03-24592. Grant Guideline

AGENCY:

State Justice Institute.

ACTION:

Proposed grant Guideline.

SUMMARY:

This Guideline sets forth the administrative, programmatic, and financial requirements attendant to Fiscal Year 2004 State Justice Institute grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.

DATES:

The Institute invites public comment on the Guideline until November 3, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

Comments should be mailed to the State Justice Institute, 1650 King St. (Suite 600), Alexandria, VA 22314, or e-mailed to [e-mail].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David I. Tevelin, Executive Director, or Kathy Schwartz, Deputy Director, State Justice Institute, 1650 King St. (Suite 600), Alexandria, VA 22314, [phone].

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.

Types of Grants Available and Funding Schedules

SJI proposes to offer five types of grants in FY 2004: Project Grants, Technical Assistance (TA) Grants, Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance (JBE TA) grants, Continuation Grants, and Scholarships.

Project Grants. Project Grants are awarded to support innovative education, research, demonstration, and technical assistance projects that can improve the administration of justice in State courts nationwide. As provided in section V.C. of the Guideline, Project Grants may ordinarily not exceed $150,000 a year; however, grants in excess of $100,000 are likely to be rare, and awarded only to support projects likely to have a significant national impact.

SJI also awards “think piece” Project Grants to support the development of essays of publishable quality that explore emerging issues that could result in significant changes in court processes or judicial administration. “Think pieces” are limited to no more than $10,000. See section II.B.

Special Interest Categories. Project Grants, including “think piece” grants, would be awarded only for projects that fall within one of the Guideline's five Special Interest categories: Access to the Courts, Application of Technology in the Courts, Children and Families in Court, Judicial Branch Education, and the Relationship Between State and Federal Courts. These are the same categories included in last year's Guideline; however, specific topics of interest within each category have been changed.

The deadline for submitting a Project Grant application is February 13, 2004. The Board of Directors will meet in early May 2004 to approve grant awards. See section VI.A. for Project Grant application procedures.

Technical Assistance Grants. Section II.D. reserves up to $200,000 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 by September 26, 2003 will be notified of the Board's decision by December 5, 2003. Those submitting letters between September 27, 2003 and January 9, 2004 will be notified by April 2, 2004; those submitting letters between January 10 and February 27, 2004 will be notified by June 11, 2004; those submitting letters between February 28 and June 4, 2004 will be notified by August 27, 2004; and those submitting letters between June 5 and September 24, 2004 will be notified of the Board's decision by December 10, 2004. See section VI.D. for Technical Assistance Grant application procedures.

Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants. Up to $150,000 would be allocated for grants under the JBE TA grant program this year. Grants of up to $20,000 would be available to: (1) Enable a State or local court to adapt and deliver an education program that was previously developed and evaluated under an SJI project grant (i.e., curriculum adaptation); and/or (2) support expert consultation in planning, developing, and administering State judicial branch education programs.

The services available through the expanded program could include consultant assistance in maintaining judicial branch education programming during the current budget crisis, or development of improved methods for evaluating judicial branch education programs. Letters requesting JBE TA Grants may be submitted at any time. The grant cycles for JBE TA Grants are the same as the grant cycles for TA Grants:

Applicants submitting letters by September 26, 2003 will be notified of the Board's decision by December 5, 2003. Those submitting letters between September 27, 2003 and January 9, 2004 will be notified by April 2, 2004; those submitting letters between January 10 and February 27, 2004 will be notified by June 11, 2004; those submitting letters between February 28 and June 4, 2004 will be notified by August 27, 2004; and those submitting letters between June 5 and September 24, 2004 will be notified of the Board's decision by December 10, 2004. See section VI.E. for JBE TA Grant application procedures.

Scholarships. The Guideline allocates up to $150,000 of FY 2004 funds for scholarships to enable judges and court managers to attend out-of-State education and training programs.

Scholarships for eligible applicants are approved largely on a “first come, first served” basis, although the Institute may approve or disapprove scholarship requests in order to achieve appropriate balances on the basis of geography, program provider, and type of court or applicant (e.g., trial judge, appellate judge, trial court administrator). Scholarships will be approved only for programs that either (1) address topics included in the Guideline's Special Interest categories (section II.A.); (2) enhance the skills of judges and court managers; or (3) are part of a graduate degree program for judges or court personnel.

Applicants interested in obtaining a scholarship for a program beginning between January 1 and March 31, 2004 must submit their applications and documents between October 6 and December 1, 2003. Applicants who wish to attend programs beginning between April 1 and June 30, 2004 must submit their applications and documents between January 5 and March 1, 2004. For programs beginning between July 1 and September 30, 2004, the applications and documents must be submitted between April 5 and May 31, 2004. For programs beginning between October 1 and December 31, 2004, the applications and documents must be submitted between July 6 and August 30, 2004. For programs beginning between January 1 and March 31, 2005, the applications and documents must be submitted between October 4 and November 29, 2004. See section VI.F. for Scholarship application procedures.

Continuation Grants. Continuation Grants (see sections III.D., V.B.2., and VI.C.) are intended to enhance the specific program or service begun during the initial project grant period. The Guideline establishes a firm limit for Continuation Grants of 20% of the total amount projected to be available for all Project Grants in FY 2004. Grantees should accordingly be aware that the award of a grant to support a project does not constitute a commitment to provide continuation funding. Under the Proposed Guideline, no grant awarded in FY 2004 would be continued for more than five years.

An applicant for a Continuation 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 Continuation Grant application.

Matching Requirements

With the exception of JBE TA grantees, grantees that can demonstrate a financial hardship, and Scholarship recipients, the Guideline proposes that all grantees must provide match, including cash match, for any Institute grant. The matching requirements are summarized below:

State and local units of government. The Guideline would require these grantees to provide matching support equal to 50% of a new SJI-funded project. For example, if a State court system receives a $100,000 grant from the Institute, it would be required to provide a $50,000 match. A State or local unit of government would have to provide at least 20% of the required match for a new grant ($10,000 in the example) in the form of cash rather than in-kind support (e.g., the value of staff time contributed to the project).

All other grantees. The Guideline would require all other grantees to contribute a match of 25% to a new SJI-funded project. For example, if a non-profit organization receives a $100,000 grant from SJI, it would be required to provide a $25,000 match. A non-profit would have to provide at least 10% of the required match for a new grant ($2,500 in the example) in the form of cash.

The amount and nature of unrequired match contributed by applicants would continue to be factors the Board of Directors considers in making grant decisions. Like last year, applicants may request a waiver of the match requirement, the cash match requirement, or both. See section VIII.A.8.c.

Continuation Grants. Under section VIII.A.8., all grantees would be required to assume a greater share of project support over time. State and local units of government would be required to provide match equaling at least 50% of the amount provided by SJI in the first year of the project, 60% in the second year, 75% in the third year, 90% in the fourth year, and 100% in the fifth year. For example, if SJI awards a State court $100,000 for the first year of a grant, the court would be required to provide $50,000 in match. If the second-year grant is also $100,000, the court would be required to provide $60,000 in match. A court that wished to limit its second-year contribution to $50,000 could ask SJI for a reduced amount, i.e., $83,333, in order to meet the 60% requirement.

All other grantees would be required to provide match equaling at least 25% of the amount provided by SJI in the first year of the project, 30% in the second year, 37.5% in the third year, 45% in the fourth year, and 50% in the fifth year. For example, if SJI awards a non-profit organization $100,000 for the first year of a grant, the organization would be required to provide $25,000 in match. If the second year grant is also $100,000, the court would be required to provide $30,000 in match. An organization that wished to limit its second-year contribution to $25,000 could ask SJI for a reduced amount, i.e., $83,333, in order to meet the 30% requirement.

Absent extraordinary circumstances, no SJI grant awarded in FY 2004 would continue for more than five years.

Solutions Project

In FY 2003, the Institute allocated approximately $800,000 to support the Solutions Project, a process that will draw on State and local court initiatives to identify and exchange promising solutions to the most critical problems facing the courts, and define a national agenda to improve the quality of justice in State courts nationwide.

Nearly $400,000 of the allocation was awarded in amounts up to $20,000 to 20 States. A list of the States receiving those grants and a description of their projects may be found on the Institute's web site (www.statejustice.org). The remaining FY 2003 money, and an additional $400,000 of FY 2004 money, is reserved for the National Solutions Project that will be carried out under a cooperative agreement among SJI, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), and the Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP). The Board of Directors has approved planning grants to both organizations and anticipates making the next awards to carry out the national aspects of the Project at its meeting in early November.

Issues Highlighted for Public Comment

The Proposed Guideline would make four significant changes from last year's grant program. Three of those changes would reduce the allocations reserved for the Institute's three small grant programs: JBE TA Grants, Technical Assistance Grants, and Scholarships. In order to make the most money possible available for Project Grants, which are designed to have nationwide impact, the Institute would reduce the pool of money available for JBE TA Grants from $300,000 to $150,000; the pool available for Technical Assistance Grants from $300,000 to $200,000; and the amount available for scholarships from $200,000 to $150,000. The reduced amounts to be reserved for each program in FY 2004 still exceed the amounts awarded under each program in FY 2003.

In addition, the Proposed Guideline would not require recipients of JBE TA Grants to provide cash match. The Board of Directors recognizes that the serious budget problems affecting State courts nationwide have sharply reduced the amount of State funds available for judicial branch education. The Board hopes that, by eliminating the cash match requirement for JBE TA grants, more States will seek these grants next fiscal year.

Recommendations to Grantwriters

Recommendations to Grantwriters may be found in Appendix A.

The State Justice Institute proposes the following Grant Guideline for FY 2004:

Table of Contents

I. The Mission of the State Justice Institute

II. Scope of the Program

III. Definitions

IV. Eligibility for Award

V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of Awards

VI. Applications

VII. Application Review Procedures

VIII. Compliance Requirements

IX. Financial Requirements

X. Grant Adjustments

Appendix A Recommendations to Grant Writers

Appendix B Answers to Grantees' Frequently Asked Questions

Appendix C SJI Libraries: Designated Sites and Contacts

Appendix D Illustrative List of Technical Assistance Grants

Appendix E Illustrative List of Model Curricula

Appendix F Project Grant Application Forms (Forms A, B, C, C1, D, and Disclosure of Lobbying Activities)

Appendix G Line-Item Budget Form (Form E)

Appendix H Scholarship Application Forms (Forms S1 and S2)

I. The Mission of the State Justice Institute

The Institute was established by Public Law 98-620 to improve the administration of justice in the State courts of the United States. Incorporated in the State of Virginia as a private, nonprofit corporation, the Institute is charged, by statute, with the responsibility to:

• 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;
• Foster coordination and cooperation with the Federal judiciary;
• Promote recognition of the importance of the separation of powers doctrine to an independent judiciary; and
• 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, 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

As set forth in section I., the Institute is authorized to fund projects addressing a broad range of program areas. However, during FY 2004, the Institute will consider applications for funding support that address only the topics included in the following five program categories designated by the Board as being of special interest. Funds will not be made available for the ordinary, routine operation of court systems or programs in any of these areas.

A. Special Interest Program Categories

The Institute is interested in funding both innovative programs and programs of proven merit that can be replicated in other jurisdictions. The Institute is especially interested in funding projects that:

• Formulate new procedures and techniques, or creatively enhance existing procedures and techniques;
• Address aspects of the State judicial systems that are in special need of serious attention;
• Have national significance by developing products, services, and techniques that may be used in other States; and
• 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 it falls within the scope of the Special Interest program categories designated below.

