802) 828-3278
Ms. Viola E. Smith, Clerk of the Court/ Administrator, Territorial
Court of the Virgin Islands, P.O. Box 70, Charlotte Amalie, St.
Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801, (809) 774-6680, ext. 248
Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of
Virginia, 100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor, Richmond, VA 23219,
(804) 786-6455
Ms. Mary C. McQueen, Administrator for the Courts, Supreme Court of
Washington, P.O. Box 41174, Olympia, WA 98504, (360) 357-2121
Mr. Ted J. Philyaw, Administrative Director of the Courts, E-400,
State Capitol Bldg., 1900 Kanawha Blvd., East Charleston, WV 25305,
(304) 558-0145
Mr. J. Denis Moran, Director of State Courts, P.O. Box 1688,
Madison, WI 53701-1688, (608) 266-6828
Mr. Allen C. Johnson, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Wyoming,
Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, WY 82002, (307) 777-7480
Appendix II--SJI Libraries Designated Sites and Contacts
Alabama
Supreme Court Library
Mr. William C. Younger, State Law Librarian, Alabama Supreme Court
Bldg., 445 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36130, (205) 242-4347
Alaska
Anchorage Law Library
Ms. Cynthia S. Petumenos, State Law Librarian, Alaska Court
Libraries, 303 K Street, Anchorage, AL 99501, (907) 264-0583
Arizona
State Law Library
Ms. Arlene Bansal, Collection Development, Research Division,
Arizona Dept. of Library, Archives and Public Records, State Law
Library, 1501 W. Washington, Phoenix, AZ 85007, (602) 542-4035
Arkansas
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, Supreme Court of Arkansas,
Administrative Office of the Courts, Justice Building, 625 Marshall,
Little Rock, AR 72201-1078, (501) 376-6655
California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court Administrator, Administrative
Office of the Courts, 303 Second Street, South Tower, San Francisco,
CA 94107, (415) 396-9100
Colorado
Supreme Court Library
Ms. Frances Campbell, Supreme Court Law Librarian, Colorado State
Judicial Building, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, (303) 837-
3720
Connecticut
State Library
Mr. Richard Akeroyd, State Librarian, 231 Capital Avenue, Hartford,
CT 06106, (860) 566-4301
Delaware
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. Michael E. McLaughlin, Deputy Director, Administrative Office of
the Courts, Carvel State Office Building, 820 North French Street,
11th Floor, P.O. Box 8911, Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 571-2480
District of Columbia
Executive Office, District of Columbia Courts
Mr. Ulysses Hammond, Executive Officer, Courts of the District of
Columbia, 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)
879-1700
Florida
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. Kenneth Palmer, State Court Administrator, Florida State Courts
System, Supreme Court Building, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900, (904)
488-8621
Georgia
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. Robert Doss, Jr., Administrative Director, Administrative Office
of the Courts, The Judicial Council of Georgia, 244 Washington St.,
S.W.,, Suite 550, Atlanta, GA 30334-5900, (404) 656-5171
Hawaii
Supreme Court Library
Ms. Ann Koto, State Law Librarian, The Supreme Court Law Library,
Judiciary Building, P.O. Box 2560, Honolulu, HI 96804, (808) 548-
4605
Idaho
AOC Judicial Education Library/State Law Library
Ms. Laura Pershing, State Law Librarian, Idaho State Law Library,
Supreme Court Building, 451 West State St., Boise, ID 83720, (208)
334-3316
Illinois
Supreme Court Library
Ms. Brenda Larison, Supreme Court Library, Supreme Court Building,
Springfield, IL 62701-1791, (217) 782-2424
Indiana
Supreme Court Library
Ms. Constance Matts, Supreme Court Librarian, Supreme Court Library,
State House, Indianapolis, IN 46204, (317) 232-2557
Iowa
Administrative Office of the Court
Dr. Jerry K. Beatty, Executive Director, Judicial, Education &
Planning, Administrative Office of the Courts, State Capital
Building, Des Moines, IA 50319, (515) 281-8279
Kansas
Supreme Court Library
Mr. Fred Knecht, Law Librarian, Kansas Supreme Court Library, 301
West 10th Street, Topeka, KS 66614, (913) 296-3257
Kentucky
State Law Library
