[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24660]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 6, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
State Justice Institute
_______________________________________________________________________
Grant Guideline; Notice
_______________________________________________________________________
STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE
Grant Guideline
AGENCY: State Justice Institute.
ACTION: Final grant guideline.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Guideline sets forth the administrative, programmatic,
and financial requirements attendant to Fiscal Year 1995 State Justice
Institute grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David I. Tevelin, Executive Director,
or Richard Van Duizend, Deputy Director, State Justice Institute, 1650
King St. (Suite 600), Alexandria, VA 22314, (703) 684-6100.
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 administration of justice in the State courts
of the United States. Approximately $11\1/2\ million is available for
award in FY 1995.
Changes in the Final Guideline
On August 22, 1994, the Institute published its proposed FY 1995
Grant Guideline in the Federal Register for public comment. 59 FR
43160. Comment was specifically requested on whether SJI should
continue to require each applicant for a judicial education scholarship
to submit a concurrence signed by the chief justice of the applicant's
State (see section II.B.2.b.v.). The only comment received on this
issue was from a State court administrator who emphasized the
administrative importance of the chief justice's concurrence. The
concurrence requirement is, accordingly, retained in the Final
Guideline. The Guideline also has been amended to better assure that
sufficient scholarship funds are available each quarter.
In addition, the Final Guideline solicits applications from courts
and other organizations interested in participating as downlink
(receiving) sites for the National Town Hall Meeting on Improving
Public Confidence in the Courts scheduled for October 1995 (see section
II.B.2.a.ii.). The Institute recently awarded a grant to the National
Center for State Courts and the American Judicature Society to convene
this videoconference. Interested jurisdictions must submit an
application to the National Center for State Courts addressing the
criteria set forth in section II.B.2.a.ii. no later than February 15,
1995.
In FY 1994, the Institute required each grantee to submit its final
product on a diskette in ASCII. The Final FY 1995 Guideline requires
grantees to provide only a one-page abstract summarizing the grant
product in ASCII. See section VII.C.6.
In response to comments, the audit requirements in the Final
Guideline have also been changed to make OMB Circular A-133 applicable
to SJI grantees under the same terms and conditions (including
applicability thresholds) that would apply to Federal grantees.
In addition, several technical clarifications and corrections have
been made in the Final Guideline.
Types of Grants Available and Funding Schedules
The SJI grant program is designed to be responsive to the most
important needs of the State courts. To meet the full range of the
courts' diverse needs, the Institute offers six different types of
grants. The types of grants available in FY 1995 and the funding cycles
for each program are provided below:
Project Grants. These grants are awarded to support education,
research, demonstration and technical assistance projects to improve
the administration of justice in the State courts. With limited
exceptions (see sections II.B.2.b.i. and II.c.), project grants are
intended to support innovative projects of national significance. As
provided in section V. of the Guideline, project grants may ordinarily
not exceed $300,000 a year; however, grants in excess of $200,000 are
likely to be awarded only to support projects likely to have a
significant national impact. Applicants must ordinarily submit a
concept paper (see section VI.) and an application (see section VII.)
in order to obtain a project grant.
As indicated in Section VI.C., the Board may make an
``accelerated'' project grant of less than $40,000 on the basis of the
concept paper alone when the need for the project is clear and little
additional information would be provided in an application.
The FY 1995 mailing deadline for project grant concept papers is
November 23, 1994. Papers must be postmarked or bear other evidence of
submission by that date. With two exceptions noted immediately below,
the FY 1995 funding cycle will be substantially similar to the FY 1994
cycle: the Board will meet in early March, 1995 to invite formal
applications based on the most promising concept papers; applications
will be due in May; and awards will be approved by the Board in July.
The first exception to this schedule pertains to proposals to
follow up on the National Conference on Mass Tort Litigation to be held
in November, 1994. Applicants interested in participating in this
special round of funding may submit concept papers proposing projects
addressing the findings and recommendations of that conference by March
10, 1995. The papers will be considered by the Board at its meeting in
April, 1995. Invited applications will be reviewed at the Board's July,
1995 meeting. See section II.B.2.l.
The second exception is for projects to follow up on the National
Conference on Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts to be held
March 2-5, 1995. Concept papers for projects to implement the State
action plans developed at the conference must be mailed by October 6,
1995. See section II.B.2.i.
Package Grants. This grant program permits applicants to submit one
concept paper (or application) for a ``package'' of related grants
rather than separate proposals for each related component of the
package. Package grants of up to $750,000 per year may be awarded to
support projects that address interrelated topics or the core elements
of a multifaceted program, or that require the services of all or some
of the same key staff persons. Package grants must enhance (not merely
maintain) an applicant's services and must otherwise meet the
Institute's grant criteria. The Board retains the discretion to support
all, none, or selected portions of the proposed package. Package grant
concept papers and applications will be considered on the same schedule
as project grants. See sections III.J., V.C. and D., VI.A.2.b. and
3.b., VII.A.3., VII.C., and VII.D. for more information about package
grants.
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. The Guideline allocates up to
$600,000 in FY 1995 funds to support technical assistance grants. See
section II.C.2.
Curriculum Adaptation Grants. A grant of up to $20,000 may be
awarded to a State or local court to replicate or modify a model
training program developed with SJI funds. The Guideline allocates up
to $350,000 for these grants in FY 1995, the same amount allocated in
FY 1994. See section II.B.2.b.i.(b).
Like Technical Assistance grant applications, letters requesting
Curriculum Adaptation grants may be submitted at any time during the
fiscal year. However, in order to permit the Institute sufficient time
to evaluate these proposals, letters must be submitted no later than 90
days before the projected date of the training program. See section
II.B.2.b.i.(b).
Scholarships. The Guideline allocates up to $250,000 of FY 1995
funds for scholarships to enable judges and court managers to attend
out-of-State education and training programs. See section II.B.2.b.v.
The Guideline establishes four deadlines for scholarship requests:
November 1, 1994 for training programs beginning between February 1,
1995 and April 30, 1995; February 1, 1995 for programs beginning
between May 1, 1995 and July 31, 1995; May 1, 1995 for programs
beginning between August 1, 1995 and October 31, 1995; and August 1,
1995 for programs beginning between November 1, 1995 and January 31,
1996.
Renewal Grants. There are two types of renewal grants available
from SJI: Continuation grants (see sections III.G., V.C. and D., and
IX.A.) and On-going support grants (see sections III.H., V.C. and D.,
and IX.B.). Continuation grants are intended to support limited
duration projects that involve the same type of activities as the
original project. On-going support grants may be awarded for up to a
three-year period to support national-scope projects that provide the
State courts with critically needed services, programs, or products.
The Guideline establishes a target for renewal grants of no more
than $3 million, a little more than 25% of the total amount available
for grants in FY 1995. See section IX. Grantees should accordingly be
aware that the award of a grant to support a project does not
constitute a commitment to provide either continuation funding or on-
going support.
An applicant for a continuation or on-going support grant must
submit a letter notifying the Institute of its intent to seek such
funding, no later than 120 days before the end of the current grant
period. The Institute will then notify the applicant of the deadline
for its renewal grant application. See section IX.
Special Interest Categories
The Guideline contains 12 Special Interest categories, i.e., those
project areas that the Board has identified as being of particular
importance to the State courts. Four new categories have been added
this year: ``Children and Families in Court'' (section II.B.2.e.);
``Resolution of New Evidentiary Issues'' (section II.B.2.g.);
``Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts'' (section II.B.2.i.);
and ``Improving the Courts' Response to Gender-Related Crimes of
Violence'' (section II.B.2.k.).
The Guideline also solicits proposals to conduct two major national
conferences: The National Symposium on Reducing Litigation Delay noted
above and a National Symposium on Sentencing Issues. See section
II.B.2.b.iv. Courts in States permitting capital punishment should also
note the Institute's interest in testing the effectiveness of using
special capital litigation law clerks to assist trial judges hearing
cases involving the death penalty. See section II.B.2.l.
Consultant Rates
The Institute is committed to assuring that the compensation paid
to consultants working under SJI grants is reasonable in terms of both
the total amount paid to an individual consultant, and the amount paid
for individual tasks. A recent internal review of consultant rates
found that the number of consultants charging in excess of $300 a day
has risen significantly in recent years. Although no changes in the
Grant Guideline are required, the Institute will be undertaking changes
in procedure (including Board participation in the review process and
more detailed reports from applicants and grantees) to assure that the
compensation paid consultants is commensurate with the nature and
quality of the services to be performed; reasonable, in terms of the
tasks performed and in total; and consistent with the public service
mission of the Institute.
Recommendations to Grant Writers
Over the past 7 years, Institute staff have reviewed approximately
2,700 concept papers and 1,300 applications. On the basis of those
reviews, inquiries from applicants, and the views of the Board, the
Institute offers the following recommendations to help potential
applicants present workable, understandable proposals that can meet the
funding criteria set forth in this Guideline.
The Institute suggests that applicants make certain that they
address the questions and issues set forth below when preparing a
concept paper or application. Concept papers and applications should,
however, be presented in the formats specified in sections vi. and vii.
of the guideline, respectively.
1. What is the subject or problem you wish to address? Describe the
subject or problem and how it affects the courts and the public.
Discuss how your approach will improve the situation or advance the
state of the art or knowledge, and explain why it is the most
appropriate approach to take. When statistics or research findings are
cited to support a statement or position, the source of the citation
should be referenced in a footnote or a reference list.
2. What do you want to do? Explain the goal(s) of the project in
simple, straightforward terms. The goals should describe the intended
consequences or expected overall effect of the proposed project (e.g.,
to enable judges to sentence drug-abusing offenders more effectively,
or to dispose of civil cases within 24 months), rather than the tasks
or activities to be conducted (e.g., hold three training sessions, or
install a new computer system).
To the greatest extent possible, an applicant should avoid a
specialized vocabulary that is not readily understood by the general
public. Technical jargon does not enhance a paper.
3. How will you do it? Describe the methodology carefully so that
what you propose to do and how you would do it are clear. All proposed
tasks should be set forth so that a reviewer can see a logical
progression of tasks and relate those tasks directly to the
accomplishment of the project's goal(s). When in doubt about whether to
provide a more detailed explanation or to assume a particular level of
knowledge or expertise on the part of the reviewers, provide the
additional information. A description of project tasks also will help
identify necessary budget items. All staff positions and project costs
should relate directly to the tasks described. The Institute encourages
applicants to attach letters of cooperation and support from the courts
and related agencies that will be involved in or directly affected by
the proposed project.
4. How will you know it works? Include an evaluation component that
will determine whether the proposed training, procedure, service, or
technology accomplished the objectives it was designed to meet. Concept
papers and applications should describe the criteria that will be used
to evaluate the project's effectiveness and identify program elements
which will require further modification. The description in the
application should include how the evaluation will be conducted, when
it will occur during the project period, who will conduct it, and what
specific measures will be used. In most instances, the evaluation
should be conducted by persons not connected with the implementation of
the procedure, training, service, or technique, or the administration
of the project.
The Institute has also prepared a more thorough list of
recommendations to grant writers regarding the development of project
evaluation plans. Those recommendations are available from the
Institute upon request.
5. How will others find out about it? Include a plan to disseminate
the results of the training, research, or demonstration beyond the
jurisdictions and individuals directly affected by the project. The
plan should identify the specific methods which will be used to inform
the field about the project, such as the publication of law review or
journal articles, or the distribution of key materials. A statement
that a report or research findings ``will be made available to'' the
field is not sufficient. The specific means of distribution or
dissemination as well as the types of recipients should be identified.
Reproduction and dissemination costs are allowable budget items.
6. What are the specific costs involved? The budget in both concept
papers and applications should be presented clearly. Major budget
categories such as personnel, benefits, travel, supplies, equipment,
and indirect costs should be identified separately. The components of
``Other'' or ``Miscellaneous'' items should be specified in the
application budget narrative, and should not include set-asides for
undefined contingencies.
7. What, if any, match is being offered? Courts and other units of
State and local government (not including publicly-supported
institutions of higher education) are required by the State Justice
Institute Act to contribute a match (cash, non-cash, or both) of not
less than 50 percent of the grant funds requested from the Institute.
All other applicants also are encouraged to provide a matching
contribution to assist in meeting the costs of a project.
The match requirement works as follows: If, for example, the total
cost of a project is anticipated to be $150,000, a State or local court
or executive branch agency may request up to $100,000 from the
Institute to implement the project. The remaining $50,000 (50% of the
$100,000 requested from SJI) must be provided as match.
Cash match includes funds directly contributed to the project by
the applicant, or by other public or private sources. It does not
include income generated from tuition fees or the sale of project
products. Non-cash match refers to in-kind contributions by the
applicant, or other public or private sources. This includes, for
example, the monetary value of time contributed by existing personnel
or members of an advisory committee (but not the time spent by
participants in an educational program attending program sessions).
When match is offered, the nature of the match (cash or in-kind) should
be explained and, at the application stage, the tasks and line items
for which costs will be covered wholly or in part by match should be
specified.
8. Which of the two budget forms should be used? Section VII.A.3.
of the SJI Grant Guideline encourages use of the spreadsheet format of
Form C1 if the funding request exceeds $100,000. Form C1 also works
well for projects with discrete tasks, regardless of the dollar value
of the project. Form C, the tabular format, is preferred for projects
lacking a number of discrete tasks, or for projects requiring less than
$100,000 of Institute funding. Generally, use the form that best lends
itself to representing most accurately the budget estimates for the
project.
9. How much detail should be included in the budget narrative? The
budget narrative of an application should provide the basis for
computing all project-related costs, as indicated in section VII.D. of
the SJI Grant Guideline. To avoid common shortcomings of application
budget narratives, 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, nature and extent of
printing to be done, anticipated telephone charges, and other common
expenditures, with the basis for computing the estimates included
(e.g., 100 reports x 75 pages each x .05/page = $375.00). Supply and
expense estimates offered simply as ``based on experience'' are not
sufficient.
In order to expedite Institute review of the budget, make a final
comparison of the amounts listed in the budget narrative with those
listed on the budget form. In the rush to complete all parts of the
application on time, there may be many last-minute changes;
unfortunately, when there are discrepancies between the budget
narrative and the budget form or the amount listed on the application
cover sheet, it is not possible for the Institute to verify the amount
of the request. A final check of the numbers on the form against those
in the narrative will preclude such confusion. The Institute will
provide an illustrative budget and budget form upon request.
10. What travel regulations apply to the budget estimates?
Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the policies
of the applicant organization, and a copy of the applicant's travel
policy should be submitted as an appendix to the application. If the
applicant does not have a travel policy established in writing, then
travel rates must be consistent with those established by the Institute
or the Federal Government (a copy of the Institute's travel policy is
available upon request). The budget narrative should state which
regulations are in force for the project and 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
separately. When combined, the subtotals for these categories should
equal the estimate listed on the budget form.
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.
Equipment purchases to support basic court operations ordinarily will
not be approved. The budget narrative must list the equipment to be
purchased and explain why the equipment is necessary to the success of
the project. Written prior approval of the Institute 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? It is the policy of the Institute that all costs should be
budgeted directly; however, if an applicant has an indirect cost rate
that has been approved by a Federal agency within the last two years,
an indirect cost recovery estimate may be included in the budget. A
copy of the approved rate agreement should be submitted as an appendix
to the application.
If an applicant does not have an approved rate agreement, an
indirect cost rate proposal should be prepared in accordance with
Section XI.H.4. of the Grant Guideline, based on the applicant's
audited financial statements for the prior fiscal year. (Applicants
lacking an audit should budget all project costs directly.) If an
indirect cost rate proposal is to be submitted, the budget should
reflect estimates based on that proposal. Obviously, this requires that
the proposal be completed at the time of application so that the
appropriate estimates may be included; however, grantees have until
three months after the project start date to submit the indirect cost
proposal to the Institute for approval. An indirect cost rate worksheet
on computer diskette is available from the Institute upon request.
13. Does the budget truly reflect all costs required to complete
the project? After preparing the program narrative portion of the
application, applicants may find it helpful to list all the major tasks
or activities required by the proposed project, including the
preparation of products, and note the individual expenses, including
personnel time, related to each. This will help to ensure that, for all
tasks described in the application (e.g., development of a videotape,
research site visits, distribution of a final report), the related
costs appear in the budget and are explained correctly in the budget
narrative.
Recommendations To Grantees
The Institute's staff works with grantees to help assure the smooth
operation of the project and compliance with the SJI Guidelines. On the
basis of monitoring more than 800 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. Thus, the Quarterly Project Report should describe
project activities, their relationship to the approved timeline, and
any problems encountered and how they were resolved, and outline the
tasks scheduled for the coming quarter. It is helpful to attach copies
of relevant memos, draft products, or other requested information. An
original and one copy of a Quarterly Progress Report and attachments
should be submitted to the Institute.
Additional Quarterly Progress Report or Financial Status Report
forms may be obtained from the grantee's Program Manager at SJI, or
photocopies may be made from the supply received with the award.
2. Do reporting requirements differ for renewal grants or package
grants? Recipients of a continuation, on-going support, or package
grant are required to submit quarterly progress and financial status
reports on the same schedule and with the same information as
recipients of a grant for a single new project.
A continuation or an on-going support grant should be considered as
a supplement to and extension of the original award, and the reports
numbered accordingly. For example, if the last quarterly report filed
under the original award is report number six, the first report
including a portion of the renewal grant should be report number seven.
Recipients of a package grant should file a summary Financial
Status Report covering the entire package as well as separate financial
reports for each of the projects in the package, identified by letter
of the alphabet (e.g., SJI-93-15R-J-001-A; SJI-93-15R-J-001-B; SJI-93-
15R-J-001-C).
3. What information about project activities should be communicated
to SJI? In general, grantees should provide prior notice of critical
project events such as advisory board meetings or training sessions so
that the Institute Program Manager can attend if possible. If
methodological, schedule, staff, budget allocations, or other
significant changes become necessary, the grantee should contact the
Program Manager prior to implementing any of these changes, so that
possible questions may be addressed in advance. Questions concerning
the financial requirements section of the Guideline, quarterly
financial reporting or payment requests, should be addressed to the
Chief or Deputy Chief of the Institute's Finance and Management
Division.
It is helpful to include the grant number assigned to the award on
all correspondence to the Institute.
4. Why is it important to address the special conditions that are
attached to the award document? In some instances, a list of special
conditions is attached to the award document. The special conditions
are imposed to establish a schedule for reporting certain key
information, to assure that the Institute has an opportunity to offer
suggestions at critical stages of the project, and to provide reminders
of some, but not all of the requirements contained in the Grant
Guideline. Accordingly, it is important for grantees to check the
special conditions carefully and discuss with their Program Manager any
questions or problems they may have with the conditions. Most concerns
about timing, response time, and the level of detail required can be
resolved in advance through a telephone conversation. The Institute's
primary concern is to work with grantees to assure that their projects
accomplish their objectives, not to enforce rigid bureaucratic
requirements. However, if a grantee fails to comply with a special
condition or with other grant requirements, the Institute may, after
proper notice, suspend payment of grant funds or terminate the grant.
Sections X., XI., and XII. of the Grant Guideline contain the
Institute's administrative and financial requirements. Institute
Finance and Management Division staff are always available to answer
questions and provide assistance regarding these provisions.
5. What is a Grant Adjustment? A Grant Adjustment is the
Institute's form for acknowledging the satisfaction of special
conditions, or approving changes in grant activities, schedule,
staffing, sites, or budget allocations requested by the project
director. It also may be used to correct errors in grant documents, add
small amounts to a grant award, or deobligate funds from the grant.
6. What schedule should be followed in submitting requests for
reimbursements or advance payments? Requests for reimbursements or
advance payments may be made at any time after the project start date
and before the end of the 90-day close-out period. However, the
Institute follows the U.S. Treasury's policy limiting advances to the
minimum amount required to meet immediate cash needs. Given normal
processing time, grantees should not seek to draw down funds for
periods greater than 30 days from the date of the request.
7. Do procedures for submitting requests for reimbursement or
advance payment differ for renewal grants or package grants? The basic
procedures are the same for any grant. A continuation or an on-going
support grant should be considered as a supplement to and extension of
the original award, and the payment requests numbered accordingly. For
example, if the last payment request under the original award is number
nine, then the first request for funds from the continuation award
should be number ten.
Recipients of a package grant should file separate requests for
each project in the package. For example, if there are three projects
within a package grant, a grantee should prepare three separate payment
requests, each identified by the letter of the alphabet designated in
the award document (e.g., SJI-93-15R-J-001-A; SJI-93-15R-J-001-B; SJI-
93-15R-J-001-C). Subsequent payment requests should be numbered
consecutively for each project within the package (e.g., project SJI-
93-15R-J-001-A payment number 2; SJI-93-15R-J-001-B payment number 4;
etc.).
8. If things change during the grant period, can funds be
reallocated from one budget category to another? The Institute
recognizes that some flexibility is required in implementing a project
design and budget. Thus, grantees may shift funds among direct cost
budget categories. When any one reallocation or the cumulative total of
reallocations are expected to exceed five percent of the approved
project budget, a grantee must specify the proposed changes, explain
the reasons for the changes, and request Institute approval.
The same standard applies to renewal grants and package grants. In
addition, prior written Institute approval is required to shift
leftover funds from the original award to cover activities to be
conducted under the renewal award, or to use renewal grant monies to
cover costs incurred during the original grant period. Prior written
Institute approval also is needed to shift funds between projects
included in a package grant.
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.
Starting the day after the end of the award period, and during the
following 90 days, 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 grants funds as ``Other Federal
Assistance.'' This classification is acceptable to SJI but is not
required.
11. If SJI is not a Federal Agency, do OMB circulars apply with
respect to audits? Except to the extent that they are inconsistent with
the express provisions of the SJI Grant Guideline, 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 XI.J.)
Prior to FY 1994, the Institute did not require grantees to comply
with the audit-related provisions of OMB circulars A-110, A-128, or A-
133, but did require that grantees, lacking an audit report prepared
for a Federal agency, conduct an independent audit in compliance with
generally accepted auditing standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
The current Guideline makes it clear that SJI will accept audits
conducted in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-128, or A-133, in satisfaction
of the annual fiscal audit requirement. Grantees who 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 Circular A-128 or A-133; or conduct an
audit of only the SJI funds in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards. (See Guideline Section XI.J.)
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 1995 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 that are required to satisfy either the Single Audit Act,
OMB Circular A-128 or A-133, and who include SJI grant funds in those
audits, need to remember that because of its status as a private non-
profit corporation, SJI is not on routing lists of cognizant Federal
agencies. Therefore, the grantee needs to submit a copy of the audit
report prepared for such a cognizant Federal agency directly to SJI.