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. For a complete list of projects supported in previous years in each of these categories, please visit the Institute's Internet homepage at http://www.statejustice.org/​ and click on Grants by Category.

1. Access to 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.

The Institute is particularly interested in supporting innovative projects that:

• Test and evaluate approaches permitting self-represented litigants to file pleadings, responses, and other forms electronically;
• Test and evaluate new approaches to enhance public access to the courts, including demonstrations of innovative collaborative efforts between courts and community institutions (e.g., bar associations, legal service agencies, schools, and public libraries) to enhance access to the courts by people without lawyers (in this regard, however, Institute funds may not be used to directly or indirectly support legal representation of individuals in specific cases); and
• Develop and test a range of strategies, methodologies, guidelines, and outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of programs established to assist people without lawyers.

2. Application of Technology in the Courts

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” includes novel applications of technology developed for the private sector that have not previously been applied in the courts.

The Institute is particularly interested in supporting efforts to test and evaluate technologies that would:

• Test and evaluate approaches permitting self-represented litigants to file pleadings, responses, and other forms electronically;
• Demonstrate and evaluate the delivery of technology to rural courts through an Internet-based “application service provider” approach;
• Evaluate approaches for electronically filing pleadings, briefs, and other documents; approaches to integrate electronic filing and electronic document management; and the impact of electronic court record systems on case management and court procedures;
• Test and evaluate the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) software as a means of examining and improving courts' outreach to particular segments of the communities they serve;
• Demonstrate and evaluate the use of expert system technology to assist judicial decision-making; and
• Evaluate innovative applications of technology designed to ensure the safety of all who use and work in the courts.

3. 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 would:

• Test and evaluate different approaches to managing and adjudicating domestic violence cases, including domestic violence courts; integrated case management information systems; collaborations among courts, law enforcement agencies, social service agencies, women's shelters, victims support and advocacy organizations, and others; and other innovative practices intended to improve the courts' response to domestic violence.
• Demonstrate and evaluate innovative approaches to manage and coordinate cases and proceedings involving multiple members of the same family;
• Demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness of a “one social worker/one family” or judge-social worker team approach to handling child abuse and neglect cases;
• Develop and test innovative protocols, procedures, educational programs, and other measures to 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;
• Educate judges about how to interpret and evaluate evidence presented by psychologists, psychiatrists, and other professionals appearing in child custody and visitation cases involving domestic violence between the parents;
• Develop and test the implementation of a differentiated case management system for handling child custody disputes;
• Develop and evaluate educational programs addressing a collaborative community approach to reducing and preventing domestic violence for a multidisciplinary audience that includes judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, victim advocates, doctors, and social services providers;
• Evaluate the impact of court policies and procedures and collaborative community approaches designed to ensure that juvenile sex offenders have access to an appropriate array of services; and
• Create and test educational programs, guidelines, and monitoring systems to assure that the juvenile justice system meets the needs of girls and children of color.

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.)

4. Judicial Branch Education

The Institute is interested in supporting 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 three subsections: (a) Innovative Educational Programs; (b) Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Projects; and (c) Scholarships.

a. Innovative Educational Programs. This category includes support for the development and pilot-testing of innovative, high-quality educational programs for trial and appellate judges or court personnel that address key 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 an assessment of the needs of the target audience; include clearly stated learning objectives that delineate the new knowledge or skills participants will acquire (as opposed to a description of what will be taught); incorporate adult education principles and multiple teaching/learning methods; and result in the development of a curriculum as defined in section III.E.

The Institute is particularly interested in supporting the development of programs that:

• Educate judges and court personnel about how to design and sustain problem-solving courts;
• Educate State court judges, law clerks, and staff counsel about capital case law, DNA evidence, and other legal and scientific issues related to the trial and appeal of capital cases;
• Educate State court judges and court personnel about special problems related to the adjudication of capital cases, including jury voir dire, jury sequestration, sentencing hearings, court security, and media management; and
• Develop and test curricula and materials designed to familiarize judges and court managers with the need for and key elements of effective assistance programs for people without lawyers, and the resources required to sustain them.

b. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Projects. The Board is reserving up to $150,000 to support technical assistance and on-site consultation in planning, developing, and administering comprehensive and specialized State judicial branch education programs, as well as the adaptation of model curricula previously developed with SJI funds.

The goals of the Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Program (JBE TA) in FY 2004 are to:

(1) Provide State and local courts with the opportunity to access expert strategic assistance to enable them to maintain judicial branch education programming during the current budget crisis; and

(2) Enable courts to modify a model curriculum, course module, or conference program developed with SJI funds to meet a particular State's or local jurisdiction's educational needs; train instructors to present portions or all of the curriculum; and pilot-test it to determine its appropriateness, quality, and effectiveness. An illustrative but non-inclusive list of the curricula that may be appropriate for adaptation is contained in Appendix E.

Only State or local courts may apply for JBE TA funding. Application procedures may be found in section VI.E. State and local courts are not required to contribute cash match to JBE TA grants.

c. Scholarships for Judges and Court Managers. The Institute is reserving up to $150,000 to support a scholarship program for State judges and court managers. The purposes of the scholarship program are to:

• Enhance the skills, knowledge, 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. Application procedures may be found in section VI.F.

5. 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:

• Evaluate State and Federal courts' experiences with capital cases to identify reasons for reversals of trial court convictions, barriers to timely disposition, and steps that can be taken to minimize reversals and undue delay;
• Educate judges about capital case law, DNA evidence, and judicial administration issues arising from death penalty cases, e.g., court security, jury sequestration, and media management;
• Establish standards for selecting qualified appointed defense counsel in capital cases, and evaluating different appointment approaches;
• Support commissions that involve members of the judiciary in reviewing and remedying errors that led to wrongful convictions in death penalty cases;
• Coordinate and process mass tort cases fairly and efficiently at the trial and appellate levels;
• Provide assistance to courts in developing plans to continue operations in the wake of a catastrophic incident, including establishing lines of succession; and
• Develop effective emergency responses to acts of terrorism.

B. “Think Pieces”

This category addresses the development of essays of publishable quality directed to the court community. The essays should explore emerging issues that could result in significant changes in court process or judicial administration and their implications for the future for judges, court managers, policy-makers, and the public. Grants supporting such projects are limited to no more than $10,000. Applicants should follow the procedures explained in section VI.B. of this Guideline.

Think piece topics are limited to the five Special Interest categories listed in section II.A. of this Guideline. In particular, the Institute is interested in supporting the development of essays on:

• Issues related to the institutionalization and maintenance of drug and other problem-solving courts, e.g., maintaining budgets in fiscally constrained times, finding new sources of money, identifying and selecting new judges while still maintaining the focus of the court and enthusiasm for the concept;
• What the courts have learned from problem-solving approaches that can be applied throughout the court system to enhance public trust and confidence; and
• The advantages, disadvantages, and appropriate use of anonymous juries.

C. The Solutions Project

The Solutions Project is a process intended to infuse the State courts with the ability to develop innovative and creative ways to address the problems they face and provide a mechanism to transfer these ideas throughout the nation. In addition to providing State courts with an array of promising solutions to their most pressing problems, the Solutions Project will generate consensus on projects, ideas, and programs that merit additional Federal funding support because of their broad appeal and promise.

In FY 2003, the Institute awarded close to $400,000 to support Solutions Project grants in 20 States. The grants support events and activities such as town hall meetings, focus groups, surveys, and other initiatives designed to (a) collect information about the problems facing the courts in a particular State, (b) assess the effectiveness of the solutions the court system has developed to respond to those problems, and (c) solicit the public's recommendations about other potential solutions.

The Board of Directors also awarded planning grants to the National Center for State Courts and the Center for Effective Public Policy to design the tasks required to carry out the national aspects of the Project. The Institute has reserved up to $400,000 in FY 03 funds and up to $400,000 in FY 04 funds to support the national phase of The Solutions Project. Visit the SJI Web site (www.statejustice.org) for continuing updates on the Project.

D. Technical Assistance Grants

The Board will set aside up to $200,000 to support the provision of technical assistance to State and local courts. 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 implement any needed changes. The Institute will reserve sufficient funds each quarter to assure the availability of Technical Assistance Grants throughout the year.

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. Normally, the technical assistance must be completed within 12 months after the start date of the grant.

Only a State or local court may apply for a Technical Assistance grant. The application procedures may be found in section VI.D.

III. Definitions

The following definitions apply for the purposes of this Guideline:

A. Acknowledgment of SJI Support

The prominent display of the SJI logo on the front cover of a written product or in the opening frames of a videotape developed with Institute support, and inclusion of a brief statement on the inside front cover or title page of the document or the opening frames of the videotape identifying the grant number. See section VIII.A.11.a.(2) for the precise wording of the statement.

B. Application

A formal request for an Institute grant. A complete application consists of: Form A—Application; Form B—Certificate of State Approval (for applications from local trial or appellate courts or agencies); Form C—Project Budget/Tabular Format or Form C1—Project Budget/Spreadsheet Format; Form D—Assurances; Disclosure of Lobbying Activities; a detailed 25-page description of the need for the project and all related tasks, including the time frame for completion of each task, and staffing requirements; and a detailed budget narrative that provides the basis for all costs. See section VI. for a complete description of application submission requirements. See appendix F for the Project Grant application forms.

C. Close-Out

The process by which the Institute determines that all applicable administrative and financial actions and all required grant work have been completed by both the grantee and the Institute.

D. Continuation Grant

A grant lasting no longer than 15 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. See section VI.C. for a complete description of continuation application requirements.

E. Curriculum

The materials needed to replicate an education or training program developed with grant funds including, but not limited to: The learning objectives; the presentation methods; a sample agenda or schedule; an outline of presentations and relevant 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.

F. 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 SJI grant funds and to receive, administer, and be accountable for those funds.

G. Disclaimer

A brief statement that must be included at the beginning of a document or in the opening frames of a videotape produced with Institute support that specifies that the points of view expressed in the document or tape do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Institute. See section VIII.A.11.a.(2) for the precise wording of this statement.

H. Grant Adjustment

A change in the design or scope of a project from that described in the approved application, acknowledged in writing by the Institute. See section X.A for a list of the types of changes requiring a formal grant adjustment. Ordinarily, changes requiring a Grant Adjustment (including budget reallocations between direct cost categories that individually or cumulatively exceed five percent of the approved original budget) should be requested at least 30 days in advance of the implementation of the requested change.

I. 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.

J. 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.

K. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance (JBE TA) Grant

A grant of up to $20,000 awarded to a State or local court to support expert assistance in designing or delivering judicial branch education programming, and/or the adaptation of an education program based on an SJI-supported curriculum that was previously developed and evaluated under an SJI Project Grant. See section VI.E. for a complete description of JBE TA Grant application requirements.

L. 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. Examples of cash match are the dedication of funds to support a new employee or purchase new equipment to carry out the project; that portion of the grantee's Federally approved indirect cost rate that exceeds the Guideline's limit of permitted charges (75% of salaries and benefits); any other reduction in the indirect cost rate to be charged to the grant; and the application of project income (e.g., tuition or the proceeds of sales of grant products) generated during the grant period to grant costs.

In-kind match consists of contributions of time and/or services of current staff members, 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 the time of participants attending an education program.

See section VIII.A.8. for the Institute's matching requirements.

M. 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.

N. Project Grant

An initial grant lasting up to 15 months to support an innovative education, research, demonstration, or technical assistance project that can improve the administration of justice in State courts nationwide. Ordinarily, a project grant may not exceed $150,000 a year; however, a grant in excess of $100,000 is likely to be rare and awarded only to support highly promising projects that will have a significant national impact. See section VI.A. for a complete description of Project Grant application requirements.