Ms. Sallie Howard, State Law Librarian, State Law Library, State
Capital, Room 200-A, Frankfort, KY 40601, (502) 564-4848
Louisiana
State Law Library
Ms. Carol Billings, Director, Louisiana Law Library, 301 Loyola
Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70112, (504) 568-5705
Maine
State Law and Legislative Reference Library
Ms. Lynn E. Randall, State Law Librarian, State House Station 43,
Augusta, ME 04333, (207) 289-1600
Maryland
State Law Library
Mr. Michael S. Miller, Director, Maryland State Law Library, Court
of Appeal Building, 361 Rowe Boulevard, Annapolis, MD 21401, (301)
974-3395
Massachusetts
Middlesex Law Library
Ms. Sandra Lindheimer, Librarian, Middlesex Law Library, Superior
Court House, 40 Thorndike Street, Cambridge, MA 02141, (617) 494-
4148
Michigan
Michigan Judicial Institute
Mr. Leonard Kowalski, Michigan Judicial Institute, 222 Washington
Square North, P.O. Box 30205, Lansing, MI 48909, (517) 334-7804
Minnesota
State Law Library (Minnesota Judicial Center)
Mr. Marvin R. Anderson, State Law Librarian, Supreme Court of
Minnesota, 25 Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155, (612) 297-
2084
Mississippi
Mississippi Judicial College
Leslie Johnson, Director, University of Mississippi, P.O. Box 8850,
University, MS 38677, (601) 982-6590
[[Page 51963]]
Montana
State Law Library
Ms. Judith Meadows, State Law Librarian, State Law Library of
Montana, 215 North Sanders, Helena, MT 59620, (406) 444-3660
Nebraska
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Nebraska, Administrative Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 98910,
Lincoln, NE 68509-8910, (402) 471-3730
Nevada
National Judicial College
Honorable V. Robert Payant, President, National Judicial College,
Judicial College Building, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89550,
(702) 784-6747
New Jersey
New Jersey State Library
Mr. Robert L. Bland, Law Coordinator, State of New Jersey,
Department of Education, State Library, 185 West State Street,
CN520, Trenton, NJ 08625, (609) 292-6230
New Mexico
Supreme Court Library
Mr. Thaddeus Bejnar, Librarian, Supreme Court Library, Post Office
Drawer L, Santa Fe, NM 87504, (505) 827-4850
New York
Supreme Court Library
Susan M. Wood, Esq., Principal Law Librarian, New York State
Supreme, Court Law Library, Onondaga County Court House, Syracuse,
NY 13202, (315) 435-2063
North Carolina
Supreme Court Library
Ms. Louise Stafford, Librarian, North Carolina Supreme, Court
Library, P.O. Box 28006, 2 East Morgan Street, Raleigh, NC 27601,
(919) 733-3425
North Dakota
Supreme Court Library
Ms. Marcella Kramer, Assistant Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law
Library, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, 2nd Floor, Judicial Wing,
Bismarck, ND 58505-0530, (701) 224-2229
Northern Mariana Islands
Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands
Honorable Marty W.K. Taylor, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the
Northern Mariana Islands, P.O. Box 2165, Saipan, MP 96950, (670)
234-5275
Ohio
Supreme Court Library
Mr. Paul S. Fu, Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law Library, Supreme
Court of Ohio, 30 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43266-0419, (614)
466-2044
Oklahoma
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Director, Administrative Office of the
Courts, 1915 North Stiles, Suite 305, Oklahoma City, OK 73105, (405)
521-2450
Oregon
Administrative Office of the Courts
Ms. Kingsley Click, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Oregon, Supreme Court Building, 1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97310,
(503) 378-6046
Pennsylvania
State Library of Pennsylvania
Ms. Betty Lutz, Head, Acquisitions Section, State Library of
Pennsylvania, Technical Services, G46 Forum Building, Harrisburg, PA
17105, (717) 787-4440
Puerto Rico
Office of Court Administration
Alfredo Rivera-Mendoza, Esq., Director, Area of Planning and
Management, Office of Court Administration, P.O. Box 917, Hato Rey,
PR 00919
Rhode Island
Roger Williams Law School Library
Mr. Kendall Svengalis, Law Librarian, Licht Judicial Complex, 250
Benefit Street, Providence, RI, (401) 254-4546
South Carolina