The Institute's audit requirements may be found in Section XI.J. of the
Grant Guideline.
* * * * *
The following Grant Guideline is adopted by the State Justice
Institute for FY 1995:
State Justice Institute Grant Guideline
Table of Contents
Summary
I. Background
II. Scope of the Program
III. Definitions
IV. Eligibility for Award
V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of Awards
VI. Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects
VII. Application Requirements for New Projects
VIII. Application Review Procedures
IX. Renewal Funding Procedures and Requirements
X. Compliance Requirements
XI. Financial Requirements
XII. Grant Adjustments
Appendix I List of State Contacts Regarding Administration of
Institute Grants to State and Local Courts
Appendix II SJI Libraries: Designated Sites and Contacts
Appendix III Judicial Education Scholarship Application Forms
Appendix IV Preliminary Budget Form
Appendix V Certificate of State Approval Form
Appendix VI Illustrative List of Model Curricula
Summary
This Guideline sets forth the programmatic, financial, and
administrative requirements of grants, cooperative agreements, and
contracts awarded by the State Justice Institute. The Institute, a
private, nonprofit corporation established by an Act of Congress, is
authorized to award grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to
improve the administration and quality of justice in the State courts.
Grants may be awarded to State and local courts and their agencies;
national nonprofit organizations controlled by, operating in
conjunction with, and serving the judicial branch of State governments;
and national nonprofit organizations for the education and training of
judges and support personnel of the judicial branch of State
governments. The Institute may also award grants to other nonprofit
organizations with expertise in judicial administration; institutions
of higher education; individuals, partnerships, firms, or corporations;
and private agencies with expertise in judicial administration if the
objectives of the funded program can be better served by such an
entity. Funds may be awarded, as well, to Federal, State or local
agencies and institutions other than courts for services that cannot be
provided adequately through nongovernmental arrangements. In addition,
the Institute may provide financial assistance in the form of
interagency agreements with other grantors.
The Institute will consider applications for funding support that
address any of the areas specified in its enabling legislation as
amended. However, the Board of Directors of the Institute has
designated certain program categories as being of special interest.
The Institute has established one round of competition for FY 1995
funds. The concept paper submission deadline for all but two funding
categories is November 23, 1994. Concept papers proposing projects that
follow up on the November 1994 National Conference on the Management of
Mass Tort Cases must be mailed by March 10, 1995. Concept papers to
implement the plans developed at the March 1995 National Conference on
Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts must be mailed by
October 6, 1995.
It is anticipated that between $11 million and $11.5 million will
be available for award. This Guideline applies to all concept papers
and applications submitted, as well as grants awarded in FY 1995.
The awards made by the State Justice Institute are governed by the
requirements of this Guideline and the authority conferred by Public
Law 98-620, Title II, 42 U.S.C. 10701, et seq., as amended.
I. Background
The Institute was established by Public Law 98-620 to improve the
administration of justice in the State courts in the United States.
Incorporated in the State of Virginia as a private, nonprofit
corporation, the Institute is charged, by statute, with the
responsibility to:
A. Direct a national program of financial assistance designed to
assure that each citizen of the United States is provided ready access
to a fair and effective system of justice;
B. Foster coordination and cooperation with the Federal judiciary;
C. Promote recognition of the importance of the separation of
powers doctrine to an independent judiciary; and
D. Encourage education for judges and support personnel of State
court systems through national and State organizations, including
universities.
To accomplish these broad objectives, the Institute is authorized
to provide funds to State courts, national organizations which support
and are supported by State courts, national judicial education
organizations, and other organizations that can assist in improving the
quality of justice in the State courts.
The Institute is supervised by an eleven-member Board of Directors
appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate. The
Board is statutorily composed of six judges, a State court
administrator, and four members of the public, no more than two of whom
can be of the same political party.
Through the award of grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements,
the Institute is authorized to perform the following activities:
A. Support research, demonstrations, special projects, technical
assistance, and training to improve the administration of justice in
the State courts;
B. Provide for the preparation, publication, and dissemination of
information regarding State judicial systems;
C. Participate in joint projects with Federal agencies and other
private grantors;
D. Evaluate or provide for the evaluation of programs and projects
funded by the Institute to determine their impact upon the quality of
criminal, civil, and juvenile justice and the extent to which they have
contributed to improving the quality of justice in the State courts;
E. Encourage and assist in furthering judicial education;
F. Encourage, assist, and serve in a consulting capacity to State
and local justice system agencies in the development, maintenance, and
coordination of criminal, civil, and juvenile justice programs and
services; and
G. Be responsible for the certification of national programs that
are intended to aid and improve State judicial systems.
II. Scope of the Program
During FY 1995, the Institute will consider applications for
funding support that address any of the areas specified in its enabling
legislation. The Board, however, has designated certain program
categories as being of ``special interest.'' See section II.B.
A. Authorized Program Areas
The Institute is authorized to fund projects addressing one or more
of the following program areas listed in the State Justice Institute
Act, the Battered Women's Testimony Act of 1992, the Judicial Training
and Research for Child Custody Litigation Act of 1992, and the
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993.
1. Assistance to State and local court systems in establishing
appropriate procedures for the selection and removal of judges and
other court personnel and in determining appropriate levels of
compensation;
2. Education and training programs for judges and other court
personnel for the performance of their general duties and for
specialized functions, and national and regional conferences and
seminars for the dissemination of information on new developments and
innovative techniques;
3. Research on alternative means for using judicial and nonjudicial
personnel in court decisionmaking activities, implementation of
demonstration programs to test such innovative approaches, and
evaluations of their effectiveness;
4. Studies of the appropriateness and efficacy of court
organizations and financing structures in particular States, and
support to States to implement plans for improved court organization
and financing;
5. Support for State court planning and budgeting staffs and the
provision of technical assistance in resource allocation and service
forecasting techniques;
6. Studies of the adequacy of court management systems in State and
local courts, and implementation and evalua-tion of innovative
responses to records management, data processing, court personnel
management, reporting and transcription of court proceedings, and juror
utilization and management;
7. Collection and compilation of statistical data and other
information on the work of the courts and on the work of other agencies
which relate to and affect the work of courts;
8. Studies of the causes of trial and appellate court delay in
resolving cases, and establishing and evaluating experimental programs
for reducing case processing time;
9. Development and testing of methods for measuring the performance
of judges and courts and experiments in the use of such measures to
improve the functioning of judges and the courts;
10. Studies of court rules and procedures, discovery devices, and
evidentiary standards to identify problems with the operation of such
rules, procedures, devices, and standards; and the development of
alternative approaches to better reconcile the requirements of due
process with the need for swift and certain justice, and testing of the
utility of those alternative approaches;
11. Studies of the outcomes of cases in selected areas to identify
instances in which the substance of justice meted out by the courts
diverges from public expectations of fairness, consistency, or equity;
and the development, testing and evaluation of alternative approaches
to resolving cases in such problem areas;
12. Support for programs to increase court responsiveness to the
needs of citizens through citizen education, improvement of court
treatment of witnesses, victims, and jurors, and development of
procedures for obtaining and using measures of public satisfaction with
court processes to improve court performance;
13. Testing and evaluating experimental approaches to provide
increased citizen access to justice, including processes which reduce
the cost of litigating common grievances and alternative techniques and
mechanisms for resolving disputes between citizens; and
14. Collection and analysis of information regarding the
admissibility and quality of expert testimony on the experiences of
battered women offered as part of the defense in criminal cases under
State law, as well as sources of and methods to obtain funds to pay
costs incurred to provide such testimony, particularly in cases
involving indigent women defendants;
15. Development of training materials to assist battered women,
operators of domestic violence shelters, battered women's advocates,
and attorneys to use expert testimony on the experiences of battered
women in appropriate cases, and individuals with expertise in the
experiences of battered women to develop skills appropriate to
providing such testimony;
16. Research regarding State judicial decisions relating to child
custody litigation involving domestic violence;
17. Development of training curricula to assist State courts to
develop an understanding of, and appropriate responses to child custody
litigation involving domestic violence;
18. Dissemination of information and training materials and
provision of technical assistance regarding the issues listed in
paragraphs 14-17 above;
19. Development of national, regional, and in-State training and
educational programs dealing with criminal and civil aspects of
interstate and international parental child abduction;
20. Other programs, consistent with the purposes of the State
Justice Institute Act, as may be deemed appropriate by the Institute,
including projects dealing with the relationship between Federal and
State court systems in areas where there is concurrent State-Federal
jurisdiction and where Federal courts, directly or indirectly, review
State court proceedings.
Funds wil l not be made available for the ordinary, routine
operation of court systems or programs in any of these areas.
B. Special Interest Program Categories
1. General Description
The Institute is interested in funding both innovative programs and
programs of proven merit that can be replicated in other jurisdictions.
Although applications in any of the statutory program areas are
eligible for funding in FY 1995, the Institute is especially interested
in funding those projects that:
a. Formulate new procedures and techniques, or creatively enhance
existing arrangements to improve the courts;
b. Address aspects of the State judicial systems that are in
special need of serious attention;
c. Have national significance in terms of their impact or
replicability in that they develop products, services and techniques
that may be used in other States; and
d. Create and disseminate products that effectively transfer the
information and ideas developed to relevant audiences in State and
local judicial systems or provide technical assistance to facilitate
the adaptation of effective programs and procedures in other State and
local jurisdictions.
A project will be identified as a ``Special Interest'' project if
it meets the four criteria set forth above and (1) it falls within the
scope of the ``special interest'' program areas designated below, or
(2) information coming to the attention of the Institute from the State
courts, their affiliated organizations, the research literature, or
other sources demonstrates that the project responds to another special
need or interest of the State courts.
Concept papers and applications which address a ``Special
Interest'' category will be accorded a preference in the rating
process. (See the selection criteria listed in sections VI.B.,
``Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects,'' and
VIII.B., ``Application Review Procedures.'')
2. Specific Categories
The Board has designated the areas set forth below as ``Special
Interest'' program categories. The order of listing does not imply any
ordering of priorities among the categories.
a. Improving Public Confidence in the Courts. This category
includes research, demonstration, evaluation and education projects
designed to improve the public's confidence in the State courts'
ability to administer justice fairly, and to test innovative methods
for eliminating economic, racial, ethnic, cultural or gender-based
barriers to justice.
i. The Institute is particularly interested in supporting
innovative projects that examine, develop, and test methods that trial
or appellate courts may use to:
Respond to the needs of the culturally, demographically,
economically and physically diverse public the courts serve;
Address court-community problems resulting from the influx
of legal and illegal immigrants, including projects to define the
impact of immigration on State courts; design and assess procedures for
use in custody, visitation, and other domestic relations cases when key
family members or property are outside the United States; facilitate
communication with Federal authorities when illegal aliens are involved
in State court proceedings; and develop protocols to facilitate service
of process, the enforcement of orders of judgment, and the disposition
of criminal and juvenile cases when a non-U.S. citizen or corporation
is involved;
Handle cases involving pro se litigants fairly and
effectively; and
Increase public understanding of jury decisions and the
juror selection and service process; foster positive attitudes toward
jury service; and enhance the attractiveness of juror service through,
e.g., incentives to participate, modifications of terms of service,
and/or juror orientation and education programs.
Institute funds may not be used to directly or indirectly support
legal representation of individuals in specific cases. In addition, it
is unlikely that the Institute will support development or testing of
additional automated kiosks such as those being used by the courts in
Arizona, California, and Florida.
ii. National Town Hall Meeting. The Institute recently awarded a
grant to the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and the American
Judicature Society (AJS) to convene a National Town Hall Meeting on
Improving Public Confidence in the Courts in October 1995. The Meeting
will be broadcast by satellite up to ten downlink (receiving) sites
across the country.
The sponsors of the Meeting are seeking proposals from (a) State
and local courts or (b) community groups, other non-profit
organizations, universities, and other applicants collaborating with
courts, that are interested in conducting a local, State, or regional
meeting at a downlink site in conjunction with the National Meeting.
Each site will receive several hours of programming from the uplink
(originating) site, prepare its own program, and report back to the
uplink site about its plans for future collaboration between courts and
communities to enhance public confidence in the courts.
Objectives. As approved by the Institute's Board of Directors, the
objectives of the project are to:
Raise the level of awareness of both the court community
and the public about the need to work together to improve public trust
and confidence in the courts;
Identify strategies for improving court and community
collaboration at the local and State level;
Promote a diverse group of effective local approaches to
improve the relationship between courts and the communities they serve;
and
Develop national goals rooted in local experience that
will encourage courts and communities to work together more
effectively.
Site Selection. Representatives of SJI, NCSC, and AJS will select
sites to participate in the program on a competitive basis. Site
selection will be based on the following criteria:
The level of support and participation of the State and
local courts serving the proposed site;
The level of support and participation of representatives
of a broad range of interested community groups in the proposed site;
The site's technological and logistical capability to
participate in the meeting;
The likelihood of continued efforts to improve public
confidence in the courts serving the site after the meeting;
The availability of funding from local sources to support
the site costs of participating in the meeting; and
Geographical diversity across all participating sites.
Meeting Content. The sponsors presently contemplate an evening
orientation program at all downlink sites (including a common video
presentation at each site that defines the mission of the Meeting),
followed by a full-day program featuring national satellite broadcasts
mixed with local discussions.
With the guidance and support of the conference sponsors, each
participating site will be responsible for originating local programs
to complement the national program. All selected sites will receive:
Technical assistance regarding the use of satellite
technology and the conduct of the local programs;
Conference materials including the opening videotape,
notebooks and other informational materials about effective ways to
improve public confidence in the courts; and
Post-conference products including multiple copies of a
manual for implementing model programs, a national directory of
programs, and a video of conference highlights.
Application Process. Applications seeking to organize and convene a
downlink program must respond to a National Town Hall Meeting Request
for Proposals (RFP) available from NCSC. To obtain a copy of the RFP,
applicants should write to: National Center for State Courts, National
Town Hall Project, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798. All
applications must be sent to the same address and postmarked no later
than February 15, 1995. Further information about the National Town
Hall Meeting and the application process is available from NCSC [(804)
253-2000] and AJS [(312) 558-6900].
Previous SJI-supported projects that address these issues include:
evaluation of an experimental community court in New York City;
development of a manual for management of court interpretation services
and materials for training and assisting court interpreters;
development of touchscreen computer systems, videotapes and written
materials to assist pro se litigants; a demonstration of the use of
volunteers to monitor guardianships; studies of effective and efficient
methods of providing legal representation to indigent parties in
criminal and family cases and the applicability of various dispute
resolution procedures to different cultural groups; guidelines for
court-annexed day care systems; and development of a manual for
implementing innovations in jury selection, use, and management;
technical assistance and training to facilitate implementation of the
Standards on Jury Management; development of a guide for making juries
accessible to persons with disabilities.
b. Education and Training for Judges and Other Key Court Personnel.
The Institute continues to be interested in supporting an array of
projects to strengthen and broaden the availability of court education
programs at the State, regional, and national levels. Accordingly, this
category is divided into five subsections: (i) State Initiatives; (ii)
National and Regional Education Programs; (iii) Judicial Education
Technical Assistance; (iv) Conferences; and (v) Scholarships. All
Institute-supported conferences and education and training seminars
should be accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
i. State Initiatives. This category includes support for training
projects developed or endorsed by a State's courts for the benefit of
judges and other court personnel in that State. Funding of these
initiatives does not include support for training programs conducted by
national providers of judicial education unless such a program is
designed specifically for a particular State and has the express
support of the State Chief Justice, State Court Administrator, or State
Judicial Educator. The types of programs to be supported within this
category should be defined by individual State need but may include:
(a) Development of State Court Education Programs. Projects to
assist development of State court education programs include, but are
not limited to:
Seed money for the creation of an ongoing State-based
entity for planning, developing, and administering judicial education
programs;
Seed money for innovative interdisciplinary and, as
appropriate, interbranch educational programs, such as those
addressing: (1) the development of better working relationships across
court divisions and between courts and criminal justice, social
service, and treatment agencies; (2) organizational and leadership
development, including team-building; and (3) the specific educational
needs of nonsupervisory staff as well of those filling more direct
managerial roles; and (4) the development and implementation of
strategies for coping with the gap between resources and the demand for
services; and
The development of the expertise, information, and
commitment required for the preparation and implementation of State
court education plans, including model plans for career-long education
of the judiciary (e.g., new judge training and orientation followed by
continuing education and career development) and for the career-long
education of court managers, clerks, and other court personnel.
(b) Curriculum Adaptation Projects. (1) Description of the
Program. The Board is reserving up to $350,000 to provide support for
adaptation and implementation of model curricula and/or model training
programs previously developed with SJI support. The exact amount to be
awarded for curriculum adaptation grants will depend on the number and
quality of the applications submitted in this category and other
categories of the Guideline. The program is designed to provide State
and local courts with sufficient support to prepare and conduct a
State-specific or regional modification of a model curriculum, course
module, national or regional conference program, or other model
education program developed with SJI funds by any other State or
national organization. An illustrative list of the curricula that may
be appropriate for the adaptation is contained in Appendix VI.
Only State or local courts may apply for Curriculum Adaptation
funding. Grants to support adaptation of educational programs
previously developed with SJI funds are limited to no more than $20,000
each. As with other awards to State or local courts, cash or in-kind
match must be provided equal to at least 50% of the grant amount
requested.
(2) Review Criteria. Curriculum Adaptation grants will be awarded
on the basis of criteria including: The need for the educational
program; the need for outside funding to support the program; the
likelihood of effective implementation; and expressions of interest by
the judges and/or court personnel who would be directly involved in or
affected by the project. In making implementation awards, the Institute
will also consider factors such as the reasonableness of the amount
requested, compliance with the statutory 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.
(3) Application Procedures. In lieu of concept papers and formal
applications, applicants for grants may submit, at any time, a detailed
letter, and three photocopies. Although there is no prescribed form for
the letter nor a minimum or maximum page limit, letters of application
should include the following information to assure that each of the
criteria for evaluating applications is addressed:
Project Description. Why is this education program needed
at the present time? What is the model curriculum or training program
to be tested? How will it be adapted for State use, and who will be
responsible for adapting the model curriculum? Who will the
participants be, how will they be recruited, and from where will they
come (e.g., from across the State, from a single local jurisdiction,
from a multi-State region)? How many participants are anticipated?
Need for funding. Why cannot State or local resources
fully support the modification and presentation of the model
curriculum? What is the potential for replicating or integrating the
program in the future using State or local funds, once it has been
successfully adapted and tested?
Likelihood. What is the proposed date for presenting the
program? What types of modifications in the length, format, and content
of the model curriculum are anticipated? How will the presentation of
the program be evaluated and by whom? (Ordinarily, an outside
evaluation is not necessary.) What measures will be taken to facilitate
subsequent presentations of the adapted program?
Expressions of Interest By Judges and/or Court Personnel.
Does the proposed program have the support of the court system
leadership, and of judges, court managers, and judicial education
personnel who are expected to attend? (This may be demonstrated by
attaching letters of support.)
Budget and Matching State Contribution. A copy of budget
Form E (see Appendix IV) and a budget narrative (see Section VII.B.)
that describes the basis for the proposed costs and the source of the
match offered.
Local courts should attach a concurrence signed by the
Chief Justice of the State or his or her designee. (See Form B,
Appendix V.)
Letters of application may be submitted at any time. However,
applicants should allow at least 90 days between the date of submission
and the date of the proposed program to allow sufficient time for
needed planning. The Board of Directors has delegated its authority to
approve Curriculum Adaptation grants to its Judicial Education
Committee. The committee anticipates acting upon applications within 45
days after receipt. Formal grant awards will be made only after
committee approval and negotiation of the final terms of the grant.
(4) Grantee Responsibilities. A recipient of a Curriculum
Adaptation grant must:
(a) Comply with the same quarterly reporting requirements as other
Institute grantees (see Section X.L., infra);
(b) Include in each grant product a prominent acknowledgment that
support was received from the Institute, along with the ``SJI'' logo,
and a disclaimer paragraph based on the example provided in Section
X.Q. of the Guideline; and
(c) Submit two copies of the manuals, handbooks, or conference
packets developed under the grant at the conclusion of the grant
period, along with a final report that explains how it intends to
replicate the program in the future.
Applicants seeking other types of funding for developing and
testing educational programs must comply with the requirements for
concept papers and applications set forth in Sections VI and VII or the
requirements for renewal applications set forth in Section IX.
ii. National and Regional Education Programs. This category
includes support for national or regional training programs developed
by any provider, e.g., national organizations, State courts,
universities, or public interest groups. Within this category, priority
will be given to training projects which address issues of major
concern to the State judiciary and other court personnel. Ordinarily,
national and regional education projects are expected to develop
curricula (as defined in Section III.K.) that may be adapted by State
and local courts. Programs to be supported may include:
Training programs or seminars on topics of interest and
concern that transcend State lines including the factors that should be
considered in deciding child custody and termination of parental
rights;
Multi-State or regional training programs sponsored by
national organizations, non-profit groups, State courts or
universities;
Interdisciplinary and, as appropriate, interbranch
educational programs for State trial and appellate court judges, State
and local court managers including clerks of court, and non-supervisory
staff or other court personnel, including seminars based on Institute-
supported research, and programs designed to develop better working
relationships across court divisions and between courts and criminal
justice, social service, and treatment agencies; and
Innovative independent study models that would enhance the
availability of judicial education, especially for judges and court
personnel who do not have ready access to training programs, and
possible models for the credentialing of this type of continuing
judicial education.
iii. Judicial Education Technical Assistance. Unlike the preceding
categories which support direct training, ``Technical Assistance''
refers to services necessary for the development of effective
educational projects for judges and other court personnel. Projects in
this category should focus on the needs of the States, and applicants
should demonstrate their ability to work effectively with State
judicial educators.
The Institute is currently funding the following judicial education
technical assistance projects: the Judicial Education Reference
Information and Technology Transfer Project (JERITT), which collects
and disseminates information (as well as providing technical
assistance) on continuing education programs for judges and court
personnel; the Judicial Education/Adult Education Project (JEAEP),
which provides expert assistance on the application of adult and
continuing education theory and practices to court education programs;
the Leadership Institute in Judicial Education, which offers an annual
training program and follow-up assistance to State judicial education
leadership teams to help them develop improved approaches to court
education; and NASJE NEWS, a newsletter of the National Association of
State Judicial Educators.
iv. Conferences. This category includes support for regional or
national conferences on topics of major concern to the State judiciary
and court personnel. Applicants are encouraged to consider the use of
videoconference and other technologies to increase participation and
limit travel expenses in planning and presenting conferences.