O. Project-Related Income

Interest, royalties, registration and tuition fees, proceeds from the sale of products, and other earnings generated as a result of an Institute grant. Registration and tuition fees, and proceeds from the sale of products generated during the grant period may be counted as match. For a more complete description of different types of project-related income, see section IX.G.

P. Scholarship

A grant of up to $1,500 awarded to a judge or court employee to cover the cost of tuition for and transportation to and from an out-of-State educational program within the United States. See section VI.F. for a complete description of scholarship application requirements.

Q. Special Condition

A requirement attached to a grant award that is unique to a particular project.

R. 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 means 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.

S. Subgrantee

A State or local court which receives Institute funds through the State Supreme Court.

T. Technical Assistance Grant

A grant, lasting up to 12 months, of up to $30,000 to a State or local court to support outside expert assistance in diagnosing a problem and developing and implementing a response to that problem. See section VI.D. for a complete description of technical assistance grant application requirements.

IV. Eligibility for Award

The Institute is authorized by Congress to award grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to the following entities and types of organizations:

A. State and local courts and their agencies (42 U.S.C.10705(b)(1)(A)). 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 IX.C.2. of this Guideline.

B. 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)).

C. 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 is 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.

D. Other eligible grant recipients (42 U.S.C.10705(b)(2)(A)-(D)).

1. Provided that the objectives of the project can be served better, the Institute is also authorized to make awards to:

a. Nonprofit organizations with expertise in judicial administration;

b. institutions of higher education;

c. individuals, partnerships, firms, corporations (for-profit organizations must waive their fees); and

d. private agencies with expertise in judicial administration.

2. The Institute may also make awards to State or local agencies and institutions other than courts for services that cannot be adequately provided through nongovernmental arrangements (42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(3)).

E. Inter-agency Agreements. The Institute may enter into inter-agency agreements with Federal agencies (42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(4)) and private funders to support projects consistent with the purposes of the State Justice Institute Act.

V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of Awards

A. Types of Projects

The Institute supports the following general types of projects:

1. Education and training;

2. research and evaluation;

3. demonstration; and

4. technical assistance.

B. Types of Grants

The Institute supports the following types of grants:

1. Project Grants

See sections II.A. and B., and VI.A. The Institute places no annual limitations on the overall number of project grant awards or the number of awards in each Special Interest category.

2. Continuation Grants

See sections III.D. and VI.C. In FY 2004, the Institute is allocating no more than 20% of available Project Grant funds for continuation grants.

3. Technical Assistance Grants

See sections II.D. and VI.D. In FY 2004, the Institute is reserving up to $200,000 for these grants.

4. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants

See sections II.A.4.b., III.K., and VI.E. In FY 2004, the Institute is reserving up to $150,000 for Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants, which includes adaptations of curricula previously developed with SJI funding.

5. Scholarships

See sections II.A.4.c., III.P., and VI.F. In FY 2004, the Institute is reserving up to $150,000 for scholarships for judges and court employees. The Institute will reserve sufficient funds each quarter to assure the availability of scholarships throughout the year.

C. Maximum Size of Awards

1. Except as specified below, applicants for new Project Grants and continuation grants may request funding in amounts up to $150,000 for 15 months, although new and continuation awards in excess of $100,000 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. Applicants for Technical Assistance Grants may request funding in amounts up to $30,000.

3. Applicants for Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants may request funding in amounts up to $20,000.

4. Applicants 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 may not exceed 15 months. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no grant will continue for more than five years.

2. Grant periods for Technical Assistance Grants and Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants ordinarily may not exceed 12 months.

VI. Applications

A. Project Grants

An application for a Project Grant 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 (see below). See appendix F for the Project Grant application forms. For a summary of the application process, visit the Institute's Web site (www.statejustice.org) and click on On-Line Tutorials, then Project Grant.

1. Forms

a. Application Form (FORM A). The application form requests basic information regarding the proposed project, the applicant, and the total amount of funding 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.

b. 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 the Institute approved funding for the project, the court or the specified designee will receive, administer, and be accountable for the awarded funds.

c. 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 VI.A.4. below.)

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.

d. Assurances (FORM D). This form lists the statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements with which recipients of Institute funds must comply.

e. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. Applicants other than units of State or local government are required 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 subjects of their lobbying efforts. (See section VIII.A.7.)

2. Project Abstract

The abstract should highlight the purposes, goals, methods, and anticipated benefits of the proposed project. It should not exceed 1 single-spaced page on 81/2 by 11 inch paper.

3. Program Narrative

The program narrative for an application may not exceed 25 double-spaced pages on 81/2 by 11 inch paper. Margins must be at least 1 inch, and type size must be at least 12-point and 12 cpi. The pages should be numbered. This 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:

a. 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).

b. Program Areas to be Covered. The applicant should note the Special Interest category or categories that are addressed by the proposed project (see section II.A.).

c. Need for the Project. If the project is to be conducted in any 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 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 programs, procedures, services, or other resources cannot adequately resolve those problems. The discussion should include specific references to the relevant literature and to the experience in the field.

d. Tasks, Methods and Evaluation. (1) 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:

(a) 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 protecting others who are not the subjects of research but would be affected by the research. If the potential exists for risk or harm to 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.

(b) 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 would 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 would attend them; the materials to be provided and how they would be developed; and the cost to participants.

(c) 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 would be identified and their cooperation obtained; and how the program or procedures would be implemented and monitored.

(d) For technical assistance projects, the applicant should explain the types of assistance that would be provided; the particular issues and problems for which assistance would be provided; how requests would be obtained and the type of assistance determined; how suitable providers would be selected and briefed; how reports would be reviewed; and the cost to recipients.

(2) Evaluation. Every project 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 ongoing or periodic feedback on the effectiveness or utility of the project in order to promote its continuing improvement. The plan should present the qualifications of the evaluator(s); describe the criteria that would be used to evaluate the project's effectiveness in meeting its objectives; explain how the evaluation would be conducted, including the specific data collection and analysis techniques to be used; discuss why this approach would be 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:

(a) 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.

(b) Education and Training. The most valuable approaches to evaluating educational or training programs 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 of 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 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.

(c) 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, and/or 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, and/or what benefits resulted from the program?); and the replicability of the program or components of the program.

(d) Technical Assistance. For technical assistance projects, applicants should explain how the quality, timeliness, and impact of the assistance provided would be determined, and develop a mechanism for feedback from both the users and providers of the technical assistance.

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 protecting others who are not the subjects of the 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.

e. 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 would 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, would 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.

f. Products. The program narrative in the application should contain a description of the products to be developed (e.g., training curricula and materials, videotapes, articles, manuals, or handbooks), including when they would be submitted to the Institute. The budget should include the cost of producing and disseminating the product to each in-State SJI library (See appendix C), State chief justice, State court administrator, and other appropriate judges or court personnel.

(1) Dissemination Plan. The application must explain how and to whom the products would be disseminated; describe how they would benefit the State courts, including how they could 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 would be offered to the courts community and the public at large (i.e., whether products would 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 VIII.A.11.b.). Ordinarily, applicants should schedule all product preparation and distribution activities within the project period.

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 C.) Applicants proposing to develop web-based products should provide for sending a hard-copy document to the SJI-designated libraries and other appropriate audiences to alert them to the availability of the web site or electronic product (i.e., a written report with a reference to the web site).

Fifteen (15) copies of all project products must be submitted to the Institute, along with an electronic version in .html or .pdf format.

(2) Types of Products and Press Releases. 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 would 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 would make their data available for secondary analysis after the grant period. (See section VIII.A.14.a.).

The curricula and other products developed through education and training projects should be designed for use outside the classroom so that they may be used again by the original participants and others in the course of their duties.

In addition, recipients of project grants must prepare a press release describing the project and announcing the results, and distribute the release to a list of national and State judicial branch organizations. SJI will provide press release guidelines and a list of recipients to grantees at least 30 days before the end of the grant period.

(3) Institute Review. Applicants must submit 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 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. (See section VIII.A.11.e.)

(4) Acknowledgment, Disclaimer, and Logo. Applicants must also include 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 VIII.A.11.a.(2) of the Guideline. The “SJI” logo must appear on the front cover of a written product, or in the opening frames of a video, unless the Institute approves another placement.

g. Applicant Status. An applicant that is not a State or local court and has not received a grant from the Institute within the past three 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.

h. Staff Capability. The applicant should include a summary of the training and experience of the key staff members and 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 would be used to select persons for these positions should be included. The applicant also should identify the person who would be responsible for managing and reporting on the financial aspects of the proposed project.

i. Organizational Capacity. Applicants that have not received a grant from the Institute within the past three years should include a statement describing their capacity to administer grant funds, including the financial systems used to monitor project expenditures (and income, if any), and a summary of their past experience in administering grants, as well as any resources or capabilities that they have that would 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 three 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 present 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.

j. Statement of Lobbying Activities. Non-governmental applicants must submit the Institute's Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Form, which documents 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. See appendix F.

k. 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. To ensure sufficient time to bring them to the Board's attention, letters of support sent under separate cover must be received by March 15, 2004.

4. 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 purchase alcoholic beverages.

a. Justification of Personnel Compensation. The applicant should set forth the percentages of time to be devoted by the individuals who would staff 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 rates of those individuals. The applicant should explain any deviations from current rates or established written organizational 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 would support only the portion of the employee's time that would be dedicated to new or additional duties related to the project.

b. 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.

c. Consultant/Contractual Services and Honoraria. The applicant should describe the tasks each consultant would perform, the estimated total amount to be paid to each consultant, the basis for compensation rates (e. g., the number of days multiplied by the daily consultant rates), and the method for selection. Rates for consultant services must be set in accordance with section IX.I.2.c. 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 more than $900 per day. Honorarium payments must be justified in the same manner as consultant payments.

d. 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.

e. Equipment. Grant funds may be used to purchase only the equipment 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 of automated data processing equipment must comply with section IX.I.2.b.

f. 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.

g. Construction. Construction expenses are prohibited except for the limited purposes set forth in section VIII.A.16.b. Any allowable construction or renovation expense should be described in detail in the budget narrative.

h. 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 to calculate the monthly and long distance estimates.

i. Postage. Anticipated postage costs for project-related mailings, including distribution of the final product(s), 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 budget narrative.

j. Printing/Photocopying. Anticipated costs for printing or photocopying project documents, reports, and publications should be included in the budget narrative, along with the bases used to calculate these estimates.

k. Indirect Costs. Recoverable indirect costs are limited to no more than 75% of a grantee's direct personnel costs (salaries plus fringe benefits). Grantees may apply unrecoverable indirect costs to meet their required matching contributions, including the required level of cash match. See sections III.L. and IX.I.4.

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 project activities), the applicant should specify that these costs are not included within its approved indirect cost rate. These rates must be established in accordance with section IX.I.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.

1. Match. Courts or other units of State or local government (not including publicly supported institutions of higher education) must provide a match from private or public sources of not less than 50% of the total amount of the Institute's award. 42 U.S.C. 10705(d). At least 20% of the required match for a new grant to a court or other unit of State or local government (other than a Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance grant) must be cash. All other grantees (except scholarship recipients and individuals receiving “think piece” grants) must contribute a match of 25% to a new grant; at least 10% of the required match must be cash.

The applicant should describe the source of the matching contribution and the nature of the match provided. Any additional cash and in-kind 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 would be documented for audit purposes. 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 would be made. (See sections III.L., VIII.A.8., and IX.E.1.)