Coleman Karesh Law Library (University of South Carolina School of Law)
Mr. Bruce S. Johnson, Law Librarian, Associate Professor of Law,
Coleman Karesh Law Library, U. S. C. Law Center, University of South
Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, (803) 777-5944
Tennessee
Tennessee State Law Library
Ms. Donna C. Wair, Librarian, Tennessee State Law Library, Supreme
Court Building, 401 Seventh Avenue N, Nashville, TN 37243-0609,
(615) 741-2016
Texas
State Law Library
Ms. Kay Schleuter, Director, State Law Library, P.O. Box 12367,
Austin, TX 78711, (512) 463-1722
U.S. Virgin Islands
Library of the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands (St. Thomas)
Librarian, The Library, Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands,
Post Office Box 70, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands 00804
Utah
Utah State Judicial Administration Library
Ms. Debbie Christiansen, Utah State Judicial, Administration
Library, 230 South 500 East, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT 84102,
(801) 533-6371
Vermont
Supreme Court of Vermont
Mr. Lee Suskin, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Vermont, 109
State Street, c/o Pavilion Office Building, Montpelier, VT 05609,
(802) 828-3278
Virginia
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of
Virginia, Administrative Offices, 100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor,
Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786-6455
Washington
Washington State Law Library
Ms. Deborah Norwood, State Law Librarian, Washington State Law
Library, Temple of Justice, P.O. Box 40751, Olympia, WA 98504-0751,
(206) 357-2146
West Virginia
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. Richard H. Rosswurm, Chief Deputy, West Virginia Supreme Court
of Appeals, State Capitol, 1900 Kanawha, Charleston, WV 25305, (304)
348-0145
Wisconsin
State Law Library, Ms. Marcia Koslov, State Law Librarian, State Law
Library, 310E State Capitol, P.O. Box 7881, Madison, WI 53707, (608)
266-1424
Wyoming
Wyoming State Law Library
Ms. Kathy Carlson, Law Librarian, Wyoming State Law Library, Supreme
Court Building, Cheyenne, WY 82002, (307) 777-7509
National
American Judicature Society
Ms. Clara Wells, Assistant for Information and Library Services, 25
East Washington Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60602, (312) 558-
6900
National Center for State Courts
Ms. Peggy Rogers, Acquisitions/Serials Librarian, 300 Newport
Avenue, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798, (804) 253-2000
Jeritt
Ms. Jennae Rozeboom, Project Director, Judicial Education Reference,
Information and Technical Transfer Project (JERITT), Michigan State
University, 560 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, (517) 353-8603
Appendix III--Illustrative List of Model Curricula
The following list includes examples of curricula that have been
developed with support from SJI, that might be--or in some cases
have been--successfully adapted for State-based education programs
for judges and other court personnel. Please refer to Section
II.B.2.b.ii for information on submitting a letter application for a
Curriculum Adaptation Grant. A list of all SJI-supported education
projects is available from the Institute, and on the SJI website --
www.clark.net/pub/sji/. Please also check
[[Page 51964]]
with the JERITT project (517/353-8603) and with your State SJI-
designated library (see Appendix II) for information on other
curricula that may be appropriate for your State's needs.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Judicial Settlement Manual'' from ``Judicial Settlement: Development
of a New Course Module, Film, and Instructional Manual'' (National
Judicial College: SJI-89-089)
Improving the Quality of Dispute Resolution'' (Ohio State University
College of Law: SJI-93-277)
``Comprehensive ADR Curriculum for Judges'' (American Bar
Association: SJI-95-002)
``Domestic Violence and Custody Mediation'' (American Bar
Association: SJI-96-038)
Court Coordination
``Adjudication of Farm Credit Issues'' (Rural Justice Center: SJI-
87-059)
Bankruptcy Issues for State Trial Court Judges'' (American
Bankruptcy Institute: SJI-91-027)
``Intermediate Sanctions Handbook: Experiences and Tools for