Applicants also are reminded that conference sites should be accessible
to persons with disabilities in accordance with the Americans With
Disabilities Act. In planning a conference, applicants should provide
for a written, video, or other product that would widely disseminate
the information, findings, and any recommendations resulting from the
conference.
The Institute is particularly interested in supporting:
(a) National Symposium on Sentencing: The Judicial Response to
Crime, to enable State and Federal judges, legislators, prosecutors,
defense counsel, corrections officials, legal academics, social science
researchers, media representatives, and members of the public to:
Evaluate what is known about the impact of current
sentencing practices on adult offenders, juvenile offenders tried as
adults, and juvenile offenders, the criminal and juvenile justice
systems, and the public's perception of justice;
Explore how changes in sentencing legislation and judicial
practices might better accomplish the goals of sentencing;
Identify changes in procedure, new sources of information
or education, and other innovations that might better assure that a
sentence serves the judge's intended sentencing goal(s) in a particular
case; and
Recommend specific changes in law, policy, and procedure
that would help courts better accomplish the goals of sentencing and
improve the public's confidence in the justice system.
Among the topics which could be addressed at the Symposium would
be: the impact that Federal and State sentencing guidelines, mandatory
minimums, and other determinate sentencing approaches have had on the
courts and other components of the criminal justice system, the public,
and offenders; whether these approaches have fulfilled their envisioned
purposes; whether sentencing innovations (e.g., giving judges greater
access to information about the offender, the victim, and available
sentencing options; changed plea bargaining practices; and greater use
of intermediate sanctions) might better assure just and effective
sentencing; and whether current sentencing legislation, processes, and
decisions adequately reflect the public's expectations of justice.
(b) National Symposium on Reducing Litigation Delay. The Institute
has supported over 20 projects examining methods for improving caseflow
in various types and levels of courts, or training judges and court
managers on pretrial and trial management. The Institute is interested
in supporting a symposium that would bring together litigation delay
researchers, technical assistance providers, trial and appellate court
judges and managers both from courts that have not successfully
implemented programs for improving caseflow and reducing the time to
disposition as well as those that have, State court administrators,
attorneys, scholars, and others to synthesize and share the information
resulting from the projects funded by the Institute and others;
determine the approaches to pretrial, trial, and individual docket
management that appear to be most effective and the best methods for
implementing them; identify the programs that may be needed to assist
courts in further reducing litigation delay; define and prioritize the
topics for further research on improving caseflow management; and
encourage and assist courts that are experiencing litigation delay to
undertake measures to ensure the prompt and fair disposition of cases.
v. Scholarships for Judges and Court Personnel. The Institute is
reserving up to $250,000 (in addition to any scholarship funds
remaining from Fiscal Year 1994) to support a scholarship program for
State court judges and court managers.
(a) Program Description/Scholarship Amounts. The purposes of the
Institute scholarship program are to: enhance the knowledge, skills,
and abilities of judges and court managers; enable State court judges
and court managers to attend out-of-State educational programs
sponsored by national and State providers that they could not otherwise
attend because of limited State, local and personal budgets; and
provide States, judicial educators, and the Institute with evaluative
information on a range of judicial and court-related education
programs.
Scholarships will be granted to individuals only for the purpose of
attending an out-of-State educational program within the United States.
The annual or midyear meeting of a State or national organization of
which the applicant is a member does not qualify as an out-of-State
educational program for scholarship purposes, even though it may
include workshops or other training sessions.
A scholarship may cover the cost of tuition and travel up to a
maximum total of $1,500 per scholarship. (Transportation expenses
include roundtrip coach airfare or train fare, or up to $.25/mile if
the recipient drives to the site of the program.) Funds to pay tuition
and transportation expenses in excess of $1,500, and other costs of
attending the program such as lodging, meals, materials, and local
transporta-tion (including rental cars) at the site of the education
program, must be obtained from other sources or be borne by the
scholarship recipient.
Scholarship recipients are encouraged to check with their tax
advisor to determine whether the scholarship constitutes taxable income
under Federal and State law.
(b) Eligibility Requirements. Because of the limited amount of
funds available, scholarships are limited to full-time judges of State
or local trial and appellate courts, to full-time professional, State
or local court personnel with management responsibilities, and to
supervisory and management probation personnel in judicial branch
probation offices. Senior judges, part time judges, quasi-judicial
hearing officers, State administrative law judges, staff attorneys, law
clerks, line staff, law enforcement officers and other executive branch
personnel will not be eligible to receive a scholarship.
(c) Application Procedures. Judges and court managers interested in
receiving a scholarship must submit the Institute's Judicial Education
Scholarship Application Form (Form S1, see Appendix III). Applications
must be submitted by:
November 1, 1994, for programs beginning between February 1, 1995
and April 30, 1995;
February 1, 1995, for programs beginning between May 1 and July 31,
1995;
May 1, 1995, for programs beginning between August 1, and October
31, 1995; and
August 1, 1995, for programs beginning between November 1, 1995 and
January 31, 1996.
No exceptions or extensions will be granted.
(d) Concurrence Requirement. All scholarship applicants must obtain
the written concurrence of the Chief Justice of his or her State's
Supreme Court (or the Chief Justice's designee) on the Institute's
Judicial Education Scholarship Concurrence (Form S2, see Appendix III).
Court managers, other than elected clerks of court, also should submit
a letter of support from their supervisor. The Concurrence (Form S2)
may accompany the application or be sent separately. However, the
original signed Concurrence form must be received by the Institute
within one week after the appropriate application mailing deadline
(i.e. by November 8, 1994, or February 8, May 8, or August 8, 1995). No
application will be reviewed if a signed Concurrence has not been
received by the required date.
(e) Review Procedures/Selection Criteria. The Board of Directors
has delegated the authority to approve or deny scholarships to its
Judicial Education Committee. The Institute intends to notify each
applicant whose scholarship has been approved within 60 days after the
relevant application deadline. The Committee will reserve sufficient
funds each quarter to assure the availability of scholarships
throughout the year.
The factors that the Institute will consider in selecting
scholarship recipients are:
The applicant's need for training in the particular course
subject and how the applicant would apply the information/skills
gained;
The benefits to the applicant's court or the State's court
system that would be derived from the applicant's participation in the
specific educational program, including a description of current legal,
procedural, administrative or other problems affecting the State's
courts, related to topics to be addressed at the educational program
(in addition to submission of a signed Form S2);
The absence of educational programs in the applicant's
State addressing the particular topic;
How the applicant will disseminate the knowledge gained
(e.g., by developing/teaching a course or providing in-service training
for judges or court personnel at the State or local level);
The length of time that the applicant intends to serve as
a judge or court manager, assuming reelection or reappointment, where
applicable;
The likelihood that the applicant would be able to attend
the program without a scholarship;
The unavailability of State or local funds to cover the
costs of attending the program;
The quality of the educational program to be attended as
demonstrated by the sponsoring organization's experience in judicial
education, evaluations by participants or other professionals in the
field, or prior SJI support for this or other programs sponsored by the
organization;
Geographic balance;
The balance of scholarships among types of applicants and
courts;
The balance of scholarships among educational programs;
and
The level of appropriations available to the Institute in
the current year and the amount expected to be available in succeeding
fiscal years.
(f) Responsibilities of Scholarship Recipients. In order to receive
the funds authorized by a scholarship award, recipients must submit
Scholarship Payment Voucher (Form S3) together with a tuition statement
from the program sponsor, and a transportation fare receipt (or
statement of the driving mileage to and from the recipient's home to
the site of the educational program). Recipients also must submit to
the Institute a certificate of attendance at the program and an
evaluation of the educational program they attended. A copy of the
evaluation also must be sent to the Chief Justice of their State.
A State or a local jurisdiction may impose additional requirements
on scholarship recipients that are consistent with SJI's criteria and
requirements, e.g., a requirement to serve as faculty on the subject at
a State- or locally-sponsored judicial education program.
c. Dispute Resolution and the Courts. This category includes
research, evaluation, and demonstration projects addressing the
findings and recommendations developed at the National Symposium on
Court-Connected Dispute Resolution Research, conducted in Orlando in
October 1993. The Institute is interested in projects that enhance the
courts' ability to compare findings among research studies; address the
nature and operation of ADR programs within the context of the court
system as a whole; compare dispute resolution processes to attorney
settlement as well as trial; and promote the ability of the courts to
move toward on-going self-evaluation of court-connected dispute
resolution programs. Among the topics of greatest interest are:
i. The Structure of Court-Connected Dispute Resolution Programs
including such issues as the appropriate timing for referrals to
dispute resolution services and the effects implementing such referrals
at various stages during litigation; the effect of different referral
methods including any differences in outcome between voluntary and
mandatory referrals; cultural issues, including the nature of cultural
conflict and its effect on outcomes; and approaches that provide rural
courts and other under-served areas with adequate court-connected
dispute resolution services.
ii. The Selection, Qualifications and Training of Court-Connected
Neutrals including what selection procedures are most effective; what
standards should be used to qualify a neutral; what constitutes
effective dispute resolution training; on what basis and when people
should be eliminated from the training process; how courts can maintain
and improve neutrals' skills; and how ineffective neutrals should be
removed from the pool.
iii. Innovative uses of court-connected dispute resolution for
resolving complex cases including land-use litigation.
Applicants should be aware that the Institute will not provide
operational support for on-going ADR programs. Courts also should be
advised that it is preferable for the applicant to support operational
costs of a new program, with Institute funds targeted to support
related technical assistance, training, and evaluation needs.
In previous funding cycles, grants have been awarded to support
evaluation of the use of mediation in civil, domestic relations,
juvenile, medical malpractice, appellate, and minor criminal cases. SJI
grants also have supported assessments of the impact of early neutral
evaluation of motor vehicle cases, the impact of private judging on
State courts, multi-door courthouse programs, arbitration of civil
cases, and civil settlement programs. In addition, SJI has supported
the creation of a consumer guide to choosing a mediator; the
development of training programs for judges; and technical assistance
on implementation of multi-door courthouse programs, developing
standards for court-annexed mediation programs, examination of the
applicability of various dispute resolution procedures to different
cultural groups, and creation of a national database of court-connected
dispute resolution programs.
d. Planning and Managing the Future of the Courts. The Institute is
interested in supporting activities that would enable courts to
implement and evaluate long-range strategic planning processes and
complementary innovative management approaches in their own
jurisdictions.
The types of projects that fall within this category are:
Development, implementation, institutionalization, and
evaluation of long-range planning approaches in individual States and
local jurisdictions, e.g., the development or inclusion of strategic
planning techniques, environmental scanning, trends analysis,
benchmarking, and other comprehensive long-range, strategic planning
methods as components of courts' current planning processes or as part
of the initiation of such a process;
Adaptation, implementation and evaluation of innovative
management approaches, such as total quality management, designed to
complement, enhance or support use of a long-range strategic planning
process. This includes the development and testing of performance
standards and other techniques to enable trial and appellate court
officials to conduct user evaluations of the quality of court services
and to measure public, internal, and supplier satisfaction as a means
to improve court performance. Also included is the planning,
implementation, and evaluation of innovative delay and cost reduction
programs including assessments of the advantages and disadvantages of
privatizing court activities;
Development, implementation, and evaluation of mechanisms
for linking assessments of effectiveness such as the Trial Court
Performance Standards to fiscal planning and budgeting, including
service efforts and accomplishments approaches (SEA), performance
audits, and performance budgeting;
Development, presentation and evaluation of training
necessary to enable judges and court staff to participate productively
in the implementation or institutionalization of the planning process
and/or related innovative management approaches, including training to
enhance the ability of courts to develop effective plans for coping
with natural or other disasters.
The Institute has supported futures commissions in seven States.
Because the Board of Directors believes that a sufficient variety of
commission models now exists, the Institute will not support the
development or implementation of any State futures commissions in FY
1995.
The Institute also has supported planning, futures, and innovative
management projects including: national and Statewide ``future and the
courts'' conferences and training; development of curricula, guidebooks
and a video on visioning, and a long-range planning guide for trial
courts; the provision of technical assistance to courts conducting
futures and long-range planning activities, including development of a
court futures network on Internet; a test of the feasibility of
implementing the Trial Court Performance Standards in four States; the
development of Appellate Court Performance Standards; the application
of total quality management principles to court operations, and the
development of TQM guidebook for trial courts; and the development of
service efforts and accomplishments (SEA) measures for municipal
courts.
e. Children and Families in Court. This category includes
education, evaluation, technical assistance, and research projects to
identify and inform judges of appropriate and effective approaches for:
Adjudicating child custody litigation in which family
violence may be involved;
Determining and addressing the service needs of children
exposed to family violence including the short- and long-term effects
on children of exposure to family violence and the methods for
mitigating those effects when issuing protection, custody, visitation,
or other orders;
Adjudicating and monitoring child abuse and neglect
litigation and reconciling the need to protect the child with the
requirement to make reasonable efforts to maintain or reunite the
family;
Adjudicating and developing dispositions for cases
involving elder abuse;
Determining when it may be appropriate to refer a case
involving family violence for mediation, and what procedures and
safeguards should be employed;
Coordinating multiple cases involving members of the same
family, and obtaining and appropriately using social and psychological
information gathered in one case involving a family member in a case
involving another family member; and
Handling the criminal and civil aspects of interstate and
international parental child abductions.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute supported a national and
a State symposium on courts, children, and the family; a national
symposium on enhancing coordination of cases involving the same family
that are being heard in different courts; development and evaluation of
a curriculum addressing the adjudication of allegations of child sexual
abuse when custody is in dispute; and the development and testing of
curricula to enhance judges' understanding of the dynamics of family
violence and guide them in adjudication of family violence cases and
custody cases in which spousal abuse is involved. In addition, the
Institute has supported studies of the appropriate use of mediation in
child abuse cases and in divorce, custody, and visitation cases
involving family violence; development of a video and other materials
for parties and children awaiting a court hearing in domestic relations
cases involving family violence; a benchbook for judges on child abuse
and neglect cases stemming from parental substance abuse; curricula to
fairly adjudicate child abuse and neglect cases; an examination of the
effectiveness of probation as a sanction for child sexual abuse
offenders; and the development of guidelines for courts in handling
elder abuse cases.
f. Application of Technology. This category includes the testing of
innovative applications of technology to improve the operation of court
management systems and judicial practices at both the trial and
appellate court levels.
The Institute seeks to support local experiments with promising but
untested applications of technology in the courts that include a
structured evaluation of the impact of the technology in terms of
costs, benefits, and staff workload. In this context, ``untested''
refers to novel applications of technology developed for the private
sector and other fields that have not previously been applied to the
courts.
The Institute is particularly interested in supporting efforts to
determine what benefits and problems may occur as a result of courts
entering the ``information superhighway,'' including projects to
establish standards for judicial electronic data interchange (EDI);
local, Statewide, and/or interstate demonstrations of the courts' use
of EDI (i.e., the exchange of documents or data in a computerized
format that enables courts to process or perform work electronically on
the documents received) beyond simple image transfer (facsimile or
computer-imaging); and demonstrations and evaluations of innovative
judicial/court uses of electronic communications networks including
those required to meet the reporting mandates contained in recent
Federal legislation such as the Brady Act and the National Child
Protection Act. In addition, the Institute is interested in
demonstrations and evaluation of the effective use of management
information systems to monitor, assess, and predict evolving court
needs; and evaluations of innovative technologies highlighted at the
Fourth National Conference on Court Technology held in Nashville in
October 1994.
Ordinarily, the Institute will not provide support for the purchase
of equipment or software in order to implement a technology that has
been thoroughly tested in other jurisdictions such as the establishment
of videolinks between courts and jails, the use of optical imaging for
recordkeeping, and the creation of an automated management information
system. (See section XI.H.2.b. regarding other limits on the use of
grant funds to purchase equipment and software.)
In previous funding cycles, grants have been awarded to support:
Demonstration and evaluation of communications technology, e.g.:
interactive computerized information systems to assist pro se
litigants; the use of FAX technology by courts; a multi-user ``system
for judicial interchange'' designed to link disparate automated
information systems and share court information among judicial system
offices throughout a State without replacement of the various hardware
and software environments which support individual courts; a compu-
terized voice information system permitting parties to access by
telephone information pertaining to their cases; an automated public
information directory of courthouse facilities and services; an
automated appellate court bulletin board; and a computer-integrated
courtroom that provides full access to the judicial system for hearing-
impaired jurors, witnesses, crime victims, litigants, attorneys, and
judges.
Demonstration and evaluation of records technology, including: the
development of a court management information display system; the
integration of bar-coding technology with an existing automated case
management system; an on-bench automated system for generating and
processing court orders; an automated judicial education management
system; testing of a document management system for small courts that
uses imaging technology, and of automated telephone docketing for
circuit-riding judges; and evaluation of the use of automated teller
machines for paying jurors; and
Court technology assistance services, e.g., circulation of a court
technology bulletin designed to inform judges and court managers about
the latest developments in court-related technologies; creation of a
court technology laboratory to provide judges and court managers with
the opportunity to test automated court-related systems; enhancement of
a data base documenting automated systems currently in use in courts
across the country; establishment of a technical information service to
respond to specific inquiries concerning court-related technologies;
development of court automation performance standards; and an
assessment of programs that allow public access to electronically
stored court information.
Grants also provided support for national court technology
conferences; preparation of guidelines on privacy and public access to
electronic court information; the testing of a computerized citizen
intake and referral service; development of an ``analytic judicial
desktop system'' to assist judges in making sentencing decisions;
implementation and evaluation of a Statewide automated integrated case
docketing and record-keeping system; a prototype computerized benchbook
using hypertext technology; and computer simulation models to assist
State courts in evaluating potential strategies for improving civil
caseflow.
g. Resolution of Current Evidentiary Issues. This category
includes educational programs and other projects to assist judges in
deciding questions regarding:
The admissibility of new forms of demonstrative evidence,
including computer simulations;
The application of the standards set forth in Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. governing the admissibility of
scientific and technical evidence;
The admissibility of testimony based on recovered memory,
and the admissibility of expert testimony about memory recovery;
The competence of children to testify in criminal, civil,
and family cases;
The appropriate use of expert testimony regarding the
impact of gender-related offenses on victims and their willingness and
ability to testify, and the application of rape shield laws and other
limits on the introduction of evidence or the cross-examination of
witnesses;
Determining what constitutes clear and convincing evidence
of a person's wish not to initiate or continue life-sustaining
treatment, including the implications of the Federal Patient Self-
Determination Act; and
Other complex evidentiary issues.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported the
development of a computer-assisted training program on evidentiary
problems for juvenile and family court judges; training on medical/
legal and scientific evidence issues; regional seminars on evidentiary
questions; and development of protocols for handling child victim
cases.
h. Substance Abuse. This category includes the development and
evaluation of innovative techniques for courts to handle the increasing
volume of substance abuse-related criminal, civil, juvenile and
domestic relations cases fairly and expeditiously; and the planning and
presentation of seminars or other educational forums for judges,
probation officers, caseworkers, and other court personnel to examine
court-related issues concerning alcohol and other drug abuse and
develop specific plans for how individual courts can respond
effectively to the impact of substance abuse-related cases on their
ability to manage their overall caseloads fairly and efficiently.
The Institute is particularly interested in funding innovative
projects which evaluate the applicability of court-enforced treatment
programs to substance abuse-related cases involving juveniles and cases
requiring treatment services in addition to substance abuse treatment
(e.g., spousal abuse, child abuse, or mental health cases); establish
coordinated efforts between local courts and treatment providers for
the effective disposition of cases involving substance abuse; or
evaluate the effectiveness of various court responses to treating
substance abuse. Proposals should demonstrate a direct impact on the
ability of State courts to handle cases involving substance abuse
fairly and effectively.
The Institute will not fund projects focused on developing
additional assessment tools, establishing court-enforced treatment
programs for adult substance abusers, or providing support for basic
court or treatment services.
The Institute is currently supporting the presentation of a
National Symposium on the Implementation and Operation of Court-
Enforced Drug Treatment Programs. In previous funding cycles, the
Institute has sponsored a National Conference on Substance Abuse and
the Courts, and State efforts to implement the plans developed at that
Conference. It has also supported projects to evaluate court-enforced
treatment programs initiated by the Dade County, Florida, Pulaski
County, Arkansas, and New York City courts, and the effectiveness of
other court-based alcohol and drug assessment programs; replicate the
Dade County program in non-urban sites; assess the impact of
legislation and court decisions dealing with drug-affected infants, and
strategies for coping with increasing caseload pressures; develop a
benchbook to assist judges in child abuse and neglect cases involving
parental substance abuse; test the use of a dual diagnostic treatment
model for domestic violence cases in which substance abuse was a
factor; and present local and regional educational programs for judges
and other court personnel on substance abuse and its treatment.
The Institute and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) also are
supporting two technical assistance projects: one by the National
Center for State Courts to assist courts in implementing the plans
developed at the National Conference; and the other by the American
University Court Technical Assistance Project to identify successful
drug case management strategies, conduct seminars on drug case
management, and develop a guidebook for implementing drug case
processing initiatives. In addition, the Institute and the Department
of Health and Human Services' Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
(CSAT) have entered into interagency agreement to conduct regional
training programs for State judges and legislators on substance abuse
treatment.
i. Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts. This category
includes State and local court projects to implement the action plans
and strategies developed by the teams that participated in the
Institute-supported National Conference on Eliminating Race and Ethnic
Bias in the Courts, to be held in Albuquerque, New Mexico in March,
1995, and projects designed to assist teams in implementing their
plans.