The Institute may waive the match and cash match requirements in certain circumstances. See section VIII.A.8.c.

5. Submission Requirements

a. Every applicant must submit an original and four copies of the application package consisting of FORM A; FORM B, if the application is from a State or local court, or a Disclosure of Lobbying Form, if the applicant is not a unit of State or local government; the Budget Forms (either FORM C or C-1); the Application Abstract; the Program Narrative; the Budget Narrative; and any necessary appendices.

All applications must be sent by first class or overnight mail or by courier no later than February 13, 2004. A postmark or courier receipt will constitute evidence of the submission date. Please mark APPLICATION on the application package envelope and send it to: State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314.

Receipt of each application will be acknowledged in writing. Extensions of the deadline for submission of applications will not be granted without good cause.

b. Applicants submitting more than one application may include material that would be identical in each application in a cover letter. This material will be incorporated by reference into each application and 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.

B. “Think Piece” Applications

1. Purpose and Scope

“Think pieces” are essays of publishable quality directed to the court community. They are intended to explore emerging issues that could result in significant changes in court process or judicial administration and their implications for the future for judges, court managers, policy-makers, and the public.

2. Forms

An application for a “think piece” must include the same forms required for a project grant. See A.1. above in this section.

3. Program Narrative

The program narrative should be no longer than necessary, but must not exceed 8 double-spaced pages on 81/2 by 11 inch paper. Margins must be at least 1 inch and type size must be at least 12 point and 12 cpi. The pages should be numbered. The narrative should:

a. Identify the specific Special Interest category into which the “think piece” would fall;

b. describe the subject it would address;

c. explain how the essay would advance the current state of the art or knowledge about the subject;

d. discuss the benefits that would accrue to the State courts generally as a result of the essay's publication; and

e. outline plans for the publication of the “think piece,” e.g., the intended audience, and the types or titles of periodicals or journals to which it would be submitted.

4. Budget and Budget Narrative

The applicant should provide a complete budget and budget narrative conforming to the requirements set forth in A.4. above in this section; however, individuals proposing to develop “think pieces” are not required to provide match.

5. Submission Requirements

The submission requirements set forth in section VI.A.5 apply to all “think piece” applications.

C. Continuation Grant Applications

1. Purpose

Continuation grants are intended to support projects that carry out the same type of activities carried out under a previous grant. 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.

2. Limitations

The award of an initial grant to support a project does not constitute a commitment by the Institute to continue funding. For a project to be considered for continuation funding, the grantee must have completed all 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. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no grant will continue for more than five years.

3. Letters of Intent

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 continued 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 81/2 by 11 inch paper and 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 must be submitted.

4. 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 A.2. of this section, a program narrative, a budget narrative, a Certificate of State Approval—FORM B (if the applicant is a State or local court), a Disclosure of Lobbying Activities form (from applicants other than units of State or local government), and any necessary appendices. See appendix F for the application forms.

The program narrative should conform to the length and format requirements set forth in section VI.A.3. However, rather than the topics listed there, the program narrative of a continuation application 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 would benefit the participating courts or the courts community generally, by explaining, for example, how the original goals and objectives of the project would be unfulfilled if it were not continued; or how the value of the project would be enhanced by its continuation.

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 available, and how they would be addressed during the proposed continuation. If the findings are not yet available, the applicant should provide the date by which they would 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 would 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.

g. Other Sources of Support. The applicant should indicate why other sources of support would be inadequate, inappropriate, or unavailable.

5. Budget and Budget Narrative

a. Institute Funds. The applicant should provide a complete budget and budget narrative conforming to the requirements set forth in VI.A.4. above. 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 would remain unobligated at the end of the current grant period.

b. Matching Contribution.

i. State and local units of government must provide match equaling at least 50% of the amount provided by the Institute in the first year of the project, 60% in the second year, 75% in the third year, 90% in the fourth year, and 100% in the fifth year.

For example, if the Institute awards a State court $100,000 for the first year of a grant, the court would be required to provide $50,000 in match. If the second-year grant is also $100,000, the court would be required to provide $60,000 in match. A State or local unit of government would have to provide at least 20% of the required match in the form of cash rather than in-kind support (e.g., the value of staff time contributed to the project).

ii. All other grantees must provide match equaling at least 25% of the amount provided by the Institute in the first year of the project, 30% in the second year, 37.5% in the third year, 45% in the fourth year, and 50% in the fifth year. For example, if the Institute awards a non-profit organization $100,000 for the first year of a grant, the organization would be required to provide $25,000 in match. If the second year grant is also $100,000, the court would be required to provide $30,000 in match. A non-profit organization must provide at least 10% of the required match in the form of cash.

iii. The Institute may waive the match and cash match requirements in certain circumstances. See section VIII.A.8.c.

6. References to Previously Submitted Material

A continuation application 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.

7. Submission Requirements

The submission requirements set forth in section VI.A.5., other than the mailing deadline, apply to continuation applications.

D. Technical Assistance Grants

1. Purpose and Scope

Technical Assistance Grants are awarded to State and local courts to obtain the assistance of outside experts in diagnosing, developing, and implementing a response to a particular problem in a jurisdiction.

2. Application Procedures.

For a summary of the application procedures for Technical Assistance Grants, visit the Institute's Web site (www.statejustice.org) and click On-Line Tutorials, then Technical Assistance Grant.

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. 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.

3. Application Format

Although there is no prescribed form for the letter nor a minimum or maximum page limit, letters of application should include the following information:

a. Need for Funding. What is the critical need facing the court? How would 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?

b. 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 jurisdictions' normal procedures for procuring consultant services.) What specific tasks would the consultant(s) and court staff undertake? What is the schedule for completion of each required task and the entire project? 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 frame 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.

c. Likelihood of Implementation. What steps have been or would 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 would be needed to adopt the changes recommended by the consultant and approved by the court, how would they be involved in the review of the recommendations and development of the implementation plan?

d. 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 F) 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.

4. Budget and Matching State Contribution

A completed Form E, Line-Item Budget Form (see appendix G), and budget narrative must be included with the letter requesting technical assistance. The estimated cost of the technical assistance services should be broken down into the 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., the 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 no consultant will be paid more than $900 per day from Institute funds. In addition, the budget should provide for submission of two copies of the consultant's final report to the Institute.

As with other awards to State or local courts, match must be provided in an amount equal to at least 50% of the grant amount requested, and 20% of the match provided must be cash. The Institute may waive the match and cash match requirements in certain circumstances. See section VIII.A.8.c.

Recipients of Technical Assistance Grants do not have to submit an audit but must maintain appropriate documentation to support expenditures. (See section VIII.A.3.)

5. Submission Requirements

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 by September 26, 2003 will be notified of the Board's decision by December 5, 2003. Those submitting letters between September 27, 2003 and January 9, 2004 will be notified of the Institute's decision by April 2, 2004; those submitting letters between January 10 and February 27, 2004 will be notified by June 11, 2004; those submitting letters between February 28 and June 4, 2004 will be notified by August 27, 2004; and those submitting letters between June 5 and September 24, 2004 will be notified by December 10, 2004.

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 three weeks prior to the Board meeting at which the technical assistance requests will be considered (i.e., by October 15, 2003; and February 12, April 8, July 2, and October 14, 2004).

E. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants

1. Purpose and Scope

Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance (JBE TA) Grants are awarded to State and local courts to support: (1) The provision of expert strategic assistance designed to enable them to maintain judicial branch education programming during the current budget crisis; and/or (2) replication or modification of a model training program originally developed with Institute funds. Ordinarily, the Institute will support the adaptation of a curriculum once (i.e., with one grant) in a given State.

JBE TA Grants may support consultant assistance in maintaining or developing systematic or innovative judicial branch educational programming. The assistance might include expert consultation in developing strategic plans to ensure the continued provision of judicial branch education programming despite fiscal constraints; development of improved methods for assessing the need for, and evaluating the quality and impact of, court education programs and their administration by State or local courts; faculty development; and/or topical program presentations. Such assistance may be tailored to address the needs of a particular State or local court or specific categories of court employees throughout a State and, in certain cases, in a region, if sponsored by a court.

2. Application Procedures

For a summary of the application procedures for Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants, visit the Institute's Web site (www.statejustice.org) and click on On-Line Tutorials, then Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grant.

In lieu of formal applications, applicants should submit an original and three photocopies of a detailed letter.

3. Application Format

Although there is no prescribed format for the letter, or a minimum or maximum page limit, letters of application should include the following information:

a. For on-site consultant assistance:

(1) Need for Funding. What is the critical judicial branch educational need facing the court? How would 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?

(2) 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 jurisdictions' normal procedures for procuring consultant services.) What specific tasks would the consultant(s) and court staff undertake? What is the schedule for completion of each required task and the entire project? 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 frame 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.

(3) Likelihood of Implementation. What steps have been or would 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 would be needed to adopt the changes recommended by the consultant and approved by the court, how would they be involved in the review of the recommendations and development of the implementation plan?

(4) 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 F) 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.

b. For adaptation of a curriculum:

(1) Project Description. What is the title of the model curriculum to be adapted and who originally developed it with Institute funding? Why is this education program needed at the present time? What are the project's goals? What are the learning objectives of the adapted curriculum? What program components would be implemented, and what types of modifications, if any, are anticipated in length, format, learning objectives, teaching methods, or content? Who would be responsible for adapting the model curriculum? Who would the participants be, how many would there be, how would they be recruited, and from where would they come (e.g., from across the State, from a single local jurisdiction, from a multi-State region)?

(2) 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 adapted curriculum in the future using State or local funds, once it has been successfully adapted and tested?

(3) Likelihood of Implementation. What is the proposed timeline, including the project start and end dates? On what date(s) would the judicial branch education program be presented? What process would be used to modify and present the program? Who would serve as faculty, and how were they selected? What measures would be taken to facilitate subsequent presentations of the program? (Ordinarily, an independent evaluation of a curriculum adaptation project is not required; however, the results of any evaluation should be included in the final report.)

(4) 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 branch education personnel who are expected to attend? (Applicants may demonstrate this by attaching letters of support.)

(5) 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 F.)

4. Budget and Matching State Contribution

Applicants should attach a copy of budget Form E (see appendix G) and a budget narrative (see A.4. in this section) that describes the basis for the computation of all project-related costs and the source of the match offered. As with other awards to State or local courts, match must be provided in an amount equal to at least 50% of the grant amount requested. Recipients of JBE TA grants are not required to provide a cash match. The Institute may waive the match requirements in certain circumstances. See section VIII.A.8.c.

5. Submission Requirements

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 by September 26, 2003 will be notified of the Board's decision by December 5, 2003. Those submitting letters between September 27, 2003, and January 9, 2004 will be notified of the Institute's decision by April 2, 2004; those submitting letters between January 10 and February 27, 2004 will be notified by June 11, 2004; those submitting letters between March 1 and June 4, 2004 will be notified by August 27, 2004; and those submitting letters between June 5 and September 24, 2004 will be notified by December 10, 2004.

For curriculum adaptation requests, applicants should allow at least 60 days between the notification deadline and the date of the proposed program to allow sufficient time for needed planning. For example, a court that plans to conduct an education program in June 2004 should submit its application no later than January 9, 2004, in time for the Board's decision by April 2, 2004.

F. Scholarships

1. Purpose and Scope

The purposes of the Institute scholarship program are to enhance the skills, knowledge, 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 educational program in another State. An applicant may apply for a scholarship for only one educational program during any one application cycle.