Policymakers'' (Center for Effective Public Policy: IAA-88-NIC-001)
``Regional Conference Cookbook: A Practical Guide to Planning and
Presenting a Regional Conference on State-Federal Judicial
Relationships'' (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit: SJI-92-
087)
Court Management
``Managing Trials Effectively: A Program for State Trial Judges''
(National Center for State Courts/National Judicial College: SJI-87-
066/067, SJI-89-054/055, SJI-91-025/026)
``Caseflow Management Principles and Practices'' (Institute for
Court Management/ National Center for State Courts: SJI-87-056)
``Judicial Education Curriculum: Teaching Guides on Court Security,
and Jury Management and Impanelment'' (Institute for Court
Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI-88-053)
``A Manual for Workshops on Processing Felony Dispositions in
Limited Jurisdiction Courts'' (National Center for State Courts:
SJI-90-052)
``Managerial Budgeting in the Courts''; ``Performance Appraisal in
the Courts''; ``Managing Change in the Courts''; ``Court Automation
Design,'' ``Case Management for Trial Judges''; ``Trial Court
Performance Standards'' (Institute for Court Management/National
Center for State Courts: SJI-91-043)
``Implementing the Court-Related Needs of Older Persons and Persons
with Disabilities'' (National Judicial College: SJI-91-054)
``Strengthening Rural Courts of Limited Jurisdiction'' and ``Team
Training for Judges and Clerks'' (Rural Justice Center: SJI-90-014,
SJI-91-082)
``Interbranch Relations Workshop'' (Ohio Judicial Conference: SJI-
92-079)
``Integrating Trial Management and Caseflow Management'' (Justice
Management Institute: SJI-93-214)
``Leading Organizational Change'' (California Administrative Office
of the Courts: SJI-94-068)
``Managing the Complex Case''; ``Privacy Issues in Computerized
Record Keeping'' (National Judicial College: SJI-94-142)
``Employment Responsibilities of State Court Judges'' (National
Judicial College: SJI-95-025)
``Dealing with the Common Law Courts: A Model Curruculum for Judges
and Court Staff'' (Institute for Court Management/National Center
for State Courts: SJI-96-159)
Courts and Communities
``A National Program for Reporting on the Courts and the Law''
(American Judicature Society: SJI-88-014)
``Victim Rights and the Judiciary: A Training and Implementation
Project'' (National ``Organization for Victim Assistance: SJI-89-
083)
``National Guardianship Monitoring Project: Trainer and Trainee's
Manual'' (American Association of Retired Persons: SJI-91-013)
``Access to Justice: The Impartial Jury and the Justice System'' and
``When Implementing the Court-Related Needs of Older People and
Persons with Disabilities: An Instructional Guide'' (National
Judicial College: SJI-91-054)
``You Are the Court System: A Focus on Customer Service'' (Alaska
Court System: SJI-94-048)
``Serving the Public: A Curriculum for Court Employees'' (American
Judicature Society: SJI-96-040)
Diversity, Values, and Attitudes
``Troubled Families, Troubled Judges'' (Brandeis University: SJI-89-
071)
``The Crucial Nature of Attitudes and Values in Judicial Education''
(National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-90-058)
``Enhancing Diversity in the Court and Community'' (Institute for
Court Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI-91-043)
``Cultural Diversity Awareness in Nebraska Courts'' from ``Native
American Alternatives to Incarceration Project'' (Nebraska Urban
Indian Health Coalition: SJI-93-028)
``A Videotape Training Program in Ethics and Professional Conduct
for Nonjudicial Court Personnel'' and ``The Ethics Fieldbook: Tool
For Trainers'' (American Judicature Society: SJI-93-068)
``Court Interpreter Training Course for Spanish Interpreters'
(International Institute of Buffalo: SJI-93-075)
``Doing Justice: Improving Equality Before the Law Through
Literature-Based Seminars for Judges and Court Personnel'' (Brandeis
University: SJI-94-019)
``Race Fairness and Cultural Awareness Faculty Development
Workshop'' (National Judicial College: SJI-93-063)
``Indian Welfare Act''; ``Defendants, Victims, and Witnesses with
Mental Retardation'' (National Judicial College: SJI-94-142)
``Multi-Cultural Training for Judges and Court Personnel'' (St.