A special accelerated cycle has been established for considering
such projects. In order to be considered during the special cycle,
concept papers proposing implementation projects must be mailed by
October 6, 1995. They will be considered by the Institute's Board of
Directors at its meeting in November, 1995. Applications based on those
concept papers will be considered by the Board at its meeting in March,
1996.
j. Assessing the Impact of Health Care-Related Issues on the State
Courts. This category includes projects to develop educational
curricula and other materials to assist judges in:
Determining and preparing approaches for dealing with the
impact on the State Courts of proposed or enacted changes in the State
and Federal health care systems, including the anticipated increase in
the number of disputes regarding the scope and nature of insurance
coverage;
Understanding and responding to the scientific, legal and
ethical issues raised by the continuing advances in the application of
biotechnology to health care, including the use of gene therapy and
genetic testing; and
Using effective innovative remedies in long-term
environmental and toxic substance exposure cases such as medical
surveillance orders.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported projects
to: Develop guidelines for judges in cases regarding the withdrawal of
life-sustaining treatment; prepare benchbooks, handbooks, videotapes,
and training materials on guardianship, the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and AIDS; conduct a series of health science-law workshops for
judges and judicial educators; and develop a deskbook for judges on
medical-legal issues arising in juvenile and family cases.
k. Improving the Courts' Response to Gender-Related Crimes of
Violence. This category includes the development, testing,
presentation, and dissemination of education programs for judges and
court personnel on:
The nature and incidence of stalking and gender-related
crimes of violence (e.g., rape, sexual assault, spousal abuse), and
their impact on the victim and society;
Sentencing decision-making in cases involving gender-
related crimes of violence;
The use of self-defense and provocation defenses by
alleged victims of gender-related violence accused of assaulting or
killing their alleged abusers; and
The effective use and enforcement of protective orders and
the implications of mutual orders of protection.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute supported a national
conference on family violence and the courts, and follow-up conferences
in several States; development of a comprehensive curriculum on
handling stranger and non-stranger rape and sexual assault cases;
evaluation of the effectiveness of court-ordered treatment for family
violence offenders; a demonstration of ways to improve court processing
of injunctions for protection and a study of ways to improve the
effectiveness of civil protection orders for family violence victims;
an examination of state-of-the-art court practices for handling family
violence cases and of ways to improve access to rural courts for
victims of family violence; and a manual for judges on the use of
expert testimony regarding the battered woman syndrome.
l. The Relationship Between State and Federal Courts. This category
includes education, research, demonstration, and evaluation projects
designed to facilitate appropriate and effective communication,
cooperation, and coordination between State and Federal courts. The
Institute is particularly interested in innovative education,
evaluation, demonstration, technical assistance and research projects
that:
i. Build upon the findings and recommendations gained at the
Institute-supported National Conference on the Management of Mass Tort
Cases to be held in Cincinnati on November 10-13, 1994. Concept papers
proposing projects addressing these issues must be mailed by March 10,
1995. Concept papers following up on the Mass Tort Conference will be
reviewed by the Board of Directors at its April 1995 meeting. (A
summary of the recommendations and findings from the conference will be
published in SJI NEWS in December, 1994.)
ii. Develop and test curricula and other educational materials to:
Enhance the operation of State-Federal Judicial Councils;
Illustrate effective methods being used at the trial
court, State and Circuit levels to coordinate cases and administrative
activities; and
Conduct regional conferences replicating the October, 1992
National Conference on State/Federal Judicial Relationships.
iii. Develop and test new approaches to:
Improve the fairness and pace of capital litigation by
assigning special capital litigation law clerks to assist trial judges
hearing cases involving crimes punishable by death;
Otherwise handle capital habeas corpus cases fairly and
efficiently;
Coordinate related State and Federal criminal cases;
Coordinate cases that may be brought under the pending
Violence Against Women Act;
Exchange information and coordinating calendars among
State and Federal courts; and
Share jury pools, alternative dispute resolution programs,
and court services.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported national
and regional conferences on State-Federal judicial relationships and
the Chief Justices' Special Committee on Mass Tort Litigation. In
addition, the Institute has supported projects developing judicial
impact statement procedures for national legislation affecting State
courts, and projects examining methods of State and Federal court
cooperation; procedures for facilitating certification of questions of
law; the impact on the State courts of diversity cases and cases
brought under section 1983; the procedures used in Federal habeas
corpus review of State court criminal cases; the factors that motivate
litigants to select Federal or State courts; and the mechanisms for
transferring cases between Federal and State courts, as well as the
methods for effectively consolidating, deciding, and managing complex
litigation. The Institute has also supported a clearinghouse of
information on State constitutional law decisions, educational programs
for State judges on coordination of Federal bankruptcy cases with State
litigation, and a seminar examining the implications of the
``Federalization'' of crime.
C. Single Jurisdiction Projects
The Board will consider supporting a limited number of projects
submitted by State or local courts that address the needs of only the
applicant State or local jurisdiction. It has established two
categories of Single Jurisdiction Projects:
1. Programs Addressing a Critical Need of a Single State or Local
Jurisdiction
a. Description of the Program. The Board will set aside up to
$600,000 to support projects submitted by State or local courts that
address the needs of only the applicant State or local jurisdiction. A
project under this section may address any of the topics included in
the Special Interest Categories or Statutory Program Areas, and may,
but need not, seek to implement the findings and recommendations of
Institute supported research, evaluation, or demonstration programs.
Concept papers for single jurisdiction projects may be submitted by a
State court system, an appellate court, or a limited or general
jurisdiction trial court. All awards under this category are subject to
the matching requirements set forth in section X.B.1.
b. Application Procedures. Concept papers and applications
requesting funds for projects under this section must meet the
requirements of sections VI. (``Concept Paper Submission Requirements
for New Projects'') and VII. (``Application Requirements''),
respectively, and must demonstrate that:
i. The proposed project is essential to meeting a critical need of
the jurisdiction; and
ii. The need cannot be met solely with State and local resources
within the foreseeable future.
2. Technical Assistance Grants
a. Description of the Program. The Board will set aside up to
$600,000 of Fiscal Year 1995 funds (in addition to any technical
assistance funds remaining from Fiscal Year 1994) to support the
provision of technical assistance to State and local courts. The exact
amount to be awarded for these grants will depend on the number and
quality of the applications submitted in this category and other
categories of the Guideline. It is anticipated, however, that at least
$150,000 will be available each quarter to support Technical Assistance
grants. The program is designed to provide State and local courts with
sufficient support to obtain technical assistance to diagnose a
problem, develop a response to that problem, and initiate
implementation of any needed changes.
Technical Assistance grants are limited to no more than $30,000
each, and may cover the cost of obtaining the services of expert
consultants, travel by a team of officials from one court to examine a
practice, program or facility in another jurisdiction that the
applicant court is interested in replicating, or both.
The technical assistance must be completed within 12 months after
the start-date of the grant. Only State or local courts may apply for
Technical Assistance grants. As with other awards to State or local
courts, cash or in-kind match must be provided equal to at least 50% of
the grant amount. Technical Assistance grant recipients also are
subject to the same quarterly reporting requirements as other Institute
grantees.
At the conclusion of the grant period, a Technical Assistance grant
recipient must complete a Technical Assistance Evaluation Form. The
grantee also must submit to the Institute two copies of a final report
that explains how it intends to act on the consultant's recommendations
as well as two copies of the consultant's written report.
b. Review Criteria. Technical Assistance grants will be awarded on
the basis of criteria including: Whether the assistance would address a
critical need of the court; the soundness of the technical assistance
approach to the problem; the qualifications of the consultant(s) to be
hired, or the specific criteria that will be used to select the
consultant(s); commitment on the part of the court to act on the
consultant's recommendations; and the reasonableness of the proposed
budget. The Institute will also consider factors such as the level and
nature of the match that would be provided, diversity of subject
matter, geographic diversity, and the level of appropriations available
to the Institute in the current year and the amount expected to be
available in succeeding fiscal years.
c. Application Procedures. In lieu of concept papers and formal
applications, applicants for Technical Assistance grants may submit, at
any time, an original and three copies of a detailed letter describing
the proposed project and addressing the criteria listed above. Letters
from an individual trial or appellate court must be signed by the
presiding judge or manager of that court. Letters from the State court
system must be signed by the Chief Justice or State Court
Administrator.
Although there is no prescribed form for the letter nor a minimum
or maximum page limit, letters of application should include the
following information to assure that each of the criteria is addressed:
i. Need for Funding. What is the critical need facing the court?
How will the proposed technical assistance help the court to meet this
critical need? Why cannot State or local resources fully support the
costs of the required consultant services?
ii. Project Description. What tasks would the consultant be
expected to perform? Who (organization or individual) would be hired to
provide the assistance and how was this consultant selected? If a
consultant has not yet been identified, what procedures and criteria
would be used to select the consultant? (Applicants are expected to
follow their jurisdiction's normal procedures for procuring consultant
services.) What is the time frame for completion of the technical
assistance? How would the court oversee the project and provide
guidance to the consultant?
If the consultant has been identified, a letter from that
individual or organization documenting interest in and availability for
the project, as well as the consultant's ability to complete the
assignment within the proposed time period and for the proposed cost,
should accompany the applicant's letter. The consultant must agree to
submit a detailed written report to the court and the Institute upon
completion of the technical assistance.
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 must accompany the
application letter. Support letters also may be submitted under
separate cover; however, to ensure that there is sufficient time to
bring them to the attention of the Board's Technical Assistance
Committee, letters sent under separate cover must be received not less
than two weeks prior to the Board meeting at which the technical
assistance requests will be considered (i.e., by November 4, 1994;
February 17, 1995; April 28, 1995; and July 14, 1995).
iii. Likelihood of implementation. What steps have been/will be
taken to facilitate implementation of the consultant's recommendations
upon completion of the technical assistance? For example, if the
support or cooperation of other agencies, funding bodies,
organizations, or a court other than the applicant will be needed to
adopt the changes recommended by the consultant and approved by the
court, how will they be involved in the review of the recommendations
and development of the implementation plan?
iv. Budget and matching State contribution. A completed Form E,
``Preliminary Budget'' (see Appendix IV to the Grant Guideline), must
be included with the applicant's letter requesting technical
assistance. Please note that 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. In addition, the budget should provide for submission of
three copies of the consultant's final report to the Institute.
v. Support for the project from the State supreme court or its
designated agency or council. Written concurrence on the need for the
technical assistance must be submitted. This concurrence may be a copy
of SJI Form B (see Appendix V.) signed by the Chief Justice of the
State Supreme Court or the Chief Justice's designee, or a letter from
the State Chief Justice or designee. The concurrence may be submitted
with the applicant's letter or under separate cover prior to
consideration of the application. The concurrence also must specify
whether the State Supreme Court would receive, administer, and account
for the grant funds, if awarded, or would designate the local court or
a specified agency or council to receive the funds directly.
Letters of application may be submitted at any time; however, all
of the letters received during a calendar quarter will be considered at
one time. Applicants submitting letters between October 1, 1994, and
January 15, 1995, will be notified of the Board's decision by March 31,
1995; those submitting letters between January 16, and March 15, 1995,
will be notified by May 31, 1995. Notification of the Board's decisions
concerning letters received between March 16 and June 15, 1995, will be
made by August 31, 1995; and applicants submitting letters between June
16 and September 29, 1995, will be notified by November 30, 1995. The
Board has delegated its authority to approve these grants to its
Technical Assistance Committee.
The Technical Assistance grant program described in this section
should not be confused with the Judicial Education Technical Assistance
projects described in Section II.B.2.b.iii.
III. Definitions
The following definitions apply for the purposes of this guideline:
A. Institute
The State Justice Institute.
B. State Supreme Court
The highest appellate court in a State, unless, for the purposes of
the Institute program, a constitutionally or legislatively established
judicial council that acts in place of that court. In States having
more than one court with final appellate authority, State Supreme Court
shall mean that court which also has administrative responsibility for
the State's judicial system. State Supreme Court also includes the
office of the court or council, if any, it designates to perform the
functions described in this guideline.
C. Designated Agency or Council
The office or judicial body which is authorized under State law or
by delegation from the State Supreme Court to approve applications for
funds and to receive, administer, and be accountable for those funds.
D. Grantee
The organization, entity, or individual to which an award of
Institute funds is made. For a grant based on an application from a
State or local court, grantee refers to the State Supreme Court or its
designee.
E. Subgrantee
A State or local court which receives Institute funds through the
State Supreme Court.
F. Match
The portion of project costs not borne by the Institute. Match
includes both in-kind and cash contributions. Cash match is the direct
outlay of funds by the grantee to support the project. In-kind match
consists of contributions of time, services, space, supplies, etc.,
made to the project by the grantee or others (e.g., advisory board
members) working directly on the project. Under normal circumstances,
allowable match may be incurred only during the project period. When
appropriate, and with the prior written permission of the Institute,
match may be incurred from the date of the Institute Board of
Directors' approval of an award. Match does not include project-related
income such as tuition or revenue from the sale of grant products, or
the time of participants attending an education program. Amounts
contributed as cash or in-kind match may not be recovered through the
sale of grant products during or following the grant period.
G. Continuation Grant
A grant of no more than 24 months to permit completion of
activities initiated under an existing Institute grant or enhancement
of the programs or services produced or established during the prior
grant period.
H. On-going Support Grant
A grant of up to 36 months to support a project that is national in
scope and that provides the State courts with services, programs or
products for which there is a continuing important need.
I. Package Grant
A single grant that supports two or more closely-related projects
which logically should be viewed as a whole or would require
substantial duplication of effort if administered separately. Closely-
related projects may include those addressing interrelated topics, or
those requiring the services of all or some of the same key staff
persons, or the core elements of a multifaceted program. Each of the
components of a package grant must operate within the same project
period.
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(s).
K. 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 other instructors' notes; copies of
overhead transparencies or other visual aids; exercises, case studies,
hypotheticals, quizzes and other materials for involving the
participants; background materials for participants; evaluation forms;
and suggestions for replicating the program including possible faculty
or the preferred qualifications or experience of those selected as
faculty.
L. Products
Tangible materials resulting from funded projects including, but
not limited to: Curricula; monographs; reports; books; articles;
manuals; handbooks; benchbooks; guidelines; videotapes; audiotapes; and
computer software.
IV. Eligibility for Award
In awarding funds to accomplish these objectives and purposes, the
Institute has been authorized by Congress to award grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts to State and local courts and their agencies
(42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(1)(A)); national nonprofit organizations controlled
by, operating in conjunction with, and serving the judicial branches of
State governments (42 U.S.C. 10705 (b)(1)(B)); and national nonprofit
organizations for the education and training of judges and support
personnel of the judicial branch of State governments (42 U.S.C.
10705(b)(1)(C)).
An applicant will be considered a national education and training
applicant under section 10705(b)(1)(C) if: (1) the principal purpose or
activity of the applicant is to provide education and training to State
and local judges and court personnel; and (2) the applicant
demonstrates a record of substantial experience in the field of
judicial education and training.
The Institute also is authorized to make awards to other nonprofit
organizations with expertise in judicial administration, institutions
of higher education, individuals, partnerships, firms, corporations,
and private agencies with expertise in judicial administration,
provided that the objectives of the relevant program area(s) can be
served better. In making this judgment, the Institute will consider the
likely replicability of the projects' methodology and results in other
jurisdictions. For-profit organizations are also eligible for grants
and cooperative agreements; however, they must waive their fees.
The Institute may also make awards to Federal, State or local
agencies and institutions other than courts for services that cannot be
adequately provided through nongovernmental arrangements.
Finally, the Institute may enter into inter-agency agreements with
other public or private funders to support projects consistent with the
purpose of the State Justice Institute Act.
Each application for funding from a State or local court must be
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court or
its designated agency or council. The latter shall receive all
Institute funds awarded to such courts and be responsible for assuring
proper administration of Institute funds, in accordance with section
XI.B.2. of this Guideline. A list of persons to contact in each State
regarding approval of applications from State and local courts and
administration of Institute grants to those courts is contained in
Appendix I.
V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of Awards
A. Types of Projects
Except as expressly provided in section II.B.2.b. and II.C. above,
the Institute has placed no limitation on the overall number of awards
or the number of awards in each special interest category. The general
types of projects are:
1. Education and training;
2. Research and evaluation;
3. Demonstration; and
4. Technical assistance.
B. Types of Grants
The Institute has established the following types of grants:
1. New grants (See sections VI. and VII.).
2. Continuation grants (See sections III.H. and IX.A).
3. On-going Support grants (See sections III.I. and IX.B.).
4. Package grants (See sections III.J., VI.A.2.b., VI.A.3.b., and
VII.).
5. Technical Assistance grants (See section II.C.2.).
6. Curriculum Adaptation grants (See section II.B.2.b.i.(b)).
7. Scholarships (See section II.B.2.b.v.).
C. Maximum Size of Awards
1. Except as specified below, concept papers and applications for
new projects other than national conferences, and applications for
continuation grants may request funding in amounts up to $300,000,
although new and continuation awards in excess of $200,000 are likely
to be rare and to be made, if at all, only for highly promising
proposals that will have a significant impact nationally.
2. Applications for on-going support grants may request funding in
amounts up to $600,000, except as provided in paragraph V.C.3. At the
discretion of the Board, the funds to support on-going support grants
may be awarded either entirely from the Institute's appropria-tions for
the fiscal year of the award or from the Institute's appropriations for
successive fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year of the award.
When funds to support the full amount of an on-going support grant are
not awarded from the appropriations for the fiscal year of award, funds
to support any subsequent years of the grant will be made available
upon (1) the satisfactory performance of the project as reflected in
the quarterly Progress Reports required to be filed and grant
monitoring, and (2) the availability of appropriations for that fiscal
year.
3. An application for a package grant may request funding in an
amount up to a total of $750,000 per year.
4. Applications for technical assistance grants may request funding
in amounts up to $30,000.
5. Applications for curriculum adaptation grants may request
funding in amounts up to $20,000.
6. Applications for scholarships may request funding in amounts up
to $1,500.
D. Length of Grant Periods
1. Grant periods for all new and continuation projects ordinarily
will not exceed 24 months.
2. Grant periods for on-going support grants ordinarily will not
exceed 36 months.
3. Grant periods for technical assistance grants and curriculum
adaptation grants ordinarily will not exceed 12 months.
VI. Concept Paper Submission Requirements for new Projects
Concept papers are an extremely important part of the application
process because they enable the Institute to learn the program areas of
primary interest to the courts and to explore innovative ideas, without
imposing heavy burdens on prospective applicants. The use of concept
papers also permits the Institute to better project the nature and
amount of grant awards. This requirement and the submission deadlines
for concept papers and applications may be waived for good cause (e.g.,
the proposed project would provide a significant benefit to the State
courts or the opportunity to conduct the project did not arise until
after the deadline).
A. Format and Content
All concept papers must include a cover sheet, a program narrative,
and a preliminary budget, regardless of whether the applicant is
proposing a single project or a ``package of projects,'' or whether the
applicant is requesting accelerated award of a grant of less than
$40,000.
1. The Cover Sheet
The cover sheet for all concept papers must contain:
a. A title describing the proposed project;
b. The name and address of the court, organization or individual
submitting the paper;
c. The name, title, address (if different from that in b.), and
telephone number of a contact person(s) who can provide further
information about the paper;
d. The letter of the Special Interest Category (see section
II.B.2.) or the number of the statutory Program Area (see section
II.B.1.) that the proposed project addresses most directly; and
e. The estimated length of the proposed project.
Applicants requesting the Board to waive the application
requirement and approve a grant of less than $40,000 based on the
concept paper, should add APPLICATION WAIVER REQUESTED to the
information on the cover page.
2. The Program Narrative
a. Concept Papers Proposing a Single Project. The program narrative
of a concept paper describing a single project should be no longer than
necessary, but in no case should exceed eight (8) double-spaced pages
on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper. Margins must not be less than 1 inch and
type no smaller than 12 point and 12 cpi must be used. The narrative
should describe:
i. Why this project is needed and how it will benefit State courts?
If the project is to be conducted in a specific location(s), applicants
should discuss the particular needs of the project site(s) to be
addressed by the project, why those needs are not being met through the
use of existing materials, programs, procedures, services or other
resources, and the benefits that would be realized by the proposed
sites(s).
If the project is not site specific, applicants should discuss the
problems that the proposed project will address, why existing
materials, programs, procedures, services or other resources do not
adequately resolve those problems, and the benefits that would be
realized from the project by State courts generally.
ii. What will be done if a grant is awarded? A summary description
of the project to be conducted and the approach to be taken, including
the anticipated length of the grant period. Applicants requesting a
waiver of the application requirement for a grant of less than $40,000
should explain the proposed methods for conducting the project as fully
as space allows.
iii. How the effects and quality of the project will be determined?
A summary description of how the project will be evaluated, including
the evaluation criteria.
iv. How others will find out about the project and be able to use
the results? A description of the products that will result, the degree
to which they will be applicable to courts across the nation, and the
manner in which the products and results of the project will be
disseminated.
b. Concept Papers Requesting a Package Grant Covering More Than One
Project. The program narrative of a concept paper requesting a package
grant (see definition in section III.I.) should be no longer than
necessary, but in no case should exceed 15 double-spaced pages on 8\1/
2\ by 11 inch paper. Margins must not be less than 1 inch, and type no
smaller than 12-point and 12 cpi must be used.
In addition to addressing the issues listed in paragraph VI.A.2.a.,
the program narrative of a package grant concept paper must describe
briefly each component project, as well as how its inclusion enhances
the entire package; and explain:
i. How are the proposed projects related?
ii. How would their operation and administration be enhanced if
they were funded as a package rather than as individual projects; and
iii. What disadvantages, if any, would accrue by considering or
funding them separately.
3. The Budget
a. Concept Papers Proposing a Single Project. A preliminary budget
must be attached to the narrative that includes the estimates and
information specified on Form E included in Appendix IV of this
Guideline.
b. Concept Papers Requesting a Package Grant Covering More Than One
Project
A separate preliminary budget for each component project of the
package, as well as a combined budget that reflects the costs of the
entire package, must be attached to the narrative. Each project budget
must be identified by the title that corresponds to the narrative
description of the project in the program narrative and a letter of the
alphabet (i.e. A, B, C). Each of these budgets must include the
estimates and information specified on Form E included in Appendix IV
of this Guideline.
c. Concept Papers Requesting Accelerated Award of a Grant of Less than
$40,000
Applicants requesting a waiver of the application requirement and
approval of a grant based on a concept paper under section VI.C., must
attach to Form E (see Appendix IV) a budget narrative explaining the
basis for each of the items listed, and whether the costs would be paid
from grant funds or through a matching contribution or other sources.
The budget narrative is not counted against the eight-page limit for
the program narrative.
4. The Institute encourages concept paper applicants to attach
letters of cooperation and support from the courts and related agencies
that will be involved in or directly affected by the proposed project.
Letters of support also may be sent under separate cover. How-ever, in
order to ensure that there is sufficient time to bring them to the
Board's attention, support letters sent under separate cover must be
received no later than January 13, 1995.
5. The Institute will not accept concept papers with program
narratives exceeding the limits set in sections VI.A.2.a. and b. The
page limit does not include the cover page, budget form, the budget
narrative if required under section VI.A.3.c., and any letters of
cooperation or endorsements. Additional material should not be attached
unless it is essential to impart a clear understanding of the project.
6. Applicants submitting more than one concept paper may include
material that would be identical in each concept paper in a cover
letter, and incorporate that material by reference in each paper. The
incorporated material will be counted against the eight-page limit for
each paper. A copy of the cover letter should be attached to each copy
of each concept paper.