Scholarship funds may be used only to cover the costs of tuition and transportation expenses. Transportation expenses may include round-trip coach airfare or train fare. Scholarship recipients are strongly encouraged to take advantage of excursion or other special airfares (e.g., reductions offered when a ticket is purchased 21 days in advance of the travel date) when making their travel arrangements. Recipients who drive to a program site may receive $.36/mile up to the amount of the advanced-purchase round-trip airfare between their homes and the program sites. Funds to pay tuition and transportation expenses in excess of $1,500 and other costs of attending the program—such as lodging, meals, materials, transportation to and from airports, and local transportation (including rental cars)—at the program site must be obtained from other sources or 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.

A scholarship is not transferable to another individual. It may be used only for the course specified in the application unless the applicant's request to attend a different course that meets the eligibility requirements is approved in writing by the Institute. Decisions on such requests will be made within 30 days after the receipt of the request letter.

2. Eligibility Requirements

For a summary of the Scholarship award process, visit the Institute's Web site at www.statejustice.org and click on On-Line Tutorials, then Scholarship.

a. Recipients. 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, administrative law judges, staff attorneys, law clerks, line staff, law enforcement officers, and other executive branch personnel are not eligible to receive a scholarship.

b. Courses. A Scholarship can be awarded only for a course presented in a State other than the one in which the applicant resides or works. The course must be designed to enhance the skills of new or experienced judges and court managers; address any of the topics listed in the Institute's Special Interest categories; or be offered by a recognized graduate program for judges or court managers. The annual or mid-year 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.

Applicants are encouraged not to wait for the decision on a scholarship to register for an educational program they wish to attend.

3. Forms

a. Scholarship Application—FORM S-1 (Appendix H). The Scholarship Application requests basic information about the applicant and the educational program the applicant would like to attend. It also addresses the applicant's commitment to share the skills and knowledge gained with local court colleagues and to submit an evaluation of the program the applicant attends. The Scholarship Application must bear the original signature of the applicant. Faxed or photocopied signatures will not be accepted.

b. Scholarship Application Concurrence—FORM S-2 (Appendix H). Judges and court managers applying for Scholarships must submit the written concurrence of the Chief Justice of the State's Supreme Court (or the Chief Justice's designee) on the Institute's Judicial Education Scholarship Concurrence form (see Appendix H). The signature of the presiding judge of the applicant's court cannot be substituted for that of the Chief Justice or the Chief Justice's designee. Court managers, other than elected clerks of court, also must submit a letter of support from their immediate supervisors.

4. Submission Requirements

Scholarship applications must be submitted during the periods specified below:

October 6 and December 1, 2003, for programs beginning between January 1 and March 31, 2004;

January 5 and March 1, 2004 for programs beginning between April 1 and June 30, 2004;

April 5 and May 31, 2004 for programs beginning between July 1 and September 30, 2004;

July 6 and August 30, 2004 for programs beginning between October 1 and December 31, 2004; and

October 4 and November 29, 2004 for programs beginning between January 1 and March 31, 2005.

No exceptions or extensions will be granted. Applications sent prior to the beginning of an application period will be treated as having been sent one week after the beginning of that application period. All the required items must be received for an application to be considered. If the Concurrence form or letter of support is sent separately from the application, the postmark date of the last item to be sent will be used in applying the above criteria.

All applications should be sent by mail or courier (not fax or e-mail) to: Scholarship Program Coordinator, State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314.

VII. 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. Project Grant and Continuation Grant Applications

a. 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:

(1) The soundness of the methodology;

(2) The demonstration of need for the project;

(3) The appropriateness of the proposed evaluation design;

(4) The applicant's management plan and organizational capabilities;

(5) The qualifications of the project's staff;

(6) 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;

(7) The degree to which the findings, procedures, training, technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other jurisdictions;

(8) The reasonableness of the proposed budget;

(9) The demonstration of cooperation and support of other agencies that may be affected by the project; and

(10) The proposed project's relationship to one of the Special Interest categories set forth in section II.A.

b. For continuation grant applications, the key findings and recommendations of evaluations and the proposed responses to those findings and recommendations also will be considered.

c. In determining which projects to support, 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 section IV.); the availability of financial assistance from other sources for the project; the amount and nature (cash and 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 expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.

2. Technical Assistance Grant Applications

Technical Assistance Grant applications will be rated on the basis of the following criteria:

a. Whether the assistance would address a critical need of the court;

b. The soundness of the technical assistance approach to the problem;

c. The qualifications of the consultant(s) to be hired, or the specific criteria that will be used to select the consultant(s);

d. The court's commitment to act on the consultant's recommendations; and

e. 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.

3. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grant Applications

Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grant applications will be rated on the basis of the following criteria:

a. For on-site consultant assistance:

(1) Whether the assistance would address a critical need of the court;

(2) The soundness of the technical assistance approach to the problem;

(3) The qualifications of the consultant(s) to be hired, or the specific criteria that will be used to select the consultant(s);

(4) The court's commitment to act on the consultant's recommendations; and

(5) The reasonableness of the proposed budget.

b. For curriculum adaptation projects:

(1) The goals and objectives of the proposed project;

(2) The need for outside funding to support the program;

(3) The appropriateness of the approach in achieving the project's educational objectives;

(4) The likelihood of effective implementation and integration of the modified curriculum into the State's or local jurisdiction's ongoing educational programming; and

(5) Expressions of interest by the judges and/or court personnel who would be directly involved in or affected by the project.

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.

4. Scholarships

Scholarships will be awarded on the basis of:

a. The date on which the application and concurrence (and support letter, if required) were sent;

b. The unavailability of State or local funds to cover the costs of attending the program or scholarship funds from another source;

c. The absence of educational programs in the applicant's State addressing the topic(s) covered by the educational program for which the scholarship is being sought;

d. Geographic balance among the recipients;

e. The balance of scholarships among educational programs;

f. The balance of scholarships among the types of courts represented; and

g. The level of appropriations available to the Institute in the current year and the amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.

The postmark or courier receipt will be used to determine the date on which the application form and other required items were sent.

C. Review and Approval Process

1. Project and Continuation Grant Applications

The Institute's Board of Directors will review the applications competitively. The Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary and a rating sheet assigning points for each relevant selection criterion for applications that fall within the scope of the Institute's grant program and merit serious consideration by the Board. The staff will also prepare a list of those applications that, in the judgment of the Executive Director, propose projects that lie outside the scope of the Institute's program or are not likely to merit serious consideration by the Board. The staff will present the narrative summaries, rating sheets, and list of non-reviewed papers to the Board for its review. Board committees will review application summaries within assigned program areas and prepare recommendations for the full Board. The full Board of Directors will then decide which projects it will fund. The decision to fund a project is solely that of the Board of Directors.

The Chairman of the Board will sign approved awards on behalf of the Institute.

2. Technical Assistance and Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grant Applications

The Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary of each application and a rating sheet assigning points for each relevant selection criterion. A committee of the Board of Directors will review the applications competitively. The Board of Directors has delegated its authority to approve Technical Assistance and Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants to the committee established for each program.

The Chairman of the Board will sign approved awards on behalf of the Institute.

3. Scholarships

A committee of the Institute's Board of Directors will review Scholarship applications quarterly. The Board of Directors has delegated its authority to approve Scholarships to the committee established for the program.

The Chairman of the Board will sign approved awards 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

1. The Institute will send written notice to applicants concerning all Board decisions to approve, defer, or deny their respective applications. For all applications (except Scholarships), the Institute also will convey 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 it does not prohibit resubmission of a proposal based on that application in a subsequent funding cycle. The Institute will also notify the State court administrator when grants are approved by the Board to support projects that will be conducted by or involve courts in that State.

2. The Institute intends to notify each Scholarship applicant of the Board committee's decision within 30 days after the close of the relevant application period.

F. Response to Notification of Approval

With the exception of those approved for Scholarships, 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 rescinded and the application presented to the Board for reconsideration.

VIII. Compliance Requirements

The State Justice Institute Act contains limitations and conditions on grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements awarded by the Institute. The Board of Directors has approved additional policies governing the use of Institute grant funds. These statutory and policy requirements are set forth below.

A. Recipients of Project Grants

1. 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).

2. 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, the recipient must 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 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.

3. Audit

Recipients of project grants must provide for an annual fiscal audit which includes an opinion on whether the financial statements of the grantee present fairly its financial position and its financial operations are in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. (See section IX.K. of the Guideline for the requirements of such audits.) Scholarship recipients and recipients of Solutions Project State Court Information Collection Grants, Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants, and Technical Assistance Grants are not required to submit an audit, but they must maintain appropriate documentation to support all expenditures.

4. Budget Revisions

Budget revisions among direct cost categories that (i) transfer grant funds to an unbudgeted cost category or (ii) individually or cumulatively exceed five percent of the approved original budget or the most recently approved revised budget require prior Institute approval.

5. Conflict of Interest

Personnel and other officials connected with Institute-funded programs must adhere to the following requirements:

a. 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 or her knowledge, he or she or his or her immediate family, partners, organization other than a public agency in which he or she is serving as officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee or any person or organization with whom he or she is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest.

b. 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:

(1) Using an official position for private gain; or

(2) affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Institute program.

c. 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.

6. 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).

7. Lobbying

a. 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).

b. 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, advocated a position before Congress on the specific subject matter of the application.

8. Matching Requirements

All grantees other than scholarship recipients and individuals who receive “think piece” grants are required to provide match. See section III.L. for the definition of match. The amount and nature of required match depends on the type of organization receiving the grant and the duration of the Institute's support.

The grantee is responsible for ensuring that the total amount of match 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 section IX.E.1.).

The Board of Directors considers the amount and nature of unrequired match contributed by applicants in making grant decisions. Cash match and non-cash match may be provided, subject to the requirements of subsections a. and b. below.

a. New Project Grants.

(1) State and local units of government. 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 a State court or executive branch agency receives a $100,000 grant from the Institute, it must provide a $50,000 match (50% of the $100,000 awarded by SJI). With the exception of Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants, at least 20% of the required match for a new grant ($10,000 in the example) must be provided in the form of cash rather than in-kind support (e.g., the value of staff time contributed to the project).

(2) All other grantees. All other grantees are required to contribute a match of 25% to a new SJI-funded project. For example, if a non-profit organization receives a $100,000 grant from SJI, it must provide a $25,000 match. A non-profit organization must provide at least 10% of the required match for a new grant ($2,500 in the example) in the form of cash.

b. Continuation Grants. All grantees are required to assume a greater share of project support over time.

(1) State and local units of government. State and local units of government are required to provide match equaling at least 50% of the amount provided by SJI in the first year of the project, 60% in the second year, 75% in the third year, 90% in the fourth year, and 100% in the fifth year. For example, if SJI awards a State court $100,000 for the first year of a grant, the court would be required to provide $50,000 in match. If the second-year grant is also $100,000, the court is required to provide $60,000 in match. A court that wishes to limit its second-year contribution to $50,000 may ask the Institute for a reduced amount, i.e., $83,333, in order to meet the 60% requirement.

(1) All other grantees. All other grantees are required to provide match equaling at least 25% of the amount provided by the Institute in the first year of the project, 30% in the second year, 37.5% in the third year, 45% in the fourth year, and 50% in the fifth year. For example, if the Institute awards a non-profit organization $100,000 for the first year of a grant, the organization must provide $25,000 in match. If the second-year grant is also $100,000, the grantee is required to provide $30,000 in match. An organization that wishes to limit its second-year contribution to $25,000 may ask the Institute for a reduced amount, i.e., $83,333, in order to meet the 30% requirement.

c. Waiver.

(1) Match generally.

(a) The match requirement for State and local units of government 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).