Petersburg Junior College: SJI-95-006)
``Ethical Standards for Judicial Settlement: Developing a Judicial
Education Module'' (American Judicature Society: SJI-95-082)
Family Violence and Gender-Related Violence Crime
``National Judicial Response to Domestic Violence: Civil and
Criminal Curricula'' (Family Violence Prevention Fund: SJI-87-061,
SJI-89-070, SJI-91-055).
``Domestic Violence: A Curriculum for Rural Courts'' from ``A
Project to Improve Access to Rural Courts for Victims of Domestic
Violence'' (Rural Justice Center: SJI-88-081)
``Judicial Training Materials on Spousal Support''; ``Family
Violence: Effective Judicial Intervention''; ``Judicial Training
Materials on Child Custody and Visitation'' from ``Enhancing Gender
Fairness in the State Courts'' (Women Judges' Fund for Justice: SJI-
89-062)
``Judicial Response to Stranger and Nonstranger Rape and Sexual
Assault'' (National Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality
for Women and Men: SJI-92-003)
``Domestic Violence & Children: Resolving Custody and Visitation
Disputes'' (Family Violence Prevention Fund: SJI-93-255)
``Adjudicating Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse When Custody Is In
Dispute'' (National Judicial Education Program: SJI 95-019)
``Handling Cases of Elder Abuse: Interdisciplinary Curricula for
Judges and Court Staff'' (American Bar Association: SJI-93-274)
Health and Science
``Medicine, Ethics, and the Law: Preconception to Birth'' (Women
Judges Fund for Justice: SJI-89-062, SJI-91-019)
``Judicial Educator's Workshop Curriculum Guide: Implementing
Medical Legal Training'' from Medical Legal Issues in Juvenile and
Family Courts (National Council for Juvenile and Family Court
Judges: SJI-91-091)
``Environmental Law Resource Handbook'' (University of New Mexico
Institute for Public Law: SJI-92-162)
Judicial Education for Appellate Court Judges
``Career Writing Program for Appellate Judges'' (American Academy of
Judicial Education: SJI-88-086-P92-1)
``Civil and Criminal Procedural Innovations for Appellate Courts''
(National Center for State Courts: SJI-94-002)
Judicial Education Program and Faculty Development
``The Leadership Institute in Judicial Education'' and ``The
Advanced Leadership Institute in Judicial Education'' (University of
Memphis: SJI-91-021)
``Faculty Development Instructional Program'' from ``Curriculum
Review'' (National Judicial College: SJI-91-039)
Orientation and Mentoring of Judges and Court Personnel
``Manual for Judicial Writing Workshop for Trial Judges''
(University of Georgia/
[[Page 51965]]
Colorado Judicial Department: SJI-87-018/019)
``Legal Institute for Special and Limited Jurisdiction Judges''
(National Judicial College: SJI-89-043, SJI-91-040)
``Pre-Bench Training for New Judges'' (American Judicature Society:
SJI-90-028)
A Unified Orientation and Mentoring Program for New Judges of All
Arizona Trial Courts'' (Arizona Supreme Court: SJI-90-078)
``Court Organization and Structure'' (Institute for Court
Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI-91-043)
``Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Decisions'' (National
Judicial College: SJI-91-080)
``New Employee Orientation Facilitators Guide'' from ``The Minnesota
Comprehensive Curriculum Design and Training Program for Court
Personnel'' (Minnesota Supreme Court: SJI-92-155)
``Magistrates Correspondence Course'' (Alaska Court System: SJI-92-
156)
``Computer-Assisted Instruction for Court Employes'' (Utah
Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI-94-012)
``Bench Trial Skills and Demeanor: An Interactive Manual'' (National
Judicial College: SJI 94-058)
``Ethical Issues in the Election of Judges' (National Judicial
College: SJI-94-142)
Juveniles and Families in Court
``Innovative Juvenile and Family Court Training'' (Youth Law Center:
SJI-87-060, SJI-89-039)
``Fundamental Skills Training Curriculum for Juvenile Probation
Officers'' (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges:
SJI-90-017)
``Child Support Across State Lines: The Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act'' from Uniform Interstate Family Support Act:
Development and Delivery of a Judicial Training Curriculum.'' (ABA
Center on Children and the Law: SJI 94-321)
Strategic and Futures Planning
``Minding the Courts into the Twentieth Century'' (Michigan Judicial
Institute: SJI-89-029)
``An Approach to Long-Range Strategic Planning in the Courts''
(Center for Public Policy Studies: SJI-91-045)
Substance Abuse
``Effective Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders: A Review &
Synthesis for Judges and Court Personnel'' (Education Development
Center, Inc.: SJI-90-051)
``Good Times, Bad Times: Drugs, Youth, and the Judiciary''
(Professional Development and Training Center, Inc.: SJI-91-095)
``Gaining Momentum: A Model Curriculum for Drug Courts'' (Florida
Office of the State Courts Administrator: SJI-94-291)
``Judicial Response to Substance Abuse: Children, Adolescents, and
Families'' (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges:
SJI-95-030)
Appendix IV-Illustrative List of Replicable Projects
The following list includes examples of projects undertaken with
support from SJI/that might be--or in some cases have been--
successfully adapted and replicated in other in other jurisdictions.