7. Sample concept papers from previous funding cycles are available
from the Institute upon request.
B. Selection Criteria.
1. All concept papers will be evaluated by the staff on the basis
of the following criteria:
a. The demonstration of need for the project;
b. The soundness and innovativeness of the approach described;
c. The benefits to be derived from the project;
d. The reasonableness of the proposed budget;
e. The proposed project's relationship to one of the ``Special
Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B; and
f. The degree to which the findings, procedures, training,
technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other
jurisdictions.
2. ``Single jurisdiction'' concept papers submitted pursuant to
section II.C. will be rated on the proposed project's relation to one
of the ``Special Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B., and
on the special requirements listed in section II.C.1.
3. In determining which concept papers will be selected for
development into full applications, the Institute will also consider
the availability of financial assistance from other sources for the
project; the amount and nature (cash or in-kind) of the applicant's
anticipated match; whether the applicant is a State court, a national
court support or education organi-zation, a non-court unit of
government, or another type of entity eligible to receive grants under
the Institute's enabling legislation (see 42 U.S.C. 10705(b) (as
amended) and section IV above); the extent to which the proposed
project would also benefit the Federal courts or help the State courts
enforce Federal constitutional and legislative requirements, and the
level of appropriations available to the Institute in the current year
and the amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.
C. Review Process
Concept papers will be reviewed competitively by the Board of
Directors. Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary and a
rating sheet assigning points for each relevant selection criterion for
those concept papers which fall within the scope of the Institute's
funding program and merit serious consideration by the Board. Staff
will also prepare a list of those papers that, in the judgment of the
Executive Director, propose projects that lie outside the scope of the
Institute's funding program or are not likely to merit serious
consideration by the Board. The narrative summaries, rating sheets, and
list of non-reviewed papers will be presented to the Board for their
review. Committees of the Board will review concept paper summaries
within assigned program areas and prepare recommendations for the full
Board. The full Board of Directors will then decide which concept paper
applicants should be invited to submit formal applications for funding.
The decision to invite an application is solely that of the Board
of Directors. With regard to concept papers requesting a package grant,
the Board retains discretion to invite an application including all,
none, or selected portions of the package for possible funding.
The Board may waive the application requirement and approve a grant
based on a concept paper for a project requiring less than $40,000,
when the need for and benefits of the project are clear, and the
methodology and budget require little additional explanation.
D. Submission Requirements
An original and three copies of all concept papers submitted for
consideration in Fiscal Year 1995 must be sent by first class or
overnight mail or by courier no later than November 23, 1994, except
for concept papers proposing projects that follow-up on the National
Conference on the Managment of Mass Tort Cases which must be sent by
March 10, 1995 (see section II.B.2.l.), and concept papers proposing to
implement an action plan developed during the National Conference on
Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts which must be sent by
October 6, 1995 (see section II.B.2.i.). A postmark or courier receipt
will constitute evidence of the submission date. All envelopes
containing concept papers should be marked CONCEPT PAPER and should be
sent to: State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
It is preferable for letters of cooperation and support to be
appended to the concept paper when it is submitted. If support letters
are sent under separate cover, they must be received no later than
January 13, 1995 in order to ensure that there is sufficient time to
bring them to the Board's attention.
The Institute will send written notice to all persons submitting
concept papers of the Board's decisions regarding their papers and of
the key issues and questions that arose during the review process. A
decision by the Board not to invite an application may not be appealed,
but does not prohibit resubmission of the concept paper or a revision
thereof in a subsequent round of funding. The Institute will also
notify the designated State contact listed in the Appendix when the
Board invites applications that are based on concept papers which are
submitted by courts within their State or which specify a participating
site within their State.
Receipt of each concept paper will be acknowledged in writing.
Extensions of the deadline for submission of concept papers will not be
granted.
VII. Application Requirements for New Projects
Except as specified in section VI., a formal application for a new
project is to be submitted only upon invitation of the Board following
review of a concept paper. An application for Institute funding support
must include an application form; budget forms (with appropriate
documentation); a project abstract and program narrative; a disclosure
of lobbying form, when applicable; and certain certifications and
assurances. These documents are described below.
A. Forms
1. Application Form (FORM A)
The application form requests basic information regarding the
proposed project, the applicant, and the total amount of funding
support requested from the Institute. It also requires the signature of
an individual authorized to certify on behalf of the applicant that the
information contained in the application is true and complete, that
submission of the application has been authorized by the applicant, and
that if funding for the proposed project is approved, the applicant
will comply with the requirements and conditions of the award,
including the assurances set forth in Form D.
2. Certificate of State Approval (FORM B)
An application from a State or local court must include a copy of
FORM B signed by the State's Chief Justice or Chief Judge, the director
of the designated agency, or the head of the designated council. The
signature denotes that the proposed project has been approved by the
State's highest court or the agency or council it has designated. It
denotes further that if funding for the project is approved by the
Institute, the court or the specified designee will receive,
administer, and be accountable for the awarded funds.
3. Budget Forms (FORM C or C1)
Applicants may submit the proposed project budget either in the
tabular format of FORM C or in the spreadsheet format of FORM C1.
Applicants requesting more than $100,000 are strongly encouraged to use
the spread-sheet 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.
In addition to FORM C or C1, applicants must provide a detailed
budget narrative providing an explanation of the basis for the
estimates in each budget category. (See section VII.D.)
Applications for a package grant must include a separate budget and
budget narrative for each project included in the proposed package, as
well as a combined budget that reflects the total costs of the entire
package.
If funds from other sources are required to conduct the project,
either as match or to support other aspects of the project, the source,
current status of the request, and anticipated decision date must be
provided.
4. Assurances (FORM D)
This form lists the statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements
and conditions with which recipients of Institute funds must comply.
5. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
This form requires applicants other than units of State or local
government to disclose whether they, or another entity that is part of
the same organization as the applicant, have advocated a position
before Congress on any issue, and to identify the specific subjects of
their lobbying efforts. (See section X.D.)
B. Project Abstract
The abstract should highlight the purposes, goals, methods and
anticipated benefits of the proposed project. It should not exceed one
single-spaced page on 8-1/2 by 11 inch paper.
C. Program Narrative
The program narrative for an application proposing a single project
should not exceed 25 double-spaced pages on 8-1/2 by 11 inch paper. The
program narrative for an application requesting a package grant for
more than one project should not exceed 40 double-spaced pages on 8-1/2
by 11 inch paper. Margins must not be less than 1 inch, and type no
smaller than 12-point and 12 cpi must be used. The page limit does not
include the forms, the abstract, the budget narrative, and any
appendices containing resumes and letters of cooperation or
endorsement. Additional background material should be attached only if
it is essential to obtaining a clear understanding of the proposed
project. Numerous and lengthy appendices are strongly discouraged.
The program narrative should address the following topics:
1. Project Objectives
A clear, concise statement of what the proposed project is intended
to accomplish. In stating the objectives of the project, applicants
should focus on the overall programmatic objective (e.g., to enhance
understanding and skills regarding a specific subject, or to determine
how a certain procedure affects the court and litigants) rather than on
operational objectives (e.g., provide training for 32 judges and court
managers, or review data from 300 cases).
2. Program Areas to be Covered
A statement which lists the program areas set forth in the State
Justice Institute Act, and, if appropriate, the Institute's Special
Interest program categories that are addressed by the proposed
projects.
3. Need for the Project
If the project is to be conducted in a specific location(s), a
discussion of the particular needs of the project site(s) to be
addressed by the project and why those needs are not being met through
the use of existing materials, programs, procedures, services or other
resources.
If the project is not site specific, a discussion of the problems
that the proposed project will address, and why existing materials,
programs, procedures, services or other resources do not adequately
resolve those problems. The discussion should include specific
references to the relevant literature and to the experience in the
field.
An application requesting a package grant to support more than one
project also must describe how the proposed projects in the package are
related; how their operation and administration would be enhanced if
they were funded as a package rather than as individual projects; and
what disadvantages, if any, would accrue by considering or funding them
separately.
4. Tasks, Methods and Evaluation
a. Tasks and Methods. A delineation of the tasks to be performed in
achieving the project objectives and the methods to be used for
accomplishing each task. For example:
i. For research and evaluation projects, the data sources, data
collection strategies, variables to be examined, and analytic
procedures to be used for conducting the research or evaluation and
ensuring the validity and general applicability of the results. For
projects involving human subjects, the discussion of methods should
address the procedures for obtaining respondents' informed consent,
ensuring the respondents' privacy and freedom from risk or harm, and
the protection of others who are not the subjects of research but would
be affected by the research. If the potential exists for risk or harm
to the human subjects, a discussion should be included of the value of
the proposed research and the methods to be used to minimize or
eliminate such risk.
ii. For education and training projects, the adult education
techniques to be used in designing and presenting the program,
including the teaching/learning objectives of the educational design,
the teaching methods to be used, and the opportunities for structured
interaction among the participants; how faculty will be recruited,
selected, and trained; the proposed number and length of the
conferences, courses, seminars or workshops to be conducted; the
materials to be provided and how they will be developed; and the cost
to participants.
iii. For demonstration projects, the demonstration sites and the
reasons they were selected, or if the sites have not been chosen, how
they will be identified and their cooperation obtained; how the program
or procedures will be implemented and monitored.
iv. For technical assistance projects, the types of assistance that
will be provided; the particular issues and problems for which
assistance will be provided; how requests will be obtained and the type
of assistance determined; how suitable providers will be selected and
briefed; how reports will be reviewed; and the cost to recipients.
An application requesting a package grant for more than one project
must describe separately the tasks associated with each project in the
proposed package. Each project must be identified by a separate letter
of the alphabet (i.e., A, B, C) and a descriptive title.
b. Evaluation. Every project design must include an evaluation plan
to determine whether the project met its objectives. The evaluation
should be designed to provide an objective and independent assessment
of the effectiveness or usefulness of the training or services
provided; the impact of the procedures, technology or services tested;
or the validity and applicability of the research conducted. In
addition, where appropriate, the evaluation process should be designed
to provide ongoing or periodic feedback on the effectiveness or utility
of particular programs, educational offerings, or achievements which
can then be further refined as a result of the evaluation process. The
plan should present the qualifications of the evaluator(s); describe
the criteria, related to the project's programmatic objectives, that
will be used to evaluate the project's effectiveness; explain how the
evaluation will be conducted, including the specific data collection
and analysis techniques to be used; discuss why this approach is
appropriate; and present a schedule for completion of the evaluation
within the proposed project period.
The evaluation plan should be appropriate to the type of project
proposed. For example:
i. An evaluation approach suited to many research projects is a
review by an advisory panel of the research methodology, data
collection instruments, preliminary analyses, and products as they are
drafted. The panel should be comprised of independent researchers and
practitioners representing the perspectives affected by the proposed
project.
ii. The most valuable approaches to evaluating educational or
training programs will serve to reinforce the participants' learning
experience while providing useful feedback on the impact of the program
and possible areas for improvement. One appropriate evaluation approach
is to assess the acquisition of new knowledge, skills, attitudes or
understanding through participant feedback on the seminar or training
event. Such feedback might include a self-assessment on what was
learned along with the participant's response to the quality and
effectiveness of faculty presentations, the format of sessions, the
value or usefulness of the material presented and other relevant
factors. Another appropriate approach would be to use an independent
observer who might request verbal as well as written responses from
participants in the program. When an education project involves the
development of curricular materials an advisory panel of relevant
experts can be coupled with a test of the curriculum to obtain the
reactions of participants and faculty as indicated above.
iii. The evaluation plan for a demonstration project should
encompass an assessment of program effectiveness (e.g., how well did it
work?); user satisfaction, if appropriate; the cost-effectiveness of
the program; a process analysis of the program (e.g., was the program
implemented as designed? did it provide the services intended to the
targeted population?); the impact of the program (e.g., what effect did
the program have on the court? what benefits resulted from the
program?); and the replicability of the program or components of the
program.
iv. For technical assistance projects, applicants should explain
how the quality, timeliness, and impact of the assistance provided will
be determined, and should develop a mechanism for feedback from both
the users and providers of the technical assistance.
v. Evaluation plans involving human subjects should include a
discussion of the procedures for obtaining respondents' informed
consent, ensuring the respondents' privacy and freedom from risk or
harm, and the protection of others who are not the subjects of
evaluation but would be affected by it. Other than the provision of
confidentiality to respondents, human subjects protection issues
ordinarily are not applicable to participants evaluating an education
program.
vi. The evaluation plan in a package grant application should
address the issues listed above for the particular types of projects
included in the package, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the
individual components as well as the benefits and limitations of the
projects as a package.
5. Project Management
A detailed management plan including the starting and completion
date for each task; the time commitments to the project of key staff
and their responsibilities regarding each project task; and the
procedures that will be used to ensure that all tasks are performed on
time, within budget, and at the highest level of quality. In preparing
the project time line, Gantt Chart, or schedule, applicants should make
certain that all project activities, including publication or
reproduction of project products and their initial dissemination will
occur within the proposed project period. The management plan must also
provide for the submission of Quarterly Progress and Financial Reports
within 30 days after the close of each calendar quarter (i.e., no later
than January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30).
Package grant applications must include a management plan for each
project included in the package with the same project title and
alphabetic identifier describing the project in the program narrative,
as well as a plan embracing the package as a whole.
6. Products
A description of the products to be developed by the project (e.g.,
training curricula and materials, videotapes, articles, manuals, or
handbooks), including when they will be submitted to the Institute. The
application must explain how and to whom the products will be
disseminated; describe how they will benefit the State courts including
how they can be used by judges and court personnel; identify
development, production, and dissemination costs covered by the project
budget; and present the basis on which products and services developed
or provided under the grant will be offered to the courts community and
the public at large (i.e. whether products will be distributed at no
cost to recipients, or if costs are involved, the reason for charging
recipients and the estimated price of the product). Ordinarily,
applicants should schedule all product preparation and distribution
activities within the project period. Applicants also must submit a
one-page abstract summarizing products resulting from a project for
inclusion on the Institute's electronic bulletin board, and a diskette
of the abstract in ASCII.
Package grant applications must discuss these issues with regard to
the products that would result from each of the projects included in
the package.
The type of products to be prepared depend on the nature of the
project. For example, in most instances, the products of a research,
evaluation, or demonstration project should include an article
summarizing the project findings that is publishable in a journal
serving the courts community nationally, an executive summary that will
be disseminated to the project's primary audience, or both. Applicants
proposing to conduct empirical research or evaluation projects with
national import should describe how they will make their data available
for secondary analysis after the grant period. (See section X.W.)
The curricula and other products developed by education and
training projects should be designed for use outside the classroom so
that they may be used again by original participants and others in the
course of their duties.
Applicants must provide for submitting a final draft of the final
grant product(s) to the Institute for review and approval at least 30
days before the product(s) are submitted for publication or
reproduction. No grant funds may be obligated for publication or
reproduction of a final grant product without the written approval of
the Institute.
Applicants must also provide for including in all project products
a prominent acknowledgment that support was received from the Institute
and a disclaimer paragraph based on the example provided in section
X.Q. of the Guideline. The ``SJI'' logo must appear on the front cover
of a written product, or in the opening frames of a video product,
unless the Institute approves another placement.
Twenty copies of all project products, including videotapes, must
be submitted to the Institute. In addition, a copy of each product must
be sent to the library established in each State to collect the
materials developed with Institute support. (A list of these libraries
is contained in Appendix II.) To facilitate their use, all videotaped
products should be distributed in VHS format.
7. Applicant Status
An applicant that is not a State or local court and has not
received a grant from the Institute within the past two years should
include a statement indicating 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
non-judicial unit of Federal, State, or local government, it must
explain whether the proposed services could be adequately provided by
non-governmental entities.
8. Staff Capability
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 will be used to select persons for these positions should be
included.
9. Organizational Capacity
Applicants that have not received a grant from the Institute within
the past two years should include a statement describing the capacity
of the applicant to administer grant funds including the financial
systems used to monitor project expenditures (and income, if any), and
a summary of the applicant's past experience in administering grants,
as well as any resources or capabilities that the applicant has that
will particularly assist in the successful completion of the project.
If the applicant is a non-profit organization (other than a
university), it must also provide documentation of its 501(c) tax
exempt status as determined by the Internal Revenue Service and a copy
of a current certified audit report. For purposes of this requirement,
``current'' means no earlier than two years prior to the current
calendar year. If a current audit report is not available, the
Institute will require the organization to complete a financial
capability questionnaire which must be signed by a Certified Public
Accountant. Other applicants may be required to provide a current audit
report, a financial capability questionnaire, or both, if specifically
requested to do so by the Institute.
Unless requested otherwise, an applicant that has received a grant
from the Institute within the past two years should describe only the
changes in its organizational capacity, tax status, or financial
capability that may affect its capacity to administer a grant.
10. Statement of Lobbying Activities
Non-governmental applicants must submit the Institute's Disclosure
of Lobbying Activities Form that requires them to state whether they,
or another entity that is a part of the same organization as the
applicant, have advocated a position before Congress on any issue, and
identifies the specific subjects of their lobbying efforts.
11. Letters of Support for the Project
If the cooperation of courts, organizations, agencies, or
individuals other than the applicant is required to conduct the
project, written assurances of cooperation and availability should be
attached as an appendix to the application, or they may be sent under
separate cover. In order to ensure that there is sufficient time to
bring them to the Board's attention, letters of support sent under
separate cover must be received at least four weeks before the meeting
of the Board of Directors at which the application will be considered
(i.e., no later than October 17, 1994, February 1, 1995, March 31,
1995, June 23, 1995, or August 18, 1995, respectively).
D. Budget Narrative
The budget narrative should provide the basis for the computation
of all project-related costs. An application for a package grant for
more than one project must include a separate budget narrative for each
project component, with the same alphabetic identifier and project
title used to describe each component project in the program narrative.
Additional background or schedules may be attached if they are
essential to obtaining a clear understanding of the proposed budget.
Numerous and lengthy appendices are strongly discouraged.
The budget narrative should cover the costs of all components of
the project and clearly identify costs attributable to the project
evaluation. Under OMB grant guidelines incorporated by reference in
this Guideline, grant funds may not be used to pay for coffee breaks
during seminars or meetings, or to purchase alcoholic beverages.
1. Justification of Personnel Compensation
The applicant should set forth the percentages of time to be
devoted by the individuals who will serve as the staff of the proposed
project, the annual salary of each of those persons, and the number of
work days per year used for calculating the percentages of time or
daily rate of those individuals. The applicant should explain any
deviations from current rates or established written organization
policies. If grant funds are requested to pay the salary and related
costs for a current employee of a court or other unit of government,
the applicant should explain why this would not constitute a
supplantation of State or local funds in violation of 42 U.S.C. 10706
(d)(1). An acceptable explanation may be that the position to be filled
is a new one established in conjunction with the project or that the
grant funds will be supporting only the portion of the employee's time
that will be dedicated to new or additional duties related to the
project.
2. Fringe Benefit Computation
The applicant should provide a description of the fringe benefits
provided to employees. If percentages are used, the authority for such
use should be presented as well as a description of the elements
included in the determination of the percentage rate.
3. Consultant/Contractual Services and Honoraria
The applicant should describe the tasks each consultant will
perform, the estimated total amount to be paid to each consultant, the
basis for compensation rates (e.g., number of days x the daily
consultant rates), and the method for selection. Rates for consultant
services must be set in accordance with section XI.H.2.c. Honorarium
payments must be justified in the same manner as other consultant
payments.
4. Travel
Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the
policies of the applicant organization. If the applicant does not have
an established travel policy, then travel rates shall 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 for travel should also
be included in the narrative.
5. Equipment
Grant funds many be used to purchase only the equipment that is
necessary to demonstrate a new technological application in a court, or
that is otherwise essential to accomplishing the objectives of the
project. Equipment purchases to support basic court operations
ordinarily will not be approved. The applicant should describe the
equipment to be purchased or leased and explain why the acquisition of
that equipment is essential to accomplish the project's goals and
objectives. The narrative should clearly identify which equipment is to
be leased and which is to be purchased. The method of procurement
should also be described. Purchases for automatic data processing
equipment must comply with section XI.H.2.b.
6. Supplies
The applicant should provide a general description of the supplies
necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives of the grant. In
addition, the applicant should provide the basis for the amount
requested for this expenditure category.
7. Construction
Construction expenses are prohibited except for the limited
purposes set forth in section X.H.2. Any allowable construction or
renovation expense should be described in detail in the budget
narrative.
8. Telephone
Applicants should include anticipated telephone charges,
distinguishing between monthly charges and long distance charges in the
budget narrative. Also, applicants should provide the basis used in
developing the monthly and long distance estimates.
9. Postage
Anticipated postage costs for project-related mailings should be
described in the budget narrative. The cost of special mailings, such
as for a survey or for announcing a workshop, should be distinguished
from routine operational mailing costs. The bases for all postage
estimates should be included in the justification material.
10. Printing/Photocopying
Anticipated costs for printing or photocopying should be included
in the budget narrative. Applicants should provide the details
underlying these estimates in support of the request.
11. Indirect Costs
Applicants should describe the indirect cost rates applicable to
the grant in detail. If costs often included within an indirect cost
rate are charged directly (e.g., a percentage of the time of senior
managers to supervise product activities), the applicant should specify
that these costs are not included within their approved indirect cost
rate. These rates must be established in accordance with section
XI.H.4. If the applicant has an indirect cost rate or allocation plan
approved by any Federal granting agency, a copy of the approved rate
agreement should be attached to the application.
The applicant should describe the source of any matching
contribution and the nature of the match provided. Any additional
contributions to the project should be described in this section of the
budget narrative as well. If in-kind match is to be provided, the
applicant should describe how the amount and value of the time,
services or materials actually contributed will be documented
sufficiently clearly to permit them to be included in an audit of the
grant. Applicants should be aware that the time spent by participants
in education courses does not qualify as in-kind match. (Samples of
forms used by current grantees to track in-kind match are available
from the Institute upon request.)
Applicants that do not contemplate making matching contributions
continuously throughout the course of the project or on a task-by-task
basis must provide a schedule within 30 days after the beginning of the
project period indicating at what points during the project period the
matching contributions will be made. (See sections III.F., VIII.B.,
X.B. and XI.D.1.)
E. Submission Requirements
1. An application package containing the application, an original
signature on FORM A (and on FORM B, if the application is from a State
or local court, or on the Disclosure of Lobbying Form if the applicant
is not a unit of State or local government), and four photo-copies of
the application package must be sent by first class or overnight mail,
or by courier no later than May 10, 1995. A postmark or courier receipt
will constitute evidence of the submission date. Please mark
APPLICATION on all application package envelopes and send to: State
Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, Virginia
22314.