(b) The match requirement for all other grantees required to provide match may be waived in exceptionally rare circumstances upon the request of an appropriate official and approval by the Board of Directors

(2) Cash match. For all grantees required to provide cash match, the requirement may be waived upon the applicant's demonstration that providing the required cash match will cause the applicant a financial hardship.

(3) The Board of Directors encourages all applicants to provide the maximum amount of in-kind and cash match possible, even if a waiver is approved. The amount and nature of match are criteria in the grant selection process. See section VII.B.1.c.

9. 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.

10. Political Activities

No recipient may 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).

11. Products

a. Acknowledgment, Logo, and Disclaimer.

(1) Recipients of Institute funds must acknowledge prominently on all products developed with grant funds that support was received from the 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.

(2) Recipients also must 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.”

b. Charges for Grant-Related Products/Recovery of Costs.

(1) 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.

(2) Applicants should disclose their intent to sell grant-related products in 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, 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.

(3) 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.O. and IX.G. for requirements regarding project-related income realized during the project period.

c. 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.

d. Distribution. In addition to the distribution specified in the grant application, grantees shall send:

(1) Fifteen (15) copies of each final product developed with grant funds to the Institute, unless the product was developed under either a Technical Assistance or a Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance grant, in which case submission of 2 copies is required;

(2) An electronic version of the product in .html or .pdf format to the Institute; and

(3) 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 the libraries is contained in appendix C. Labels for these libraries are available on the Institute's Web site, www.statejustice.org.) Grantees that develop web-based electronic products must send a hard-copy document to the SJI-designated libraries and other appropriate audiences to alert them to the availability of the Web site or electronic product. Recipients of Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance and Technical Assistance Grants are not required to submit final products to State libraries.

(5) A press release describing the project and announcing the results to a list of national and State judicial branch organizations provided by the Institute.

e. Institute Approval. 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. The draft must 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 required by the Institute. Grantees must 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.

f. 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.

12. 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.

13. Reporting Requirements

a. Recipients of Institute funds other than Scholarships must submit Quarterly Progress and Financial Status 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.

b. The quarterly Financial Status Report must be submitted in accordance with section IX.H.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 IX.L.1. of this Guideline.

14. Research

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. Human Subject 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.

15. State and Local Court Applications

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).

16. 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:

a. 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);

b. 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

c. solely to purchase equipment.

17. 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).

18. 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.

B. Recipients of Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance and Technical Assistance Grants

Recipients of Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance and Technical Assistance Grants must comply with the requirements listed in section VIII.A. (except the requirements pertaining to audits in section VIII.A.3. and product dissemination in section VIII.A.11.d. and e.) and the reporting requirements below:

1. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grant Reporting Requirements

Recipients of Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants must:

a. Submit one copy of the manuals, handbooks, conference packets, or consultant's report 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 educational program in the future and/or implement the consultant's recommendations, as well as two copies of the consultant's report; and

b. complete a Technical Assistance Evaluation Form at the conclusion of the grant period, if appropriate.

2. Technical Assistance Grant Reporting Requirements

Recipients of Technical Assistance Grants must:

a. Submit to the Institute one copy 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; and

b. complete a Technical Assistance Evaluation Form at the conclusion of the grant period.

C. Scholarship Recipients

1. Scholarship recipients are responsible for disseminating the information received from the course to their court colleagues locally and, if possible, throughout the State (e.g., by developing a formal seminar, circulating the written material, or discussing the information at a meeting or conference).

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 the Scholarship recipient's State. A State or local jurisdiction may impose additional requirements on scholarship recipients.

2. 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).

Scholarship Payment Vouchers should be submitted within 90 days after the end of the course which the recipient attended.

3. Scholarship recipients are encouraged to check with their tax advisors to determine whether the scholarship constitutes taxable income under Federal and State law.

IX. Financial Requirements

A. Purpose

The purpose of this section is to establish accounting system requirements and offer guidance on procedures to assist all grantees, subgrantees, contractors, and other organizations in:

1. Complying with the statutory requirements for the award, disbursement, and accounting of funds;

2. complying with regulatory requirements of the Institute for the financial management and disposition of funds;

3. generating financial data to be used in planning, managing, and controlling projects; and

4. facilitating an effective audit of funded programs and projects.

B. References

Except where inconsistent with specific provisions of this Guideline, the following circulars are applicable to Institute grants and cooperative agreements under the same terms and conditions that apply to Federal grantees. The circulars supplement the requirements of this section for accounting systems and financial record-keeping and provide additional guidance on how these requirements may be satisfied. (Circulars may be obtained from OMB by calling 202-395-3080 or visiting the OMB Web site at www.whitehouse.gov /OMB.)

1. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions.

2. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments.

3. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-88 (revised), Indirect Cost Rates, Audit and Audit Follow-up at Educational Institutions.

4. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local Governments.

5. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110, Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations.

6. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Non-profit Organizations.

7. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments.

8. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non-profit Institutions.

C. Supervision and Monitoring Responsibilities

1. Grantee Responsibilities

All grantees receiving 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

a. 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. (See section III.F.)

b. 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 record-keeping by the subgrantee. These responsibilities include:

(1) 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.

(2) 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. Matching contributions provided by subgrantees should likewise be recorded, as should any project income resulting from program operations.

(3) 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 State Supreme Court maintain the detail of each project budget on file.

(4) Accounting for Match. The State Supreme Court or its designee will ensure that subgrantees comply with the match requirements specified in this Guideline (see section VIII.A.8.).

(5) Audit Requirement. The State Supreme Court or its designee is required to ensure that subgrantees meet the necessary audit requirements set forth by the Institute (see sections K. below and VIII.A.3.)

(6) 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.

D. Accounting System

The grantee is responsible for establishing and maintaining an adequate system of accounting and internal controls and for ensuring that an adequate system exists for each of its subgrantees and contractors. An acceptable and adequate accounting system:

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.

E. Total Cost Budgeting and Accounting

Accounting for all funds awarded by the Institute must 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 serve as 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. Ordinarily, the full matching share must be obligated during the award period; however, with the 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. If a proposed cash or in-kind match is not fully met, the Institute may reduce the award amount accordingly to maintain the ratio of grant funds to matching funds stated 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 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 IX.C.2. above.)

F. Maintenance and Retention of Records

All financial records, including supporting documents, statistical records, and all other information pertinent to grants, subgrants, cooperative agreements, or contracts under grants, must 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 section.

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 are required for consultants.

2. Retention Period

The three-year retention period starts from the date of the submission of the final 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.

G. 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 IX.H.2. below.) 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 institutions of higher education and 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 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 may be considered as cash match 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

If the sale of products occurs during the project period, the income may be treated as cash match with the prior written approval of the Institute. 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 the 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 VIII.A.11.b.

5. Other

Other project income shall be treated in accordance with disposition instructions set forth in the grant's terms and conditions.

H. 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 Awards. For purposes of submitting Requests for Advance or Reimbursement, recipients of continuation grants should treat each grant as a new project and number the requests accordingly (i.e., on a grant rather than a project basis). For example, the first request for payment from a continuation grant would be number 1, the second number 2, etc. (See Appendix B, Answers to Grantees' Frequently Asked Questions, for further guidance.)

c. Termination of Advance and Reimbursement Funding. When a grantee organization receiving cash advances from the Institute:

(1) 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;

(2) engages in the improper award and administration of subgrants or contracts; or

(3) 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. Grantees 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.

2. Financial Reporting

a. General Requirements. To obtain financial information concerning the use of funds, the Institute requires that grantees/subgrantees submit timely reports for review.

b. Two copies of the Financial Status Report are required from all grantees, other than scholarship recipients, 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, is included in each official Institute Award package. If a grantee 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, to support the Request for Advance or Reimbursement.

c. Additional Requirements for Continuation Grants. Grantees receiving continuation grants 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 award should be number 1, the second number 2, etc.

3. Consequences of Non-Compliance with Submission Requirement

Failure of the grantee to submit required financial and progress reports may result in suspension or termination of grant payments.

I. Allowability of Costs

1. General

Except as may be otherwise provided in the conditions of a particular grant, cost allowability is determined in accordance with the principles set forth in OMB Circulars A-21, Cost Principles Applicable to Grants and Contracts with Educational Institutions; A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments; and A-122, Cost Principles for Non-profit Organizations. No costs may be recovered to liquidate obligations incurred after the approved grant period. Circulars may be obtained from OMB by calling 202-395-3080 or visiting the OMB Web site at www.whitehouse.gov/​OMB.

2. Costs Requiring Prior Approval

a. Pre-agreement Costs. The written prior approval of the Institute is required for costs considered necessary but which occur prior to the start date of the project period.

b. Equipment. Grant funds may be used to purchase or lease only that equipment 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 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 more than $900 per day.

d. Budget Revisions. Budget revisions among direct cost categories that (i) transfer grant funds to an unbudgeted cost category or (ii) individually or cumulatively exceed five percent (5%) of the approved original budget or the most recently approved revised budget require prior Institute approval. See section X.A.1.

3. Travel Costs

Transportation and per diem rates must comply with the policies of the grantee. If the grantee does not have an established written travel policy, then travel rates must 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, depreciation, and administrative salaries are examples of the types of costs that are usually treated as indirect costs. Although the Institute's policy requires all costs to be budgeted directly, it will accept indirect costs if a grantee has an indirect cost rate approved by a Federal agency as set forth below. However, recoverable indirect costs are limited to no more than 75% of a grantee's direct personnel costs (salaries plus fringe benefits). Grantees may apply unrecoverable indirect costs to meet their required matching contributions, including the required level of cash match. See sections III.L. and VI.A.4.k.

a. Approved Plan Available.

(1) A copy of an indirect cost rate agreement 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 must be submitted to the Institute.

(2) 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.

b. Establishment of Indirect Cost Rates. To be reimbursed for indirect costs, a grantee 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.

c. No Approved Plan. If an indirect cost proposal for recovery of 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.

J. Procurement and Property Management Standards

1. Procurement Standards

For State and local governments, the Institute has adopted the standards set forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular A-102. Institutions of higher education, hospitals, and 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 apply to all Institute grantees and subgrantees except as provided in section VIII.A.18. 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.

K. Audit Requirements

1. Implementation

Each recipient of a Project Grant (other than a State court receiving an information collection grant in connection with the Solutions Project) must provide for an annual fiscal audit. This requirement also applies to a State or local court receiving a subgrant from the State Supreme Court. The audit may be of the entire grantee or subgrantee organization or of the specific project funded by the Institute. Audits conducted in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and OMB Circular A-128, or OMB Circular A-133, will satisfy the requirement for an annual fiscal audit. The audit must be conducted by an independent Certified Public Accountant, or a State or local agency authorized to audit government agencies. Grantees must send two copies of the audit report to the Institute. Grantees that receive funds from a Federal agency and satisfy audit requirements of the cognizant Federal agency must submit two copies of the audit report prepared for that Federal agency to the Institute in order to satisfy the provisions of this section.

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 grantee must 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

Ordinarily, the Institute will not make a new grant award to an applicant that has an unresolved audit report involving Institute awards. Failure of the grantee to resolve audit questions may also result in the suspension or termination of payments for active Institute grants to that organization.

L. Close-Out of Grants

1. Grantee Close-Out Requirements

Within 90 days after the end date of the grant or any approved extension thereof (see section IX.L.2. below), the following documents must be submitted to the Institute by grantees (other than scholarship recipients):

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 application or an approved adjustment have been met and, if any of the objectives have not been met, explain why not; and discuss what, if anything, could have been done differently that might have enhanced the impact of the project or improved its operation.