Please see Section II.C.1. for information on submitting a concept
paper requesting a grant to replicate one of these or another SJI-
supported project. A list of all SJI-supported projects is available
from the Institute and on the Institute's website --www.clark.net/pub/
sji.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Computerized Citizen Intake and Referral Service
Grantee: District of Columbia Courts
Contact: Charles Bethell, 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC
20001, (202) 879-1479
Grant No: SJI-93-211
Application of Technology
File Transfer Technology Application in Use of Court Information
Grantee: South Carolina Bar
Contact: Yvonne Visser, 950 Taylor Street, P.O. Box 608, Columbia,
SC 29202-0608, (803) 799-6653
Grant Nos: SJI-91-088; SJI-91-088-P93-1; SJI-91-088-P94-1
Managing Documents with Imaging Technology
Grantee: Alaska Judicial Council
Contact: William T. Cotton, 1029 W. Third Avenue, Suite 201,
Anchorage, AK 99501-1917, (907) 279-2526
Grant No: SJI-92-083
Automated Teller Machines for Juror Payment
Grantee: District of Columbia Courts
Contact: Philip Braxton 500, Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC
20001, (202) 879-1700,
Grant No: SJI-92-139
Children and Families in Court
A Day in Court: A Child's Perspective
Grantee: Massachusetts Trial Court
Contact: Hon. John Irwin, 2 Center Plaza, Boston, MA 02108, (617)
742-8575,
Grant No: SJI-91-079
Parent Education and Custody Effectiveness (PEACE) Program
Grantee: Hofstra University
Contact: Andrew Shephard, 1000 Fulton Avenue, Hampstead, NY 11550-
1090, (516) 463-5890
Grant No: SJI-93-265
Court Management and Planning
Measurement of Trial Court Performance
Grantee: Washington Administrative Office for the Courts
Contact: Yvonne Pettus, 1206 S. Quince Street, Olympia, WA 98504
Grant No: SJI-91-017; SJI-91-017-P92-1
Measurement of Trial Court Performance
Grantee: New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts
Contact: Theodore J. Fetter, CN-037, RJH Justice Complex, Trenton,
NJ 08625
Grant No: SJI-91-023; SJI-91-023-P93-1
Measurement of Trial Court Performance
Grantee: Ohio Supreme Court,
Contact: Stephan W. Stover, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad
Street, Columbus, OH 43266-0419
Grant No: SJI-91-024; SJI-91-024-P93-1
Measurement of Trial Court Performance
Grantee: Supreme Court of Virginia
Contact: Beatrice Monahan, 100 North Ninth Street Third Floor,
Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786-6455
Grant No: SJI-91-042; SJI-91-042-P93-1
Probate Caseflow Management Project
Grantee: Ohio Supreme Court/Trumball County Probate Court
Contact: Susan Lightbody, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44481,
(216) 675-2566
Grant No: SJI-92-081; SJI-92-081-P94-1; SJI-92-081-P95-1
Implementing Quality Methods in Court Operations
Grantee: Oregon Supreme Court
Contact: Scott Crampton, Supreme Court Building, Salem, OR 97310,
(503) 378-5845
Grant No: SJI-92-170
Implementing Strategic Planning in the Trial Courts
Grantee: Center for Public Policy Studies
Contact: David Price, 999 18th Street, Suite 900, Denver, CO 80202,
(303) 863-0900
Grant No: SJI-94-021
Courts and Communities
AARP Volunteers: A Resource for Strengthening Guardianship Services
Grantee: American Association of Retired Persons
Contact: Wayne Moore, 601 E Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20049,
(202) 434-2165
Grant Nos: SJI-88-033 /SJI-91-013