Receipt of each proposal will be acknowledged in writing.
Extensions of the deadline for receipt of applications will not be
granted.
2. Applicants invited to submit more than one application may
include material that would be identical in each application in a cover
letter, and incorporate that material by reference in each application.
The incorporated material will be counted against the 25-page (or in
the case of package grant applications, the 40-page) limit for the
program narrative. A copy of the cover letter should be attached to
each copy of each application.
3. It is preferable for letters of cooperation or support to be
appended to the application when it is submitted. If support letters
are sent under separate cover, they must be received no later than four
weeks before the meeting of the Board of Directors at which the
application will be considered (i.e. no later than October 17, 1994,
February 1, 1995, March 31, 1995, June 23, 1995, or August 18, 1995,
respectively) in order to ensure that there is sufficient time to bring
them to the Board's attention.
VIII. Application Review Procedures
A. Preliminary Inquiries
The Institute staff will answer inquiries concerning application
procedures. The staff contact will be named in the Institute's letter
inviting submission of a formal application.
B. Selection Criteria
1. All applications will be rated on the basis of the criteria set
forth below. The Institute will accord the greatest weight to the
following criteria:
a. The soundness of the methodology;
b. The appropriateness of the proposed evaluation design;
c. The qualifications of the project's staff;
d. The applicant's management plan and organizational capabilities;
e. The reasonableness of the proposed budget;
f. The demonstration of need for the project;
g. The products and benefits resulting from the project;
h. The demonstration of cooperation and support of other agencies
that may be affected by the project;
i. The proposed project's relationship to one of the ``Special
Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B.; and
j. The degree to which the findings, procedures, training,
technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other
jurisdictions.
2. ``Single jurisdiction'' applications submitted pursuant to
section II.C.1. will also be rated on the proposed project's relation
to one of the ``Special Interest'' categories set forth in section
II.B. and on the special requirements listed in section II.C.1.b.
3. In determining which applicants to fund, the Institute will also
consider whether the applicant is a State court, a national court
support or education organization, a non-court unit of government, or
other type of entity eligible to receive grants under the Institute's
enabling legislation (see 42 U.S.C. 10705(6) (as amended) and Section
IV above); the availability of financial assistance from other sources
for the project; the amount and nature (cash or in-kind) of the
applicant's match; the extent to which the proposed project would also
benefit the Federal courts or help the 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.
C. Review and Approval Process
Applications will be reviewed competitively by the Board of
Directors. The Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary of each
application, and a rating sheet assigning points for each relevant
selection criterion. When necessary, applications may also be reviewed
by outside experts. Committees of the Board will review applications
within assigned program categories and prepare recommenda-tions to the
full Board. The full Board of Directors will then decide which
applications to approve for a grant. The decision to award a grant is
solely that of the Board of Directors.
Awards approved by the Board will be signed by the Chairman of the
Board on behalf of the Institute.
D. Return Policy
Unless a specific request is made, unsuccessful applications will
not be returned. Applicants are advised that Institute records are
subject to the provisions of the Federal Freedom of Information Act, 5
U.S.C. 552.
E. Notification of Board Decision
The Institute will send written notice to applicants concerning all
Board decisions to approve or deny their respective applications and
the key issues and questions that arose during the review process. A
decision by the Board to deny an application may not be appealed, but
does not prohibit resubmission of a concept paper based on that
application in a subsequent round of funding. The Institute will also
notify the designated State contact listed in Appendix I when grants
are approved by the Board to support projects that will be conducted by
or involve courts in their State.
F. Response to Notification of Approval
Applicants have 30 days from the date of the letter notifying them
that the Board has approved their application to respond to any
revisions requested by the Board. If the requested revisions (or a
reasonable schedule for submitting such revisions) have not been
submitted to the Institute within 30 days after notification, the
approval will be automatically rescinded and the application presented
to the Board for reconsideration.
IX. Renewal Funding Procedures and Requirements
The Institute recognizes two types of renewal funding as described
below--``continuation grants'' and ``on-going support grants.'' The
award of an initial grant to support a project does not constitute a
commitment by the Institute to renew funding. The Board of Directors
anticipates allocating no more than $3 million of available FY 1995
grant funds for renewal grants.
A. Continuation Grants
1. Purpose and Scope
Continuation grants are intended to support projects with a limited
duration that involve the same type of activities as the previous
project. They are intended to enhance the specific program or service
produced or established during the prior grant period. They may be
used, for example, when a project is divided into two or more
sequential phases, for secondary analysis of data obtained in an
Institute-supported research project, or for more extensive testing of
an innovative technology, procedure, or program developed with SJI
grant support.
In order for a project to be considered for continuation funding,
the grantee must have completed the project tasks and met all grant
requirements and conditions in a timely manner, absent extenuating
circumstances or prior Institute approval of changes to the project
design. Continuation grants are not intended to provide support for a
project for which the grantee has underestimated the amount of time or
funds needed to accomplish the project tasks.
A continuation grant may be awarded for either a single project or
for more than one project as a package grant (see sections III.J.,
V.C.1 and 3, and V.D.1 and 3).
2. Application Procedures--Letters of Intent
In lieu of a concept paper, a grantee seeking a continuation grant
must inform the Institute, by letter, of its intent to submit an
application for such funding as soon as the need for renewal funding
becomes apparent but no less than 120 days before the end of the
current grant period.
a. A letter of intent must be no more than 3 single-spaced pages on
8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper and must contain a concise but thorough
explanation of the need for continuation; an estimate of the funds to
be requested; and a brief description of anticipated changes in scope,
focus or audience of the project.
b. Letters of intent will not be reviewed competitively. Institute
staff will review the proposed activities for the next project period
and, within 30 days of receiving a letter of intent, inform the grantee
of specific issues to be addressed in the continuation application and
the date by which the application for a continuation grant must be
submitted.
3. Application Format
An application for a continuation grant must include an application
form, budget forms (with appropriate documentation), a project abstract
conforming to the format set forth in section VII.B., a program
narrative, a budget narrative, a disclosure of lobbying form from
(applicants other than units of State or local government), and certain
certifications and assurances.
The program narrative should conform to the length and format
requirements set forth in section VII.C. However, rather than the
topics listed in section VII.C., the program narrative of an
application for a continuation grant should include:
a. Project Objectives. A clear, concise statement of what the
continuation project is intended to accomplish.
b. Need for Continuation. An explanation of why continuation of the
project is necessary to achieve the goals of the project, and how the
continuation will benefit the participating courts or the courts
community generally. That is, to what extent will the original goals
and objectives of the project be unful-filled if the project is not
continued, and conversely, how will the findings or results of the
project be enhanced by continuing the project?
A continuation application requesting a package grant to support
more than one project should explain, in addition, how the proposed
projects are related; how their operation and administration would be
enhanced by the grant; the advantages of funding the projects as a
package rather than individually; and the disadvantages, if any, that
would accrue by considering or funding them separately.
c. Report of Current Project Activities. A discussion of the status
of all activities conducted during the previous project period.
Applicants should identify any activities that were not completed, and
explain why. A continuation application requesting a package grant must
describe separately the activities undertaken in each of the projects
included within the proposed package.
d. Evaluation Findings. The key findings, impact, or
recommendations resulting from the evaluation of the project, if they
are available, and how they will be addressed during the proposed
continuation. If the findings are not yet available, applicants should
provide the date by which they will be submitted to the Institute.
Ordinarily, the Board will not consider an application for continuation
funding until the Institute has received the evaluator's report.
e. Tasks, Methods, Staff and Grantee Capability. A full description
of any changes in the tasks to be performed, the methods to be used,
the products of the project, how and to whom those products will be
disseminated, the assigned staff, or the grantee's organizational
capacity. Applicants should include, in addition, the criteria and
methods by which the proposed continuation project would be evaluated.
A continuation application for a package grant must address these
issues separately for each project included in the proposed package,
using the same alphabetic identifiers and project titles as in the
original application.
f. Task Schedule. A detailed task schedule and time line for the
next project period. A continuation application for a package grant
should include a separate task schedule and timeline for each project
included in the proposed package, as well as a schedule and time line
that covers the package of projects as a whole. The same alphabetic
identifiers and project titles used in the original application should
be used to identify the component projects in the renewal application.
g. Other Sources of Support. An indication of why other sources of
support are inadequate, inappropriate or unavailable.
4. Budget and Budget Narrative
Provide a complete budget and budget narrative conforming to the
requirements set forth in paragraph VII.D. Changes in the funding level
requested should be discussed in terms of corresponding increases or
decreases in the scope of activities or services to be rendered.
A continuation application for a package grant must include a
separate budget narrative identified alphabetically (i.e. A, B, C) and
by project title for each project component.
5. References to Previously Submitted Material
An application for a continuation grant should not repeat
information contained in a previously approved application or other
previously submitted materials, but should provide specific references
to such materials where appropriate.
6. Submission Requirements, Review and Approval Process, and
Notification of Decision
The submission requirements set forth in section VII.E., other than
the deadline for mailing, apply to applications for a continuation
grant. Such applications will be rated on the selection criteria set
forth in section VIII.B. The key findings and recommendations resulting
from an evaluation of the project and the proposed response to those
findings and recommendations will also be considered. The review and
approval process, return policy, and notification procedures are the
same as those for new projects set forth in sections VIII.C.-VIII.E.
B. On-going Support Grants
1. Purpose and Scope
On-going support grants are intended to support projects that are
national in scope and that provide the State courts with services,
programs or products for which there is a continuing important need. An
on-going support grant may also be used to fund longitudinal research
that directly benefits the State courts. On-going support grants are
subject to the limits on size and duration set forth in V.C.2 and
V.D.2. A project is eligible for consideration for an on-going support
grant if:
a. The project is supported by and has been evaluated under a grant
from the Institute;
b. The project is national in scope and provides a significant
benefit to the State courts;
c. There is a continuing important need for the services, programs
or products provided by the project as indicated by the level of use
and support by members of the court community;
d. The project is accomplishing its objectives in an effective and
efficient manner; and
e. It is likely that the service or program provided by the project
would be curtailed or significantly reduced without Institute support.
Each project supported by an on-going support grant must include an
evaluation component assessing its effectiveness and operation
throughout the grant period. The evaluation should be independent, but
may be designed collaboratively by the evaluator and the grantee. The
design should call for regular feedback from the evaluator to the
grantee throughout the project period concerning recommendations for
mid-course corrections or improvement of the project, as well as
periodic reports to the Institute at relevant points in the project.
An interim evaluation report must be submitted 18 months into the
grant period. The decision to obligate Institute funds to support the
third year of the project will be based on the interim evaluation
findings and the applicant's response to any deficiencies noted in the
report.
A final evaluation assessing the effectiveness, operation of, and
continuing need for the project must be submitted 90 days before the
end of the three-year project period.
In addition, a detailed annual task schedule must be submitted not
later than 45 days before the end of the first and second years of the
grant period, along with an explanation of any necessary revisions in
the projected costs for the remainder of the project period. (See also
section IX.B.3.h.)
2. Application Procedures--Letters of Intent
The Board will consider awarding an on-going support grant for a
period of up to 36 months. The total amount of the grant will be fixed
at the time of the initial award. Funds ordinarily will be made
available in annual increments as specified in section V.C.2.
In lieu of a concept paper, a grantee seeking an on-going support
grant must inform the Institute, by letter, of its intent to submit an
application for such funding as soon as the need for renewal funding
becomes apparent but no less than 120 days before the end of the
current grant period. The letter of intent should be in the same format
as that prescribed for continuation grants in section IX.A.2.a.
3. Application Procedures and Format
An application for an on-going support grant must include an
application form, budget forms (with appropriate documentation), a
project abstract conforming to the format set forth in section VII.B.,
a program narrative, a budget narrative, and certain certifications and
assurances.
The program narrative should conform to the length and format
requirements set forth in section VII.C. However, rather than the
topics listed in section VII.C., the program narrative of applications
for on-going support grants should address:
a. Description of Need for and Benefits of the Project. Provide a
detailed discussion of the benefits provided by the project to the
State courts around the country, including the degree to which State
courts, State court judges, or State court managers and personnel are
using the services or programs provided by the project.
An application for on-going support of a package grant should
explain, in addition, how the proposed projects are related; how their
operation and administration would be enhanced by the grant; the
advantages of funding the projects as a package rather than
individually; and the disadvantages, if any, that would accrue by
considering or funding them separately.
b. Demonstration of Court Support. Demonstrate support for the
continuation of the project from the courts community.
c. Report on Current Project Activities. Discuss the extent to
which the project has met its goals and objectives, identify any
activities that have not been completed, and explain why. An
application for on-going support of a package grant must describe
separately the activities undertaken in each of the projects included
within the proposed package.
d. Evaluation Findings. Attach a copy of the final evaluation
report regarding the effectiveness, impact, and operation of the
project, specify the key findings or recommendations resulting from the
evaluation, and explain how they will be addressed during the proposed
renewal period. Ordinarily, the Board will not consider an application
for on-going support until the Institute has received the evaluator's
report.
e. Objectives, Tasks, Methods, Staff and Grantee Capability.
Describe fully any changes in the objectives; tasks to be performed;
the methods to be used; the products of the project; how and to whom
those products will be disseminated; the assigned staff; and the
grantee's organizational capacity.
An application for on-going support of a package grant must address
these issues separately for each project included in the proposed
package, using the same alphabetic identifiers and project titles as in
the original application.
f. Task Schedule. Present a general schedule for the full proposed
project period and a detailed task schedule for the first year of the
proposed new project period. An application for on-going support of a
package grant should include a separate task schedule and timeline for
each project included in the proposed package, as well as a schedule
and time line that covers the package of projects as a whole. The same
alphabetic identifiers and project titles used in the original
application should be used to identify the component projects in the
renewal application.
g. Other Sources of Support. Indicate why other sources of support
are inadequate, inappropriate or unavailable.
4. Budget and Budget Narrative
Provide a complete three-year budget and budget narrative
conforming to the requirements set forth in paragraph VII.D. Changes in
the funding level requested should be discussed in terms of
corresponding increases or decreases in the scope of activities or
services to be rendered. A complete budget narrative should be provided
for each year, or portion of a year, for which grant support is
requested. Changes in the funding level requested should be discussed
in terms of corresponding increases or decreases in the scope of
activities or services to be rendered. The budget should provide for
realistic cost-of-living and staff salary increases over the course of
the requested project period. Applicants should be aware that the
Institute is unlikely to approve a supplemental budget increase for an
on-going support grant in the absence of well-documented, unanticipated
factors that clearly justify the requested increase.
A continuation application for a package grant must include a
separate budget narrative identified alphabetically (i.e. A, B, C) and
by project title for each project component.
5. References to Previously Submitted Material
An application for an on-going support grant should not repeat
information contained in a previously approved application or other
previously submitted materials, but should provide specific references
to such materials where appropriate.
6. Submission Requirements, Review and Approval Process, and
Notification of Decision
The submission requirements set forth in section VII.E., other than
the deadline for mailing, apply to applications for an on-going support
grant. Such applications will be rated on the selection criteria set
forth in section VIII.B. The key findings and recommendations resulting
from an evaluation of the project and the proposed response to those
findings and recommendations will also be considered. The review and
approval process, return policy, and notification procedures are the
same as those for new projects set forth in sections VIII.C.--VIII.E.
X. Compliance Requirements
The State Justice Institute Act contains limitations and conditions
on grants, contracts and cooperative agreements of which applicants and
recipients should be aware. In addition to eligibility requirements
which must be met to be considered for an award from the Institute, all
applicants should be aware of and all recipients will be responsible
for ensuring compliance with the following:
A. State and Local Court Systems
Each application for funding from a State or local court must be
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court, or
its designated agency or council. The Supreme Court or its designee
shall receive, administer, and be accountable for all funds awarded on
the basis of such an application. 42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(4). Appendix I to
this Guideline lists the person to contact in each State regarding the
administration of Institute grants to State and local courts.
B. Matching Requirements
1. All awards to courts or other units of State or local government
(not including publicly supported institutions of higher education)
require a match from private or public sources of not less than 50% of
the total amount of the Institute's award. For example, if the total
cost of a project is anticipated to be $150,000, a State court or
executive branch agency may request up to $100,000 from the Institute
to implement the project. The remaining $50,000 (50% of the $100,000
requested from SJI) must be provided as a match. A cash match, non-cash
match, or both may be provided, but the Institute will give preference
to those applicants who provide a cash match to the Institute's award.
(For a further definition of match, see section III.F.)
The requirement to provide match may be waived in exceptionally
rare circumstances upon approval of the Chief Justice of the highest
court in the State and a majority of the Board of Directors. 42 U.S.C.
10705(d).
2. Other eligible recipients of Institute funds are not required to
provide a match, but are encouraged to contribute to meeting the costs
of the project. In instances where match is proposed, the grantee is
responsible for ensuring that the total amount proposed is actually
contributed. If a proposed contribution is not fully met, the Institute
may reduce the award amount accordingly, in order to maintain the ratio
originally provided for in the award agreement (see sections VIII.B.
above and XI.D.).
C. Conflict of Interest
Personnel and other officials connected with Institute-funded
programs shall adhere to the following requirements:
1. No official or employee of a recipient court or organization
shall participate personally through decision, approval, disapproval,
recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise in
any proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other
determination, contract, grant, cooperative agreement, claim,
controversy, or other particular matter in which Institute funds are
used, where to his/her knowledge he/she or his/her immediate family,
partners, organi-zation other than a public agency in which he/she is
serving as officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee or any
person or organization with whom he/she is negotiating or has any
arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial
interest.
2. In the use of Institute project funds, an official or employee
of a recipient court or organization shall avoid any action which might
result in or create the appearance of:
a. Using an official position for private gain; or
b. Affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the
integrity of the Institute program.
3. Requests for proposals or invitations for bids issued by a
recipient of Institute funds or a subgrantee or subcontractor will
provide notice to prospective bidders that the contractors who develop
or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work and/or
requests for proposals for a proposed procurement will be excluded from
bidding on or submitting a proposal to compete for the award of such
procurement.
D. Lobbying
Funds awarded to recipients by the Institute shall not be used,
indirectly or directly, to influence Executive orders or similar
promulgations by Federal, State or local agencies, or to influence the
passage or defeat of any legislation by Federal, State or local
legislative bodies. 42 U.S.C. 10706(a).
It is the policy of the Board of Directors to award funds only to
support applications submitted by organizations that would carry out
the objectives of their applications in an unbiased manner. Consistent
with this policy and the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 10706, the Institute
will not knowingly award a grant to an applicant that has, directly or
through an entity that is part of the same organization as the
applicant, advocated a position before Congress on the specific subject
matter of the application.
E. Political Activities
No recipient shall contribute or make available Institute funds,
program personnel, or equipment to any political party or association,
or the campaign of any candidate for public or party office. Recipients
are also prohibited from using funds in advocating or opposing any
ballot measure, initiative, or referendum. Finally, officers and
employees of recipients shall not intentionally identify the Institute
or recipients with any partisan or nonpartisan political activity
associated with a political party or association, or the campaign of
any candidate for public or party office. 42 U.S.C. 10706(a).
F. Advocacy
No funds made available by the Institute may be used to support or
conduct training programs for the purpose of advocating particular
nonjudicial public policies or encouraging nonjudicial political
activities. 42 U.S.C. 10706(b).
G. Prohibition Against Litigation Support
No funds made available by the Institute may be used directly or
indirectly to support legal assistance to parties in litigation,
including cases involving capital punishment.
H. Supplantation and Construction
To ensure that funds are used to supplement and improve the
operation of State courts, rather than to support basic court services,
funds shall not be used for the following purposes:
1. To supplant State or local funds supporting a program or
activity (such as paying the salary of court employees who would be
performing their normal duties as part of the project, or paying rent
for space which is part of the court's normal operations);
2. To construct court facilities or structures, except to remodel
existing facilities or to demonstrate new architectural or
technological techniques, or to provide temporary facilities for new
personnel or for personnel involved in a demonstration or experimental
program; or
3. Solely to purchase equipment.
I. Confidentiality of Information
Except as provided by Federal law other than the State Justice
Institute Act, no recipient of financial assistance from SJI may use or
reveal any research or statistical information furnished under the Act
by any person and identifiable to any specific private person for any
purpose other than the purpose for which the information was obtained.
Such information and copies thereof shall be immune from legal process,
and shall not, without the consent of the person furnishing such
information, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any
action, suit, or other judicial, legislative, or administrative
proceedings.
J. Human Research Protection
All research involving human subjects shall be conducted with the
informed consent of those subjects and in a manner that will ensure
their privacy and freedom from risk or harm and the protection of
persons who are not subjects of the research but would be affected by
it, unless such procedures and safeguards would make the research
impractical. In such instances, the Institute must approve procedures
designed by the grantee to provide human subjects with relevant
information about the research after their involvement and to minimize
or eliminate risk or harm to those subjects due to their participation.
K. Nondiscrimination
No person may, on the basis of race, sex, national origin,
disability, color, or creed be excluded from participation in, denied
the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity supported by Institute funds. Recipients of
Institute funds must immediately take any measures necessary to
effectuate this provision.
L. Reporting Requirements
Recipients of Institute funds, other than scholarships awarded
under section II.B.2.b.v., shall submit Quarterly Progress and
Financial Reports within 30 days of the close of each calendar quarter
(that is, no later than January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30).
Two copies of each report must be sent. The Quarterly Progress Reports
shall include a narrative description of project activities during the
calendar quarter, the relationship between those activities and the
task schedule and objectives set forth in the approved application or
an approved adjustment thereto, any significant problem areas that have
developed and how they will be resolved, and the activities scheduled
during the next reporting period.
The quarterly financial status report shall be submitted in
accordance with section XI.G.2. of this guideline. A final project
progress report and financial status report shall be submitted within
90 days after the end of the grant period in accordance with section
XI.K.2. of this Guideline.
M. Audit
Each recipient must provide for an annual fiscal audit which shall
include an opinion on whether the financial statements of the grantee
present fairly its financial position and financial operations are in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. (See section
XI.J. of the Guideline for the requirements of such audits.)
N. Suspension of Funding
After providing a recipient reasonable notice and opportunity to
submit written documentation demonstrating why fund termination or
suspension should not occur, the Institute may terminate or suspend
funding of a project that fails to comply substantially with the Act,
Institute guide-lines, or the terms and conditions of the award. 42
U.S.C. 10708(a).