These reporting requirements apply at the conclusion of every grant other than a scholarship, even when the project will continue under a continuation grant.

2. 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.

X. Grant Adjustments

All requests for programmatic or budgetary adjustments requiring Institute approval must be submitted by the project director in a timely manner (ordinarily 30 days prior to the implementation of the adjustment being requested). 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 that require the prior written approval of the Institute. Examples of these adjustments include:

1. Budget revisions among direct cost categories that (a) transfer grant funds to an unbudgeted cost category or (b) individually or cumulatively exceed five percent (5%) of the approved original budget or the most recently approved revised budget. See section IX.I.2.d.

For continuation grants, funds from the original award may be used during the new grant period and funds awarded through a continuation 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 D. below in this section).

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 E. below).

5. Satisfaction of special conditions, if required.

6. A change in or temporary absence of the project director (see F. and G. below).

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 VIII.A.2.).

8. A change in or temporary absence of the person responsible for managing and reporting on the grant's finances.

9. A change in the name of the grantee organization.

10. A transfer or contracting out of grant-supported activities (see H. below).

11. A transfer of the grant to another recipient.

12. Preagreement costs (see section IX.I.2.a.).

13. The purchase of automated data processing equipment and software (see section IX.I.2.b.).

14. Consultant rates (see section IX.I.2.c.).

15. A change in the nature or number of the products to be prepared or the manner in which a product would be distributed.

B. Requests for Grant Adjustments

All grantees must promptly notify their SJI program managers, in writing, of events or proposed changes that may require adjustments to the approved project design. 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

Major changes in scope, duration, training methodology, or other significant areas must be approved in advance by the Institute. A grantee 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.

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 a request 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 IX.L.2.).

F. Temporary Absence of the Project Director

Whenever an 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

No principal activity of a grant-supported project may be transferred or contracted out to another organization without specific prior approval by the Institute. All such arrangements must 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 of the Institute 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, will be allowed. The contract or other written agreement must not affect the grantee's overall responsibility for the direction of the project and accountability to the Institute.

State Justice Institute Board of Directors

Robert A. Miller, Chairman, Chief Justice (ret.), Supreme Court of South Dakota, Pierre, SD.

Joseph F. Baca, Vice-Chairman, Justice (ret.), New Mexico Supreme Court, Santa Fe, NM.

Sandra A. O'Connor, Secretary, States Attorney of Baltimore County, Towson, MD.

Keith McNamara, Esq., Executive Committee Member, McNamara & McNamara, Columbus, OH.

Terrence B. Adamson, Esq., Executive Vice-President, The National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.

Robert N. Baldwin, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond, VA.

Carlos R. Garza, Esq., Administrative Judge (ret.), Round Rock, TX.

Sophia H. Hall, Administrative Presiding Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County, Chicago, IL.

Tommy Jewell, Presiding Children's Court Judge, Albuquerque, NM.

Arthur A. McGiverin, Chief Justice (ret.), Supreme Court of Iowa, Ottumwa, IA.

Florence K. Murray, Justice (ret.), Supreme Court of Rhode Island, Providence, RI.

David I. Tevelin, Executive Director (ex officio).

David I. Tevelin,

Executive Director.

Appendix A—Recommendations to Grant Writers

 

Over the past 17 years, the Institute staff has reviewed almost 4,000 proposals. 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 an application. Applications should, however, be presented in the format specified in section VI. of the Guideline.

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 3 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, nor does a clever but uninformative title.

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. Applications should present the criteria that will be used to evaluate the project's effectiveness; identify program elements that 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 that 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 an application 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 to contribute a match of at least 50 percent of the funds requested from the Institute for a new grant. Except in the case of Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance grants, at least 20% of the required match must be in the form of cash. All other applicants must contribute a match of 25% to a new SJI-funded project, and at least 10% of that match must be in the form of cash.

The match requirement works as follows: If, for example, a State court system receives a $100,000 grant from the Institute, it must provide a $50,000 match; at least 20% of the required match for a new grant ($10,000 in the example) must be in the form of cash rather than in-kind support (e.g., the value of staff time contributed to the project). If a non-profit organization receives a $100,000 grant from SJI, it must provide a $25,000 match, and at least 10% of that match ($2,500 in the example) must be in the form of cash.

Cash match includes funds directly contributed to the project by the applicant, or by other private or authorized public sources; income generated from tuition fees or the sale of project products during the grant period; and funds dedicated to the project by the grantee's assumption of approved indirect costs.

Non-cash match refers to in-kind contributions by the applicant, or other private or authorized public 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). The nature of the match (cash or in-kind) should be explained, and the tasks and line items for which costs will be covered wholly or in part by match should be specified.

The Institute may waive the match and cash match requirements in certain circumstances. See section VIII.A.8.c.

8. Which of the Two Budget Forms Should Be Used?

Section VI.A.1.c. 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 VI.A.4. of the 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 × 75 pages each × .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 policies apply to 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 advanced-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. The Institute's 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 $3,000.

12. To What Extent May Indirect Costs Be Included in the Budget Estimates?

If an indirect cost rate has been approved by a Federal agency within the last two years, an indirect cost recovery estimate may be included in the budget. Recoverable indirect costs are limited to no more than 75% of a grantee's direct personnel costs (salaries plus fringe benefits). Grantees may apply unrecoverable indirect costs to meet their required matching contributions, including the required level of cash match. A copy of the approved indirect cost rate agreement should be submitted as an appendix to the application.

If an applicant does not have an approved rate agreement and cannot budget directly for all costs, an indirect cost rate proposal should be prepared in accordance with section IX.I.4. of the Guideline, based on the applicant's audited financial statements for the prior fiscal year. (Applicants lacking an audit should budget all project costs directly.)

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.

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.

Appendix B—Answers to Grantees' Frequently Asked Questions

 

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 1,000 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 progress 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 Continuation Grants?

Recipients of continuation grants are required to submit quarterly progress and Financial Status Reports on the same schedule and with the same information as recipients of grants for single new projects.

A continuation grant 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 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, quarterly financial reporting, or payment requests should be addressed to the Institute's 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 Are Special Conditions Attached To the Award Document?

Special conditions may be imposed to establish a schedule for reporting certain key information, assure that the Institute has an opportunity to offer suggestions at critical stages of the project, and provide reminders of pertinent Guideline requirements. Accordingly, it is important for grantees to check the special conditions carefully and discuss with their Program Managers 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 VIII., IX., and X. 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 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 Continuation Grants?

The basic procedures are the same for any grant. A continuation grant 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 should be designated as number one, the second as 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 is expected to allocate funds to a previously unbudgeted cost category or to exceed five percent (5%) of the approved project budget, a grantee must specify the proposed changes, explain the reasons for the changes, and request prior Institute approval.

The same standard applies to continuation 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 continuation award, or to use continuation 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. 10704(c)(1). Because SJI receives appropriations from Congress, some grantee auditors have reported SJI grant 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?

Unless 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, A-128, 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 IX.K.)

SJI will accept audits conducted in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and OMB Circulars A-128 or A-133 to satisfy 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 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 and OMB Circulars A-128 or A-133; or conduct an audit of only the SJI funds in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. (See Guideline section IX.K.) Circulars may be obtained from OMB by calling 202-395-3080 or visiting the OMB Web site at www.whitehouse.gov/​OMB.

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 2001 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 or 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 IX.K. of the Grant Guideline.

Appendix C—SJI Libraries: Designated Sites and Contacts

 

Alabama

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Timothy A. Lewis

State Law Librarian

Alabama Supreme Court Bldg. 300 Dexter Avenue

Montgomery, AL 36104

[phone]

Alaska

Anchorage Law Library

Ms. Cynthia S. Fellows

State Law Librarian

Alaska Court Libraries 820 W. Fourth Ave.

Anchorage, AK 99501

[phone]

Arizona

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Lani Orosco

Arizona Supreme Court

Supreme Court Library 1501 W. Washington, Suite 445

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[phone] e-mail: [e-mail]

Arkansas

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. James D. Gingerich

Director

Administrative Office of the Courts

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Justice Building

Little Rock, AR 72201

[phone]

California

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. William C. Vickrey

Administrative Director of the Courts

Administrative Office of the Courts 455 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94107

[phone]

Colorado

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Linda Gruenthal

Deputy Supreme Court Law Librarian

Colorado State Judicial Building 2 East 14th Avenue

Denver, CO 80203

[phone]

Connecticut

State Library

Ms. Denise D. Jernigan

State Librarian

Connecticut State Library 231 Capital Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

[phone]

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

[phone]

District of Columbia

Executive Office, District of Columbia Courts

Ms. Anne B. Wicks

Executive Officer

District of Columbia Courts

500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 1500

Washington, D.C. 20001

[phone]

Florida

Administrative Office of the Courts

Ms. Elisabeth H. Goodner

State Courts Administrator

Florida Supreme Court Building

500 South Duval Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900

[phone] e-mail:

[e-mail]

Georgia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. David Ratley

Director

Administrative Office of the Courts

47 Trinity Avenue, Suite 414

Atlanta, GA 30334

[phone]

Hawaii

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Ann Koto

State Law Librarian

The Supreme Court Law Library

417 South King St., Room 119

Honolulu, HI 96813

[phone]

Idaho

AOC Judicial Education Library/State Law Library

Ms. Beth Peterson

State Law Librarian

Idaho State Law Library

Supreme Court Building

451 West State St.

Boise, ID 83720

[phone]

Illinois

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Brenda Larison

Supreme Court of Illinois Library

200 East Capitol Avenue

Springfield, IL 62701-1791

[phone]

Indiana

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Dennis Lager

Supreme Court Librarian

Supreme Court Library

State House, Room 316

Indianapolis, IN 46204

[phone]

Iowa

Administrative Office of the Court

Dr. Jerry K. Beatty

Executive Director

Judicial Education & Planning

Office of the State Court Administrator

State Capital Building

Des Moines, IA 50319-0001

[phone]

Kansas

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Fred Knecht

Law Librarian

Kansas Supreme Court Library

301 West 10th Street

Topeka, KS 66612

[phone]

Kentucky

State Law Library

Ms. Marge Jones

State Law Librarian

State Law Library

State Capital, Room 200-A

Frankfort, KY 40601

[phone]

Louisiana

State Law Library

Ms. Carol Billings

Director

Louisiana Law Library

301 Loyola Avenue

New Orleans, LA 70112

[phone]

Maine

State Law and Legislative Reference Library

Ms. Lynn E. Randall

State Law Librarian

43 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333

[phone]

Maryland

State Law Library

Mr. Michael S. Miller

Director

Maryland State Law Library

Court of Appeal Building

361 Rowe Boulevard

Annapolis, MD 21401

[phone]

Massachusetts

Middlesex Law Library

Ms. Sandra Lindheimer

Librarian

Middlesex Law Library

Superior Court House

40 Thorndike Street

Cambridge, MA 02141

[phone]

Michigan

Michigan Judicial Institute

Dawn F. McCarty

Interim Director

Michigan Judicial Institute

222 Washington Square North

P.O. Box 30205

Lansing, MI 48909

[phone]

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

[phone]

Mississippi

Mississippi Judicial College

Mr. Leslie Johnson

Director

University of Mississippi

P.O. Box 8850

University, MS 38677

[phone]

Montana

State Law Library

Ms. Judith Meadows

State Law Librarian

State Law Library of Montana

215 North Sanders

Helena, MT 59620

[phone]

Nebraska

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Joseph C. Steele

State Court Administrator

Administrative Office of the Courts/Probation

State Capitol Building, Room 1220

Post Office Box 98910

Lincoln, NE 68509-8910

[phone]