Establishing a Consumer Research and Service Development Process Within
the Judicial System
Grantee: Supreme Court of Virginia
Contact: Beatrice Monahan, Administrative Offices, Third Floor, 100
North Ninth Street, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786-6455
Grant No: SJI-89-068
Housing Court Video Project
Grantee: Association of the Bar of the City of New York
Contact: Marilyn Kneeland, 42 West 44th Street, New York, NY 10036-
6690, (212) 382-6620
Grant No: SJI-90-041
Tele-Court: A Michigan Judicial System Public Information Program
Grantee: Michigan Supreme Court
Contact: Judy Bartell, State Court Administrative Office, 611 West
Ottawa Street, P.O. Box 30048, Lansing, MI 48909, (517) 373-0130
Grant No: SJI-91-015
Arizona Pro Per Information System (QuickCourt)
Grantee: Arizona Supreme Court
Contact: Jeannie Lynch, Administrative Office of the Court, 1501
West Washington
[[Page 51966]]
Street, Suite 411, Phoenix, AZ 85007-3330, (602) 542-9554
Grant No: SJI-91-084
Automated Public Information System
Grantee: California Administrative Office of the Courts
Contact: Mark Greenia, Sacramento Superior and Municipal Court, 303
Second Street, South Tower, San Francisco, CA 94107, (916) 440-7590
Grant No: SJI-91-093
Using Judges and Court Personnel To Facilitate Access to Courts by
Limited English Speakers
Grantee: Washington Office of the Administrator for the Courts
Contact: Joanne Moore, 1206 South Quince Street, P.O. Box 41170,
Olympia, WA 98504-1170, (206) 753-3365
Grant No: SJI-92-147
Pro se Forms and Instructions Packets
Grantee: Michigan Supreme Court
Contact: Pamela Creighton, 611 W. Ottawa Street, Lansing, MI 48909
Grant No: SJI-94-003
Understanding the Judicial Process: A Curriculum and Community Service
Program
Grantee: Drake University
Contact: Timothy Buzzell, Opperman Hall, Des Moines, IA 50311, (515)
271-3205
Grant No: SJI-94-022
Court Self-Service Center
Grantee: Maricopa County Superior Court
Contact: Bob James, 201 W. Jefferson, 4th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003,
(602) 506-6314
Grant No: SJI-94-324
Sentencing
Court Probation Enhancement Through Community Involvement
Grantee: Volunteers in Prevention, Probation and Prisons, Inc.
Contact: Gerald Dash, 163 Madison, Suite 120, Detroit, MI 48226,
(313) 964-1110
Grant No: SJI-91-073
Facilitating the Appropriate Use of Intermediate Sanctions
Grantee: Center for Effective Public Policy
Contact: Peggy McGarry, 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 720, (301) 589-
9383
Grant No: SJI-95-078
Substance Abuse
Alabama Alcohol and Drug Abuse Court Referral Officer Program
Grantee: Alabama Administrative Office of the Courts
Contact: Angelo Trimble, 817 South Court Street, Montgomery, AL
36130-0101, (334) 834-7990
Grant Nos: SJI-88-030/SJI-89-080/SJI-90-005
Substance Abuse Assessment and Intervention to Reduce Driving Under the
Influence of Alcohol Recidivism
Grantee: California Administrative Office of the Courts c/o El Cajon
Municipal Court
Contact: Fred Lear, 250 E. Main Street, El Cajon, CA 92020, (619)
441-4336
Grant No: SJI-88-029/SJI-90-008
Court Referral Officer Program
Grantee: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Contact: Jim Kelley, Supreme Court Building, Concord, NH 03301,
(603) 271-2521
Grant No: SJI-92-142
Appendix V
(Form S1)
State Justice Institute
Scholarship Application
This application does not serve as a registration for the
course. Please contact the education provider.