O. Title to Property
At the conclusion of the project, title to all expendable and
nonexpendable personal property purchased with Institute funds shall
vest in the recipient court, organization, or individual that purchased
the property if certification is made to 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, as approved by the Insti-tute. 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 disposi-tion of the property.
P. Original Material
All products prepared as the result of Institute-supported projects
must be originally-developed material unless otherwise specified in the
award documents. Material not originally developed that is included in
such products must be properly identified, whether the material is in a
verbatim or extensive paraphrase format.
Q. Acknowledgment and Disclaimer
Recipients of Institute funds shall acknowledge prominently on all
products developed with grant funds that support was received from the
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. A camera-ready logo
sheet is available from the Institute upon request.
Recipients also shall display the following disclaimer on all grant
products:
This [document, film, videotape, etc.] was developed under
[grant/cooperative agreement, number SJI-(insert number)] from the
State Justice Institute. The points of view expressed are those of
the [author(s), filmmaker(s), etc.] and do not necessarily represent
the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.
R. Institute Approval of Grant Products
No grant funds may be obligated for publication or reproduction of
a final product developed with grant funds without the written approval
of the Institute. Grantees shall submit a final draft of each such
product to the Institute for review and approval. These drafts shall be
submitted sufficiently before the product is scheduled to be sent for
publication or reproduction to permit Institute review and
incorporation of any appropriate changes agreed upon by the grantee and
the Institute.
S. Distribution of Grant Products to State Libraries
Grantees shall send 20 copies of each final product developed with
grant funds to the Institute, unless the product was developed under
either a curriculum adaptation or a technical assistance grant, in
which case submission of 2 copies is required.
Grantees shall send one copy of each final product developed with
grant funds to the library established in each State to collect
materials prepared with Institute support. (A list of these libraries
is contained in Appendix II. Labels for these libraries are available
from the Institute upon request.) Recipients of curriculum adaptation
and technical assistance grants are not required to submit final
products to State libraries.
T. Copyrights
Except as otherwise provided in the terms and conditions of an
Institute award, a recipient is free to copyright any books,
publications, or other copyrightable materials developed in the course
of an Institute-supported project, but the Institute shall reserve a
royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish,
or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the materials for
purposes consistent with the State Justice Institute Act.
U. Inventions and Patents
If any patentable items, patent rights, processes, or inventions
are produced in the course of Institute-sponsored work, such fact shall
be promptly and fully reported to the Institute. Unless there is a
prior agreement between the grantee and the Institute on disposition of
such items, the Institute shall determine whether protection of the
invention or discovery shall be sought. The Institute will also
determine how the rights in the invention or discovery, including
rights under any patent issued thereon, shall be allocated and
administered in order to protect the public interest consistent with
``Government Patent Policy'' (President's Memorandum for Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies, February 18, 1983, and statement of
Government Patent Policy).
V. Charges for Grant-Related Products/Recovery of Costs
When Institute funds fully cover the cost of developing, producing,
and disseminating a product, (e.g., a report, curriculum, videotape or
software), the product should be distributed to the field without
charge. When Institute funds only partially cover the development,
production, or dissemination costs, the grantee may recover its costs
for developing, reproducing, and disseminating the material to those
requesting it, to the extent that those costs were not covered by
Institute funds or grantee matching contributions.
Applicants should disclose their intent to sell grant-related
products in both the concept paper and the application. Grantees must
obtain the written, prior approval of the Institute of their plans to
recover project costs through the sale of grant products.
Written requests to recover costs ordinarily should be received
during the grant period and should specify the nature and extent of the
costs to be recouped, the reason that such costs were not budgeted (if
the rationale was not disclosed in the approved application), the
number of copies to be sold, the intended audience for the products to
be sold, and the proposed sale price. If the product is to be sold for
more than $25.00, the written request also should include a detailed
itemization of costs that will be recovered and a certification that
the costs were not supported by either Institute grant funds or grantee
matching contributions.
If, following the end of the grant period, the sale of grant
products results in revenues that exceed those costs, 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.G. and
XI.F. for requirements regarding project-related income.
W. Availability of Research Data for Secondary Analysis
Upon request, grantees must make available for secondary analysis a
diskette(s) or data tape(s) containing research and evaluation data
collected under an Institute grant and the accompanying code manual.
Grantees may recover the actual cost of duplicating and mailing or
otherwise transmitting the data set and manual from the person or
organization requesting the data. Grantees may provide the requested
data set in the format in which it was created and analyzed.
X. Approval of Key Staff
If the qualifications of an employee or consultant assigned to a
key project staff position are not described in the application or if
there is a change of a person assigned to such a position, a recipient
shall submit a description of the qualifications of the newly assigned
person to the Institute. Prior written approval of the qualifications
of the new person assigned to a key staff position must be received
from the Institute before the salary or consulting fee of that person
and associated costs may be paid or reimbursed from grant funds.
XI. Financial Requirements
A. Accounting Systems and Financial Records
All grantees, subgrantees, contractors, and other organizations
directly or indirectly receiving Institute funds are required to
establish and maintain accounting systems and financial records to
accurately account for funds they receive. These records shall include
total program costs, including Institute funds, State and local
matching shares, and any other fund sources included in the approved
project budget.
1. Purpose
The purpose of this section is to establish accounting system
requirements and to offer guidance on procedures which will assist all
grantees/subgrantees in:
a. Complying with the statutory requirements for the awarding,
disbursement, and accounting of funds;
b. Complying with regulatory requirements of the Institute for the
financial management and disposition of funds;
c. Generating financial data which can be used in the planning,
management and control of programs; and
d. Facilitating an effective audit of funded programs and projects.
2. References
Except where inconsistent with specific provisions of this
Guideline, the following regulations, directives and reports are
applicable to Institute grants and cooperative agreements under the
same terms and conditions that apply to Federal grantees. These
materials supplement the requirements of this section for accounting
systems and financial recordkeeping and provide additional guidance on
how these requirements may be satisfied.
a. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-21, Cost
Principles for Educational Institutions.
b. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost
Principles for State and Local Governments.
c. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-88 (revised),
Indirect Cost Rates, Audit and Audit Follow-up at Educational
Institutions.
d. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102, Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local
Governments.
e. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110, Grants and
Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and other
Non-Profit Organizations.
f. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-128, Audits of
State and Local Governments.
g. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-122, Cost
Principles for Non-profit Organizations.
h. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of
Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non-profit Institutions.
B. Supervision and Monitoring Responsibilities
1. Grantee Responsibilities
All grantees receiving direct awards from the Institute are
responsible for the management and fiscal control of all funds.
Responsibilities include accounting for receipts and expenditures,
maintaining adequate financial records and refunding expenditures
disallowed by audits.
2. Responsibilities of State Supreme Court
Each application for funding from a State or local court must be
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court, or
its designated agency or council.
The State Supreme Court or its designee shall receive all Institute
funds awarded to such courts; shall be responsible for assuring proper
administration of Institute funds; and shall be responsible for all
aspects of the project, including proper accounting and financial
recordkeeping by the subgrantee. These responsibilities include:
a. Reviewing Financial Operations. The State Supreme Court or its
designee should be familiar with, and periodically monitor, its
subgrantees' financial operations, records system and procedures.
Particular attention should be directed to the maintenance of current
financial data.
b. Recording Financial Activities. The subgrantee's grant award or
contract obligation, as well as cash advances and other financial
activities, should be recorded in the financial records of the State
Supreme Court or its designee in summary form. Subgrantee expenditures
should be recorded on the books of the State Supreme Court OR evidenced
by report forms duly filed by the subgrantee. Non-Institute
contributions applied to projects by subgrantees should likewise be
recorded, as should any project income resulting from program
operations.
c. Budgeting and Budget Review. The State Supreme Court or its
designee should ensure that each subgrantee prepares an adequate budget
as the basis for its award commitment. The detail of each project
budget should be maintained on file by the State Supreme Court.
d. Accounting for Non-Institute Contributions. The State Supreme
Court or its designee will ensure, in those instances where subgrantees
are required to furnish non-Institute matching funds, that the
requirements and limitations of this guideline are applied to such
funds.
e. Audit Requirement. The State Supreme Court or its designee is
required to ensure that subgrantees have met the necessary audit
requirements as set forth by the Institute (see sections X.M. and
XI.J).
f. Reporting Irregularities. The State Supreme Court, its
designees, and its subgrantees are responsible for promptly reporting
to the Institute the nature and circumstances surrounding any financial
irregularities discovered.
C. Accounting System
The grantee is responsible for establishing and maintaining an
adequate system of accounting and internal controls for itself and for
ensuring that an adequate system exists for each of its subgrantees and
contractors. An acceptable and adequate accounting system is considered
to be one which:
1. Properly accounts for receipt of funds under each grant awarded
and the expenditure of funds for each grant by category of expenditure
(including matching contributions and project income);
2. Assures that expended funds are applied to the appropriate
budget category included within the approved grant;
3. Presents and classifies historical costs of the grant as
required for budgetary and evaluation purposes;
4. Provides cost and property controls to assure optimal use of
grant funds;
5. Is integrated with a system of internal controls adequate to
safeguard the funds and assets covered, check the accuracy and
reliability of the accounting data, promote operational efficiency, and
assure conformance with any general or special conditions of the grant;
6. Meets the prescribed requirements for periodic financial
reporting of operations; and
7. Provides financial data for planning, control, measurement, and
evaluation of direct and indirect costs.
D. Total Cost Budgeting and Accounting
Accounting for all funds awarded by the Institute shall be
structured and executed on a ``total project cost'' basis. That is,
total project costs, including Institute funds, State and local
matching shares, and any other fund sources included in the approved
project budget shall be the foundation for fiscal administration and
accounting. Grant applications and financial reports require budget and
cost estimates on the basis of total costs.
1. Timing of Matching Contributions
Matching contributions need not be applied at the exact time of the
obligation of Institute funds. However, the full matching share must be
obligated during the award period, except that with the prior written
permission of the Institute, contributions made following approval of
the grant by the Institute's Board but before the beginning of the
grant may be counted as match. Grantees that do not contemplate making
matching contributions continuously throughout the course of a project
or on a task-by-task basis, are required to submit a schedule within 30
days after the beginning of the project period indicating at what
points during the project period the matching contributions will be
made. In instances where a proposed cash match is not fully met, the
Institute may reduce the award amount accordingly, in order to maintain
the ratio originally provided for in the award agreement.
2. Records for Match
All grantees must maintain records which clearly show the source,
amount, and timing of all matching contributions. In addition, if a
project has included, within its approved budget, contributions which
exceed the required matching portion, the grantee must maintain records
of those contributions in the same manner as it does the Institute
funds and required matching shares. For all grants made to State and
local courts, the State Supreme Court has primary responsibility for
grantee/subgrantee compliance with the requirements of this section.
(See section XI.B.2.)
E. Maintenance and Retention of Records
All financial records, supporting documents, statistical records
and all other records pertinent to grants, subgrants, cooperative
agreements or contracts under grants shall be retained by each
organization participating in a project for at least three years for
purposes of examination and audit. State Supreme Courts may impose
record retention and maintenance requirements in addition to those
prescribed in this chapter.
1. Coverage
The retention requirement extends to books of original entry,
source documents supporting accounting transactions, the general
ledger, subsidiary ledgers, personnel and payroll records, cancelled
checks, and related documents and records. Source documents include
copies of all grant and subgrant awards, applications, and required
grantee/subgrantee financial and narrative reports. Personnel and
payroll records shall include the time and attendance reports for all
individuals reimbursed under a grant, subgrant or contract, whether
they are employed full-time or part-time. Time and effort reports will
be required for consultants.
2. Retention Period
The three-year retention period starts from the date of the
submission of the final expenditure report or, for grants which are
renewed annually, from the date of submission of the annual expenditure
report.
3. Maintenance
Grantees and subgrantees are expected to see that records of
different fiscal years are separately identified and maintained so that
requested information can be readily located. Grantees and subgrantees
are also obligated to protect records adequately against fire or other
damage. When records are stored away from the grantee's/subgrantee's
principal office, a written index of the location of stored records
should be on hand, and ready access should be assured.
4. Access
Grantees and subgrantees must give any authorized representative of
the Institute access to and the right to examine all records, books,
papers, and documents related to an Institute grant.
F. Project-Related Income
Records of the receipt and disposition of project-related income
must be maintained by the grantee in the same manner as required for
the project funds that gave rise to the income. The policies governing
the disposition of the various types of project-related income are
listed below.
1. Interest
A State and any agency or instrumentality of a State including
State institutions of higher education and State hospitals, shall not
be held accountable for interest earned on advances of project funds.
When funds are awarded to subgrantees through a State, the subgrantees
are not held accountable for interest earned on advances of project
funds. Local units of government and nonprofit organizations that are
direct grantees must refund any interest earned. Grantees shall so
order their affairs to 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 project provide
otherwise.
3. Registration and Tuition Fees
Registration and tuition fees shall be used to pay project-related
costs not covered by the grant, or to reduce the amount of grant funds
needed to support the project. Registration and tuition fees may be
used for other purposes only with the prior written approval of the
Institute. Estimates of registration and tuition fees, and any expenses
to be offset by the fees, should be included in the application budget
forms and narrative.
4. Income From the Sale of Grant Products
When grant funds fully cover the cost of producing and
disseminating a limited number of copies of a product, the grantee may,
with the written prior approval of the Institute, sell additional
copies reproduced at its expense only at a price that recovers actual
reproduction and distribution costs that were not covered by Institute
grant funds or grantee matching contributions to the project. When
grant funds only partially cover the costs of developing, producing and
disseminating a product, the grantee may, with the written prior
approval of the Institute, recover costs for developing, reproducing,
and disseminating the material to the extent that those costs were not
covered by Institute grant funds or grantee matching contributions.
If the sale of products occurs during the project period, the costs
and income generated by the sales must be reported on the Quarterly
Financial Status Reports and documented in an auditable manner.
Whenever possible, the intent to sell a product should be disclosed
in the concept paper and application or reported to the Institute in
writing once a decision to sell products has been made. The grantee
must request approval to recover its product development, reproduction,
and dissemination costs as specified in section X.V.
5. Other
Other project income shall be treated in accordance with
disposition instructions set forth in the project's terms and
conditions.
G. Payments and Financial Reporting Requirements
1. Payment of Grant Funds
The procedures and regulations set forth below are applicable to
all Institute grant funds and grantees.
a. Request for Advance or Reimbursement of Funds. Grantees will
receive funds on a ``Check-Issued'' basis. Upon receipt, review, and
approval of a Request for Advance or Reimbursement by the Institute, a
check will be issued directly to the grantee or its designated fiscal
agent. A request must be limited to the grantee's immediate cash needs.
The Request for Advance or Reimbursement, along with the instructions
for its preparation, will be included in the official Institute award
package.
For purposes of submitting Requests for Advance or Reimbursement,
recipients of continuation and on-going support grants should consider
these grants as supplements to and extensions of the original award and
number their requests on a project rather than a grant basis. (See
Recommendations to Grantees in the Introduction for further guidance.)
Payment requests for projects within a package grant may be
submitted at the same time, but must be calculated separately by
component project. The alphabetic project identifier (A, B, C, etc.)
should be appended to the grant number in Block 5 of the Request for
Advance or Reimbursement. (See Recommendations to Grantees in the
Introduction for further guidance.)
b. Termination of Advance and Reimbursement Funding. When a grantee
organization receiving cash advances from the Institute:
i. Demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to attain program or
project goals, or to establish procedures that will minimize the time
elapsing between cash advances and disbursements, or cannot adhere to
guideline requirements or special conditions;
ii. Engages in the improper award and administration of subgrants
or contracts; or
iii. Is unable to submit reliable and/or timely reports;
the Institute may terminate advance financing and require the grantee
organization to finance its operations with its own working capital.
Payments to the grantee shall then be made by check to reimburse the
grantee for actual cash disbursements. In the event the grantee
continues to be deficient, the Institute reserves the right to suspend
reimbursement payments until the deficiencies are corrected.
c. Principle of Minimum Cash on Hand. Recipient organizations
should request funds based upon immediate disbursement requirements.
Grantees should time their requests to ensure that cash on hand is the
minimum needed for disbursements to be made immediately or within a few
days. Idle funds in the hands of subgrantees will impair the goals of
good cash management.
2. Financial Reporting
In order to obtain financial information concerning the use of
funds, the Institute requires that grantees/subgrantees of these funds
submit timely reports for review.
Two copies of the Financial Status Report are required from all
grantees, other than recipients of scholarships under section
II.B.2.b.v., 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 informa-tion relating to Institute
funds, State and local matching shares, and any other fund sources
included in the approved project budget. The report contains
information on obligations as well as outlays. A copy of the Financial
Status Report, along with instructions for its preparation, will be
included in the official Institute Award package. In circumstances
where an organization requests substantial payments for a project prior
to the completion of a given quarter, the Institute may request a brief
summary of the amount requested, by object class, in support of the
Request for Advance or Reimbursement.
Grantees receiving a continuation or on-going support grant should
provide financial information and number their quarterly Financial
Status Reports on a project rather than a grant basis.
Grantees receiving a package grant must submit a quarterly
financial report summarizing the financial activity for the entire
package and separate reports for each project within the package. On
the separate reports for the component projects, the alphabetic project
identifier (A, B, C, etc.) must be appended to the grant number in
Block 5 of the Financial Status Report.
3. Consequences of Non-Compliance With Submission Requirements
Failure of the grantee organization to submit required financial
and program reports may result in a suspension of grant payments or
revocation of the grant award.
H. Allowability of Costs
1. General
Except as may be otherwise provided in the conditions of a
particular grant, cost allowability shall be determined in accordance
with the principles set forth in OMB Circulars A-87, Cost Principles
for State and Local Governments; A-21, Cost Principles Applicable to
Grants and Contracts with Educational Institutions; and A-122, Cost
Principles for Non-Profit Organizations. No costs may be recovered to
liquidate obligations which are incurred after the approved grant
period.
2. Costs Requiring Prior Approval
a. Preagreement Costs. The written prior approval of the Institute
is required for costs which are considered necessary to the project but
occur prior to the award date of the grant.
b. Equipment. Grant funds may be used to purchase or lease only
that equipment which is essential to accom-plishing the goals and
objectives of the project. The written prior approval of the Institute
is required when the amount of automated data processing (ADP)
equipment to be purchased or leased exceeds $10,000 or the software to
be purchased exceeds $3,000.
c. Consultants. The written prior approval of the Institute is
required when the rate of compensation to be paid a consultant exceeds
$300 a day.
3. Travel Costs
Transportation and per diem rates must comply with the policies of
the applicant organization. If the applicant does not have an
established written travel policy, then travel rates shall be
consistent with those established by the Institute or the Federal
Government. Institute funds shall 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. It is the policy of the Institute that all costs should be
budgeted directly; however, if a recipient has an indirect cost rate
approved by a Federal agency as set forth below, the Institute will
accept that rate.
a. Approved Plan Available.
i. The Institute will accept an indirect cost rate or allocation
plan approved for a grantee during the preceding two years by any
Federal granting agency on the basis of allocation methods
substantially in accord with those set forth in the applicable cost
circulars. A copy of the approved rate agreement must be submitted to
the Institute.
ii. Where flat rates are accepted in lieu of actual indirect costs,
grantees may not also charge expenses normally included in overhead
pools, e.g., accounting services, legal services, building occupancy
and maintenance, etc., as direct costs.
iii. Organizations with an approved indirect cost rate, utilizing
total direct costs as the base, usually exclude contracts under grants
from any overhead recovery. The negotiation agreement will stipulate
that contracts are excluded from the base for overhead recovery.
b. Establishment of Indirect Cost Rates. In order to be reimbursed
for indirect costs, a grantee or organization must first establish an
appropriate indirect cost rate. To do this, the grantee must prepare an
indirect cost rate proposal and submit it to the Institute. The
proposal must be submitted in a timely manner (within three months
after the start of the grant period) to assure recovery of the full
amount of allowable indirect costs, and it must be developed in
accordance with principles and procedures appropriate to the type of
grantee institution involved.
c. No Approved Plan. If an indirect cost proposal for recovery of
actual indirect costs is not submitted to the Institute within three
months after the start of the grant period, indirect costs will be
irrevocably disallowed for all months prior to the month that the
indirect cost proposal is received. This policy is effective for all
grant awards.
I. Procurement and Property Management Standards
1. Procurement Standards
For State and local governments, the Institute is adopting 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 shall be applicable to all grantees and
subgrantees of Institute funds except as provided in section X.O.
All grantees/subgrantees are required to be prudent in the
acquisition and management of property with grant funds. If suitable
property required for the successful execution of projects is already
available within the grantee or subgrantee organization, expenditures
of grant funds for the acquisition of new property will be considered
unnecessary.
J. Audit Requirements
1. Implementation
Each non-scholarship grantee (including a State or local court
receiving a subgrant from the State Supreme Court) shall provide for an
annual fiscal audit. The audit may be of the entire grantee
organization (e.g., a university) or of the specific project funded by
the Institute. Audits conducted in accordance with the Single Audit Act
of 1984 and OMB Circular A-128, or OMB Circular A-133 will satisfy the
requirement for an annual fiscal audit. The audit shall be conducted by
an independent Certified Public Accountant, or a State or local agency
authorized to audit government agencies.
Grantees who receive funds from a Federal agency and who satisfy
audit requirements of the cognizant Federal agency, should submit a
copy of the audit report prepared for that Federal agency to the
Institute in order to satisfy the provisions of this section. Cognizant
Federal agencies do not send reports to the Institute. Therefore, each
grantee must send this report directly to the Institute.
2. Resolution and Clearance of Audit Reports
Timely action on recommendations by responsible management
officials is an integral part of the effectiveness of an audit. Each
grant recipient shall have policies and procedures for acting on audit
recommendations by designating officials responsible for: follow-up,
maintaining a record of the actions taken on recommendations and time
schedules, responding to and acting on audit recommendations, and
submitting periodic reports to the Institute on recommendations and
actions taken.
3. Consequences of Non-Resolution of Audit Issues
It is the general policy of the State Justice Institute not to make
new grant awards to an applicant having an unresolved audit report
involving Institute awards. Failure of the grantee organization to
resolve audit questions may also result in the suspension of payments
for active Institute grants to that organization.
K. Close-Out of Grants
1. Definition
Close-out is a process by which the Institute determines that all
applicable administrative and financial actions and all required work
of the grant have been completed by both the grantee and the Institute.
2. Grantee Close-Out Requirements
Within 90 days after the end date of the grant or any approved
extension thereof (revised end date), the following documents must be
submitted to the Institute by a grantee other than a recipient of a
scholarship under section II.B.2.b.v.