Nevada

National Judicial College

Mr. Randall Snyder

Law Librarian

National Judicial College

Judicial College Building

University of Nevada

Reno, NV 89550

[phone]

New Hampshire

New Hampshire Law Library

Ms. Christine Swan

Law Librarian

New Hampshire Law Library

Supreme Court Building

One Noble Drive

Concord, NH 03301-6160

[phone]

New Jersey

New Jersey State Library

Ms. Marjorie Garwig

Supervising Law Librarian

New Jersey State Law Library

185 West State Street

P.O. Box 520

Trenton, NJ 08625-0250

[phone]

New Mexico

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Thaddeus Bejnar

Librarian

Supreme Court Library

Post Office Drawer L

Santa Fe, NM 87504

[phone]

New York

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Barbara Briggs

Principal Law Librarian

New York State Supreme Court Law Library

Onondaga County Court House

401 Montgomery Street

Syracuse, NY 13202

[phone]

North Carolina

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Thomas P. Davis

Librarian

North Carolina Supreme Court Library

P.O. Box 28006

2 East Morgan Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

[phone]

North Dakota

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Marcella Kramer

Assistant Law Librarian

Supreme Court Law Library

600 East Boulevard Avenue, Dept. 182

2nd Floor, Judicial Wing

Bismarck, ND 58505-0540

[phone]

Northern Mariana Islands

Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands

Honorable Miguel Sablan Demapan

Chief Justice

Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

P.O. Box 2165 CK

Saipan, MP 96950

[phone]

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

[phone]

Oklahoma

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Howard W. Conyers

Administrative Director of the Courts

1915 North Stiles, Suite 305

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

[phone]

Oregon

Administrative Office of the Courts

Ms. Kingsley W. Click

State Court Administrator

Office of the State Court Administrator

Supreme Court Building

Salem, OR 97310

[phone]

Pennsylvania

State Library of Pennsylvania

Ms. Barbara Miller

Collection Management Librarian

State Library of Pennsylvania

Office of Commonwealth Libraries

Bureau of State Library “ Collection Management

333 Market Street

Harrisburg, PA 17126-1745

[phone]

[e-mail]

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 University

Ms. Gail Winson

Director of the Library

Roger Williams University

School of Law Library 10 Metacom Avenue

Bristol, RI 02809

South Carolina

Coleman Karesh Law Library (University of South Carolina School of Law)

Mr. Steve Hinckley

Library Director

Coleman Karesh Law Library

U. S. C. Law Center

University of South Carolina

Columbia, SC 29208

[phone]

South Dakota

State Law Library

Librarian

500 East Capitol

Pierre, South Dakota 57501

[phone]

Tennessee

Tennessee State Law Library

Honorable Cornelia A. Clark

Director

Administrative Office of the Courts

Tennessee Supreme Court

511 Union

Nashville, TN 37243-0607

[phone]

Texas

State Law Library

Ms. Kay Schleuter

Director, State Law Library

P.O. Box 12367

Austin, TX 78711

[phone]

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

Administrative Office of the Courts 450 South State

P.O. Box 140241

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0241

[phone]

Vermont

Supreme Court of Vermont

Mr. Paul J. Donovan

Law Librarian

Department of Libraries

109 State Street

Montpelier, VT 05609

[phone]

Virginia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Robert N. Baldwin

State Court Administrator

Supreme Court of Virginia

100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor

Richmond, VA 23219

[phone]

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

[phone]

West Virginia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Ms. Kathleen Gross

Deputy Director of Judicial Education

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals

State Capitol

1900 Kanawha Boulevard East

Building 1, Room E-100

Charleston, WV 25305

[phone]

Wisconsin

State Law Library

Ms. Jane Colwin

Director of Public Services

State Law Library

310 E. State Capitol

P.O. Box 7881

Madison, WI 53707

[phone]

Wyoming

Wyoming State Law Library

Ms. Kathleen B. Carlson

Law Librarian

Wyoming State Law Library

Supreme Court Building

2301 Capitol Avenue

Cheyenne, WY 82002

[phone]

NATIONAL

American Judicature Society

Mr. John Edwards

Opperman Hall

Drake University Law School

2507 University Avenue

Des Moines, IA 50311-4504

[phone]

e-mail: [e-mail]

National Center for State Courts

Ms. Peggy Rogers

Acquisitions/Serials Librarian

300 Newport Avenue

Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798

[phone]

JERITT

Dr. Maureen E. Conner

Executive Director

The JERITT Project

1407 S. Harrison

Suite 330 Nisbet

East Lansing, MI 48823-5239

[phone]

[phone] (fax)

e-mail: [e-mail]

website: http://jeritt.msu.edu

Appendix D—Illustrative List of Technical Assistance Grants

 

The following list presents examples of the types of technical assistance for which State and local courts can request Institute funding. Please check with the JERITT project (http://jeritt.msu.org or 517/353-8603) for more information about these and other SJI-supported technical assistance projects.

Application of Technology

Technology Plan (Office of the South Dakota State Court Administrator: SJI-99-066).

Children and Families in Court

Expanded Unified Family Court (Ventura County, CA, Superior Court: SJI-01-122).

Trial Court Performance Standards for the Unified Family Court of Delaware (Family Court of Delaware: SJI-98-205).

Court Planning, Management, and Financing

Job Classification and Pay Study of the New Hampshire Courts (New Hampshire Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI-98-011).

A Model for Building and Institutionalizing Judicial Branch Strategic Planning (12th Judicial Circuit, Sarasota, FL: SJI-98-266).

Strategic Planning (Fourth Judicial District Court, Hennepin County, MN: SJI-99-221).

Differentiated Case Management for the Improvement of Civil Case Processing in the Trial Courts of Texas (Texas Office of Court Administration: SJI-99-222).

Dispute Resolution and the Courts

Evaluating the New Mexico Court of Appeals Mediation Program (New Mexico Supreme Court: SJI-00-122).

Improving Public Confidence in the Courts

Mississippi Task Force on Gender Fairness in the Courts (Mississippi Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI-00-108).

Analysis of the Juror Debriefing Project (King County, WA, Superior Court: SJI-00-049).

Improving the Court's Response to Family Violence

New Hampshire Fatality Reviews (New Hampshire Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI-99-142).

Education and Training for Judges and Other Court Personnel

Iowa Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Branch Education (Iowa State Court Administrator's Office: SJI-01-200).

Appendix E—Illustrative List of Model Curricula

 

The following list includes examples of model SJI-supported curricula that State judicial educators may wish to adapt for presentation in education programs for judges and other court personnel with the assistance of a Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grant. Please refer to section VI.F. for information on submitting a letter of application for a Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grant. A list of all SJI-supported education projects is available on the SJI Web site (http://www.statejustice.org). Please also check with the JERITT project (http://jeritt.msu.edu or 517/353-8603) and your State SJI-designated library (see appendix C) for more information about these and other SJI-supported curricula that may be appropriate for in-State adaptation.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Judicial Settlement 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

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).

Bankruptcy Issues and Domestic Relations Cases (American Bankruptcy Institute: SJI-96-175).

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).

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).

Strengthening Rural Courts of Limited Jurisdiction and Team Training for Judges and Clerks (Rural Justice Center: SJI-90-014, SJI-91-082).

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 Mass Tort Cases (National Judicial College: SJI-94-141).

Employment Responsibilities of State Court Judges (National Judicial College: SJI-95-025).

Caseflow Management; Resources, Budget, and Finance; Visioning and Strategic Planning; Leadership; Purposes and Responsibilities of Courts; Information Management Technology; Human Resources Management; Education, Training, and Development; Public Information and the Media from “NACM Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines” (National Association for Court Management: SJI-96-148).

Dealing with the Common Law Courts: A Model Curriculum for Judges and Court Staff (Institute for Court Management/ National Center for State Courts: SJI-96-159).

Caseflow Management from “Innovative Educational Programs for Judges and Court Managers” (Justice Management Institute: SJI-98-041).

Courts and Communities

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).

Courts and Their Communities: Local Planning and the Renewal of Public Trust and Confidence: A California Statewide Conference (California Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI-98-008).

Charting the Course of Public Trust and Confidence in Our Courts (Mid-Atlantic Association for Court Management: SJI-98-208).

Trial Court Judicial Leadership Program: Judges and Court Administrators Serving the Courts and Community (National Center for State Courts: SJI-98-268).

Public Trust and Confidence (Arizona Courts Association: SJI-99-063).

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).

Race Fairness and Cultural Awareness Faculty Development Workshop (National Judicial College: SJI-93-063).

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).

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).

Code of Ethics for the Court Employees of California (California Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI 95-245).

Workplace Sexual Harassment Awareness and Prevention (California Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI 96-089).

Just Us On Justice: A Dialogue on Diversity Issues Facing Virginia Courts (Virginia Supreme Court: SJI-96-150).

When Bias Compounds: Insuring Equal Treatment for Women of Color in the Courts (National Judicial Education Program: SJI 96-161).

When Judges Speak Up: Ethics, the Public, and the Media (American Judicature Society: SJI-96-152).

Family Violence and Gender-Related Violent 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 (Rural Justice Center: SJI-88-081).

Judicial Training Materials on Spousal Support; Judicial Training Materials on Child Custody and Visitation (Women Judges' Fund for Justice: SJI-89-062).

Understanding Sexual Violence: The Judicial Response to Stranger and Nonstranger Rape and Sexual Assault (National Judicial Education Program: SJI-92-003, SJI-98-133 [video curriculum]).

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

A Judge's Deskbook on the Basic Philosophies and Methods of Science: Model Curriculum (University of Nevada, Reno: SJI-97-030).

Judicial Education for Appellate Court Judges

Career Writing Program for Appellate Judges (American Academy of Judicial Education: SJI-88-086).

Civil and Criminal Procedural Innovations for Appellate Courts (National Center for State Courts: SJI-94-002).

Judicial Branch Education: Faculty and Program 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).

Resource Manual and Training for Judicial Education Mentors (National Association of State Judicial Educators: SJI-95-233).

Institute for Faculty Excellence in Judicial Education (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-96-042; University of Memphis: SJI-01-202).

Orientation, Mentoring, and Continuing Professional Education of Judges and Court Personnel

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).

New Employee Orientation Facilitators Guide (Minnesota Supreme Court: SJI-92-155).

Magistrates Correspondence Course (Alaska Court System: SJI-92-156).

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).

Caseflow Management; Resources, Budget, and Finance; Visioning and Strategic Planning; Leadership; Purposes and Responsibilities of Courts; Information Management Technology; Human Resources Management; Education, Training, and Development; Public Information and the Media from “NACM Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines” (National Association for Court Management: SJI-96-148).

Innovative Approaches to Improving Competencies of General Jurisdiction Judges (National Judicial College: SJI-98-001).

Caseflow Management from “Innovative Educational Programs for Judges and Court Managers” (Justice Management Institute: SJI-98-041).

Juveniles and Families in Court

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).

Juvenile Justice at the Crossroads: Literature-Based Seminars for Judges, Court Personnel, and Community Leaders (Brandeis University: SJI-99-150).

Strategic and Futures Planning

Minding the Courts into the Twentieth Century Judicial SJ-89-029).

An Approach to Long-Range Strategic Planning in the Courts (Center for Public Policy Studies: SJI-91-045).

Substance Abuse

Good Times, Bad Times: Drugs, Youth, and the Judiciary (Professional Development and Training Center, Inc.: SJI-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).

Judicial Education on Substance Abuse (American Judges Association and National Center for State Courts: SJI-01-210).