Applicant Information
1. Applicant Name:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Last) (First) (M)
2. Position:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Name of Court:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Address:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Street/P.O. Box
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City State Zip Code
5. Telephone No.-------------------------------------------------------
6. Congressional District:---------------------------------------------
Program Information
7. Course Name:--------------------------------------------------------
8. Course Dates:-------------------------------------------------------
9. Course Provider:----------------------------------------------------
10. Location Offered:--------------------------------------------------
Estimated Expenses: (Please note, scholarships are limited to
tuition and transportation expenses to and from the site of the
course up to a maximum of $1,500.)
Tuition: $-------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation: $------------------------------------------------------
(Airfare,trainfare, or if you plan to drive, an amount equal to the
approximate distance and mileage rate.)
Amount Requested: $----------------------------------------------------
State Justice Institute
1650 King Street, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314
Additional Information: Please attach a current resume or
professional summary, and answer the following questions. (You may
attach additional pages if necessary.)
1. How will taking this course benefit you, your court, and the
State's courts generally?
2. Is there any education or training currently available
through your State on this topic?
3. How will you apply what you have learned? Please include any
plans you may have to develop/teach a course on this topic in your
jurisdiction/State, provide in-service training, or otherwise
disseminate what you have learned to colleagues.
4. Are State or local funds available to support your attendance
at the proposed course? If so, what amount(s) will be provided?
5. How long have you served as a judge or court manager?
6. How long do you anticipate serving as a judge or court
manager, assuming reelection or reappointment?
7. What continuing professional education programs have you
attended in the past year? Please indicate which were mandatory (M)
and which were non-mandatory (V).
Statement of Applicant's Commitment
If a scholarship is awarded, I will submit an evaluation of the
educational program to the State Justice Institute and to the Chief
Justice of my State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Please return this form and Form S-2 to: State Justice
Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria Virginia 22314.
(Form S2)
State Justice Institute
Scholarship Application
Concurrence
I,-------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Chief Justice (or Chief Justice's Designee)
have reviewed the application for a scholarship to attend the
program entitled
----------------------------------------------------------------------
prepared by------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Applicant
and concur in its submission to the State Justice Institute. The
applicant's participation in the program would benefit the State;
the applicant's absence to attend the program would not present an
undue hardship to the court; and receipt of a scholarship would not
diminish the amount of funds made available by the State for
judicial education.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Appendix VI--Line-Item Budget Form
For Concept Papers, Curriculum Adaptation and Technical
Assistance Grant Requests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category SJI funds Cash match In-kind match
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel........................ $ $ $
Fringe Benefits.................. $ $ $
[[Page 51967]]
Consultant/Contractual........... $ $ $
Travel........................... $ $ $
Equipment........................ $ $ $
Supplies......................... $ $ $
Telephone........................ $ $ $
Postage.......................... $ $ $
Printing/Photocopying............ $ $ $
Audit............................ $ $ $
Other............................ $ $ $
Indirect Costs (%)............... $ $ $
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ $ $ $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Total: $-------------------------------------------------------
Financial assistance has been or will be sought for this project
from the following other sources:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Concept papers requesting an acccelerated award, Curriculum
Adaptation grant requests, and Technical Assistance grant requests
should be accompanied by a budget narrative explaining the basis for
each line-item listed in the proposed budget.
Appendix VII
State Justice Institute
Certificate of State Approval
The--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of State Supreme Court or Designated Agency or Council
has reviewed the application entitled----------------------------------
prepared by------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Applicant
approves its submission to the State Justice Institute, and
[ ] agrees to receive and administer and be accountable for all
funds awarded by the Institute pursuant to the application.
[ ] designates
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Trial or Appellate Court or Agency
as the entity to receive, administer, and be accountable for all
funds awarded by the Institute pursuant to the application.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
[FR Doc. 97-26111 Filed 10-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-P