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
closeout 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 thereto have been met and, if any
of the objectives have not been met, explain the reasons therefor; and
discuss what, if anything, could have been done differently that might
have enhanced the impact of the project or improved its operation.
3. Extension of Close-out Period
Upon the written request of the grantee, the Institute may extend
the close-out period to assure completion of the Grantee's close-out
requirements. Requests for an extension must be submitted at least 14
days before the end of the close-out period and must explain why the
extension is necessary and what steps will be taken to assure that all
the grantee's responsibilities will be met by the end of the extension
period.
XII. Grant Adjustments
All requests for program or budget adjustments requiring Institute
approval must be submitted in a timely manner by the project director.
All requests for changes from the approved application will be
carefully reviewed for both consistency with this guideline and the
enhancement of grant goals and objectives.
A. Grant Adjustments Requiring Prior Written Approval
There are several types of grant adjustments which require the
prior written approval of the Institute. Examples of these adjustments
include:
1. Budget revisions among direct cost categories which,
individually or in the aggregate, exceed or are expected to exceed five
percent of the approved original budget or the most recently approved
revised budget. For the purposes of this section, the Institute will
view budget revisions cumulatively.
a. For package grants, reallocations among budget categories of an
individual project within the package that total less than five percent
of the approved budget for that project do not require a grant
adjustment. However, transfers of funds between projects included in
the package require prior, written approval by the Institute.
b. For continuation and on-going support grants, funds from the
original award may be used during the renewal grant period and funds
awarded by a continuation or on-going support grant may be used to
cover project-related expenditures incurred during the original award
period, with the prior, written approval of the Institute.
2. A change in the scope of work to be performed or the objectives
of the project (see section XII.D.).
3. A change in the project site.
4. A change in the project period, such as an extension of the
grant period and/or extension of the final financial or progress report
deadline (see section XII.E.).
5. Satisfaction of special conditions, if required.
6. A change in or temporary absence of the project director (see
sections XII.F. and G.).
7. The assignment of an employee or consultant to a key staff
position whose qualifications were not described in the application, or
a change of a person assigned to a key project staff position (see
section X.X.).
8. A change in the name of the grantee organization.
9. A transfer or contracting out of grant-supported activities (see
section XII.H.).
10. A transfer of the grant to another recipient.
11. Preagreement costs, the purchase of automated data processing
equipment and software, and consultant rates, as specified in section
XI.H.2.
12. A change in the nature or number of the products to be prepared
or the manner in which a product would be distributed.
B. Request for Grant Adjustments
All grantees and subgrantees must promptly notify the SJI program
managers, in writing, of events or proposed changes which may require
an adjustment to the approved application. In requesting an adjustment,
the grantee must set forth the reasons and basis for the proposed
adjustment and any other information the SJI program managers determine
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/her designee. If the
request is denied, the grantee will be sent a written explanation of
the reasons for the denial.
D. Changes in the Scope of the Grant
A grantee/subgrantee may make minor changes in methodology,
approach, or other aspects of the grant to expedite achievement of the
grant's objectives with subsequent notification of the SJI program
manager. Major changes in scope, duration, training methodology, or
other significant areas must be approved in advance by the Institute.
E. Date Changes
A request to change or extend the grant period must be made at
least 30 days in advance of the end date of the grant. A revised task
plan should accompany requests for a no-cost extension of the grant
period, along with a revised budget if shifts among budget categories
will be needed. A request to change or extend the deadline for the
final financial report or final progress report must be made at least
14 days in advance of the report deadline (see section XI.K.3.).
F. Temporary Absence of the Project Director
Whenever absence of the project director is expected to exceed a
continuous period of one month, the plans for the conduct of the
project director's duties during such absence must be approved in
advance by the Institute. This information must be provided in a letter
signed by an authorized representative of the grantee/subgrantee at
least 30 days before the departure of the project director, or as soon
as it is known that the project director will be absent. The grant may
be terminated if arrangements are not approved in advance by the
Institute.
G. Withdrawal of/Change in Project Director
If the project director relinquishes or expects to relinquish
active direction of the project, the Institute must be notified
immediately. In such cases, if the grantee/subgrantee wishes to
terminate the project, the Institute will forward procedural
instructions upon notification of such intent. If the grantee wishes to
continue the project under the direction of another individual, a
statement of the candidate's qualifications should be sent to the
Institute for review and approval. The grant may be terminated if the
qualifications of the proposed individual are not approved in advance
by the Institute.
H. Transferring or Contracting Out of Grant-Supported Activities
A principal activity of the grant-supported project shall not be
transferred or contracted out to another organization without specific
prior approval by the Institute. All such arrangements should be
formalized in a contract or other written agreement between the parties
involved. Copies of the proposed contract or agreement must be
submitted for prior approval at the earliest possible time. The
contract or agreement must state, at a minimum, the activities to be
performed, the time schedule, the policies and procedures to be
followed, the dollar limitation of the agreement, and the cost
principles to be followed in determining what costs, both direct and
indirect, are to be allowed. The contract or other written agreement
must not affect the grantee's overall responsibility for the direction
of the project and accountability to the Institute.
State Justice Institute Board of Directors
John F. Daffron, Jr., Chairman, Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit,
Chesterfield, Virginia
David A. Brock, Vice Chairman, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of New
Hampshire, Concord, New Hampshire
Janice L. Gradwohl, Secretary, Judge (ret.), County Courts, Lincoln,
Nebraska
Terrence B. Adamson, Esq., Executive Committee Member, Kaye, Scholer,
Fierman, Hays, and Handler, Washington, DC
Carl F. Bianchi, Administrative Director of the Idaho Courts, (ret.)
Boise, Idaho
James Duke Cameron, Esq., Bonnett, Fairbourne and Friedman, Phoenix,
Arizona
Vivi L. Dilweg, Judge, Brown County Circuit Court, Green Bay, Wisconsin
Carlos R. Garza, Administrative Judge (ret.), Vienna, Virginia
Malcolm M. Lucas, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of California, San
Francisco, California
Keith McNamara, Esq., McNamara and McNamara, Columbus, Ohio
Sandra A. O'Connor, States Attorney of Baltimore County, Towson,
Maryland
David I. Tevelin, Executive Director (ex officio)
David I. Tevelin,
Executive Director.
Appendix I
List of State Contacts Regarding Administration of Institute Grants to
State and Local Courts
Mr. Oliver Gilmore, Administrative Director, Administrative Office
of the Courts, 817 South Court Street, Montgomery, Alabama 36130,
(205) 834-7990
Mr. Arthur H. Snowden II, Administrative Director, Alaska Court
System, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, (907) 264-0547
Mr. David K. Byers, Administrative Director, Supreme Court of
Arizona, 1501 West Washington Street, Suite 411, Phoenix, Arizona
85007-3330, (602) 542-9301
Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, Administrative Office of the
Courts, 625 Marshall, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1078, (501) 376-
6655
Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court Administrator, Administrative
Office of the Courts, 303 Second Street, South Tower, San Francisco,
California 94107, (415) 396-9100
Mr. Steven V. Berson, State Court Administrator, Colorado Judicial
Department, 1301 Pennsylvania Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado
80203-2416, (303) 861-1111, ext. 585
Ms. Faith P. Arkin, Director, External Affairs, Office of the Chief
Court Administrator, Drawer N, Station A, Hartford, Connecticut
06106, (203) 566-8210
Mr. Lowell Groundland, Director, Administrative Office of the
Courts, Carvel State Office Building, 820 N. French Street,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801, (302) 571-2480
Mr. Ulysses Hammond, Executive Officer, Courts of the District of
Columbia, 500 Indiana Avenue NW., Washington, DC. 20001, (202) 879-
1700
Mr. Kenneth Palmer, State Courts Administrator, Florida State Courts
System, Supreme Court Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1900,
(904) 922-5081
Mr. Robert L. Doss, Jr., Director, Administrative Office of the
Georgia Courts, The Judicial Council of Georgia, 244 Washington
Street SW., Suite 500, Atlanta, Georgia 30334-5900, (404) 656-5171
Mr. Perry C. Taitano, Administrative Director, Superior Court of
Guam, Judiciary Building, 110 West O'Brien Drive, Agana, Guam 96920,
011 (671) 472-8961 through 8968
Honorable Daniel G. Heely, Administrative Director of the Courts,
Office of the Administrative Director, Post Office Box 2560,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, (808) 539-4900
Honorable Charles F. McDevitt, Chief Justice, Idaho Supreme Court,
451 West State Street, Boise, Idaho 83720, (208) 334-3464
Mr. Robert E. Davison, Director, Administrative Office of the
Courts, 840 S. Spring Street, Springfield, Illinois 62704, (312)
793-3250
Mr. Bruce A. Kotzan, Executive Director, Supreme Court of Indiana,
State House, Room 323, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, (317) 232-2542
Mr. William J. O'Brien, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Iowa, State House, Des Moines, Iowa 50319, (515) 281-5241
Dr. Howard P. Schwartz, Judicial Administrator, Kansas Judicial
Center, 301 West 10th Street, Topeka, Kansas 66612, (923) 296-4873
Ms. Laura Stammel, Assistant Director, Administrative Office of the
Courts, 100 Mill Creek Park, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, (502) 564-
2350
Dr. Hugh M. Collins, Judicial Administrator, Supreme Court of
Louisiana, 301 Loyola Avenue, Room 109, New Orleans, Louisiana
70112-1887, (504) 568-5747
Mr. James T. Glessner, State Court Administrator, Administrative
Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 4820, Downtown Station, Portland,
Maine 04112, (207) 822-0792
Ms. Deborah A. Unitus, Assistant State Court Administrator,
Administrative Office of the Courts, Rowe Boulevard and Taylor
Avenue, Annapolis, Maryland 21401, (301) 974-2141
Honorable John J. Irwin, Jr., Chief Justice for Administration and
Management, The Trial Court, Administrative Office of the Trial
Court, Two Center Plaza, Suite 540, Boston, Massachusetts 02108,
(617) 742-8575
Ms. Marilyn K. Hall, State Court Administrator, Michigan Supreme
Court, P.O. Box 30048, 611 West Ottawa Street, Lansing, Michigan
48909, (517) 373-0136
Ms. Sue K. Dosal, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Minnesota, 230 State Capitol, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, (617) 296-
2474
Honorable Leslie Johnson, Director, Center for Court Education and
Continuing Studies, Box 879, Oxford, Mississippi 38677, (601) 232-
5955
Mr. Ron Larkin, State Court Administrator, 1105 R Southwest Blvd,
Jefferson City, Missouri 65109, (314) 751-3585
Mr. Patrick A. Chenovick, State Court Administrator, Montana Supreme
Court, Justice Building, Room 315, 215 North Sanders, Helena,
Montana 59620-3001, (406) 444-2621
Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Nebraska, State Capitol Building, Room 1220, Lincoln, Nebraska
68509, (404) 471-2643
Mr. Donald J. Mello, Court Administrator, Administrative Office of
the Courts, Capitol Complex, Carson City, Nevada 89710, (702) 885-
5076
Mr. James F. Lynch, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of New
Hampshire, Frank Rowe Kenison Building, Concord, New Hampshire
03301, (603) 271-2419
Mr. Robert Lipscher, Administrative Director, Administrative Office
of the Courts, CN-037, RJH Justice Complex, Trenton, New Jersey
08625, (609) 984-0275
Honorable E. Leo Milones, Chief Administrative Judge, Office of
Court Administration, 270 Broadway, New York, New York 10007, (212)
587-2004
Ms. Deborah Kanter, State Court Administrator, Administrative Office
of the Courts, Supreme Court of New Mexico, Supreme Court Building,
Room 25, Sante Fe, New Mexico 87503, (505) 827-4800
Mr. James C. Drennan, Administrative Director, Administrative Office
of the Courts, Post Office Box 2448, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602,
(919) 733-7106/7107
Mr. Keithe E. Nelson, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
North Dakota, State Capitol Building, Bismarck, North Dakota 58505,
(701) 224-4216
Mr. Stephan W. Stover, Administrative Director of the Courts,
Supreme Court of Ohio, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street,
Columbus, Ohio 43266-0419, (614) 466-2653
Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Administrative Director, Administrative
Office of the Courts, 1925 N. Stiles, Suite 305, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 73105, (405) 521-2450
Mr. R. William Linden, Jr., State Court Administrator, Supreme Court
of Oregon, Supreme Court Building, Salem, Oregon 97310, (503) 378-
6046
Mr. Thomas B. Darr, Director for Legislative Affairs, Communications
and Administration, 5035 Ritter Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania
17055, (717) 795-2000
Dr. Robert C. Harrell, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903,
(401) 277-3266
Mr. Louis L. Rosen, Director, South Carolina Court Administration,
Post Office Box 50447, Columbia, South Carolina 29250, (803) 734-
1800
Honorable Robert A. Miller, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of South
Dakota, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, South Dakota 57501, (605)
773-4885
Mr. Charles E. Ferrell, Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of
Tennessee, Supreme Court Building, Room 422, Nashville, Tennessee
37219, (615) 741-2687
Mr. C. Raymond Judice, Administrative Director, Office of Court
Administration of the Texas Judicial System, Post Office Box 12066,
Austin, Texas 78711, (512) 463-1625
Mr. Ronald W. Gibson, State Court Administrator, Administrative
Office of the Courts, 230 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah
84102, (801) 533-6371
Mr. Thomas J. Lehner, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Vermont,
111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602, (802) 828-3281
Ms. Viola E. Smith, Clerk of the Court/Administrator, Territorial
Court of the Virgin Islands, Post Office Box 70, Charlotte Amalie,
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801, (809) 774-6680, ext. 248
Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of
Virginia, Administrative Offices, 100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor,
Richmond, Virginia 23219, (804) 786-6455
Ms. Mary C. McQueen, Administrator for the Courts, Supreme Court of
Washington, Highways-Licensing Building, 6th Floor, 12th &
Washington, Olympia, Washington 98504, (206) 753-5780
Mr. Ted J. Philyaw, Administrative Director of the Courts,
Administrative Office, 402-E State Capitol, Charleston, West
Virginia 25305, (304) 348-0145
Mr. J. Denis Moran, Director of State Courts, Post Office Box 1688,
Madison, Wisconsin 53701-1688, (608) 266-6828
Mr. Robert L. Duncan, Court Coordinator, Supreme Court Building,
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, (307) 777-7581
APPENDIX II
SJI Libraries--Designated Sites and Contacts
STATE: Alabama
LOCATION: Supreme Court Library
CONTACT: Mr. William C. Younger, State Law Librarian, Alabama
Supreme Court Bldg., 445 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36130,
(205) 242-4347
STATE: Alaska
LOCATION: Anchorage Law Library
CONTACT: Ms. Cynthia S. Petumenos, State Law Librarian, Alaska Court
Libraries, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, (907) 264-0583
STATE: Arizona
LOCATION: State Law Library
CONTACT: Ms. Sharon Womack, Director, Department of Library &
Archives, State Capitol, 1700 West Washington, Phoenix, Arizona
85007, (602) 542-4035
STATE: Arkansas
LOCATION: Administrative Office of the Courts
CONTACT: Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, Supreme Court of
Arkansas, Administrative Office of the Courts, Justice Building, 625
Marshall, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1078, (501) 376-6655
STATE: California,
LOCATION: Administrative Office of the Courts,
CONTACT: William C. Vickery, State Court Administrator,
Administrative Office of the Courts, 303 Second Street, South Tower,
San Francisco, California 94107, (415) 396-9100
STATE: Colorado,
LOCATION: Supreme Court Library,
CONTACT: Ms. Frances Campbell, Supreme Court Law Librarian, Colorado
State Judicial Building, 52 East 14th Avenue, Denver, Colorado
80203, (303) 837-3720
STATE: Connecticut,
LOCATION: State Library,
CONTACT: Mr. Richard Akeroyd, State Librarian, 231 Capital Avenue,
Hartford, Connecticut 06106, (203) 566-4301
STATE: Delaware,
LOCATION: Administrative Office of the Courts,
CONTACT: 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, Delaware 19801, (302)
571-2480
STATE: District of Columbia,
LOCATION: Executive Office, District of Columbia Courts,
CONTACT: Mr. Ulysses Hammond, Executive Officer, Courts of the
District of Columbia, 500 Indiana Avenue, NW,. Washington, DC 20001,
(202) 879-1700
STATE: Florida,
LOCATION: Administrative Office of the Courts,
CONTACT: Mr. Kenneth Palmer, State Court Administrator, Florida
State Courts System, Supreme Court Building, Tallahassee, Florida
32399-1900, (904) 488-8621
STATE: Georgia,
LOCATION: Administrative Office of the Courts,
CONTACT: Mr. Robert L. Doss, Jr., Director, Administrative Office of
the Courts, The Judicial Council of Georgia, 244 Washington Street,
SW., Suite 550, Atlanta, Georgia 30334, (404) 656-5171
STATE: Hawaii,
LOCATION: Supreme Court Library,
CONTACT: Ms. Ann Koto, Acting Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law
Library, P.O. Box 2560, Honolulu, Hawaii 96804, (808) 548-4605
STATE: Idaho,
LOCATION: AOC Judicial Education Library / State,
Law Library in Boise, CONTACT: Ms. Laura Pershing, State Law
Librarian, Idaho State Law Library, Supreme Court Building, 451 West
State Street, Boise, Idaho 83720, (208) 334-3316
STATE: Illinois,
LOCATION: Supreme Court Library,
CONTACT: Ms. Brenda I. Larison, Supreme Court Library, Supreme Court
Building, Springfield, IL 62701-1791, (217) 782-2424
STATE: Indiana,
LOCATION: Supreme Court Library,
CONTACT: Ms. Constance Matts, Supreme Court Librarian, Supreme Court
Library, State House, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, (317) 232-2557
STATE: Iowa,
LOCATION: Administrative Office of the Court,
CONTACT: Mr. Jerry K. Beatty, Executive Director, Judicial Education
& Planning, Administrative Office of the Courts, State Capital
Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319, (515) 281-8279
STATE: Kansas,
LOCATION: Supreme Court Library,
CONTACT: Mr. Fred Knecht, Law Librarian, Kansas Supreme Court
Library, 301 West 10th Street, Topeka, Kansas 66614, (913) 296-3257
STATE: Kentucky,
LOCATION: State Law Library,
CONTACT: Ms. Sallie Howard, State Law Librarian, State Law Library,
State Capital, Room 200-A, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, (502) 564-4848
STATE: Louisiana,
LOCATION: State Law Library,
CONTACT: Ms. Carol Billings, Director, Louisiana Law Library, 301
Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, (504) 568-5705
STATE: Maine,
LOCATION: State Law and Legislative Reference Library,
CONTACT: Ms. Lynn E. Randall, State Law Librarian, State House
Station 43, Augusta, Maine 04333, (207) 289-1600
STATE: Maryland,
LOCATION: State Law Library,
CONTACT: Mr. Michael S. Miller, Director, Maryland State Law
Library, Court of Appeal Building, 361 Rowe Blvd., Annapolis,
Maryland 21401, (301) 974-3395
STATE: Massachusetts,
LOCATION: Middlesex Law Library,
CONTACT: Ms. Sandra Lindheimer, Librarian, Middlesex Law Library,
Superior Court House, 40 Thorndike Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts
02141, (617) 494-4148
STATE: Michigan,
LOCATION: Michigan Judicial Institute
CONTACT: Mr. Dennis W. Catlin, Executive Director, Michigan Judicial
Institute, 222 Washington Square North, P.O. Box 30205, Lansing,
Michigan 48909, (517) 334-7804
STATE: Minnesota
LOCATION: State Law Library (Minnesota Judicial Center)
CONTACT: Mr. Marvin R. Anderson, State Law Librarian, Supreme Court
of Minnesota, 25 Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155,
(612) 297-2084
STATE: Mississippi
LOCATION: Mississippi Judicial College
CONTACT: Mr. Rick D. Patt, Staff Attorney, University of
Mississippi,
P.O. Box 8850, University, Mississippi 38677, (601) 232-5955
STATE: Montana
LOCATION: State Law Library
CONTACT: Ms. Judith Meadows, State Law Librarian, State Law Library
of Montana, Justice Building, 215 North Sanders, Helena, Montana
59620, (406) 444-3660
STATE: National
LOCATION: JERITT Project/ Michigan State University
CONTACT: Dr. John K. Hudzik, Project Director, Judicial Education,
Reference, Information and, Technical Transfer Project (JERITT),
Michigan State University, 60 Baker Hall, East Lansing, Michigan
48824
STATE: Nebraska
LOCATION: Administrative Office of the Courts
CONTACT: Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court Administrator, Supreme
Court of Nebraska, Administrative Office of the Courts, P.O. Box
98910, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8910, (402) 471-3730
STATE: Nevada
LOCATION: National Judicial College
CONTACT: Dean V. Robert Payant, National Judicial College, Judicial
College Building, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89550, (702)
784-6747
STATE: New Jersey
LOCATION: New Jersey State Library
CONTACT: Mr. Robert L. Bland, Law Coordinator, State of New Jersey,
Department of Education, State Library, 185 West State Street,
CN520, Trenton, New Jersey 08625, (609) 292-6230
STATE: New Mexico
LOCATION: Supreme Court Library
CONTACT: Mr. Thaddeus Bejnar, Librarian, Supreme Court Library, Post
Office Drawer L, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504, (505) 827-4850
STATE: New York
LOCATION: Supreme Court Library
CONTACT: Ms. Susan M. Wood, Esq., Principal Law Librarian, New York
State Supreme, Court Law Library, Onondaga County Court House,
Syracuse, New York 13202, (315) 435-2063
STATE: North Carolina
LOCATION: Supreme Court Library
CONTACT: Ms. Louise Stafford, Librarian, North Carolina Supreme,
Court Library, P.O. Box 28006, (by courier) 500 Justice Building, 2
East Morgan Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601, (919) 733-3425
STATE: North Dakota
LOCATION: Supreme Court Library
CONTACT: Ms. Marcella Kramer, Assistant Law Librarian, Supreme Court
Law Library, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, 2nd Floor, Judicial Wing,
Bismarck, North Dakota 58505-0530, (701) 224-2229
STATE: Northern Mariana Isl.
LOCATION: Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands
CONTACT: Honorable Jose S. Dela Cruz, Chief Justice, Supreme Court
of the, Northern Mariana Islands, P.O. Box 2165, Saipan, MP 96950,
(670) 234-5275
STATE: Ohio
LOCATION: Supreme Court Library
CONTACT: Mr. Paul S. Fu, Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law Library,
Supreme Court of Ohio, 30 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43266-
0419, (614) 466-2044
STATE: Oklahoma
LOCATION: Administrative Office of the Courts
CONTACT: Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Director, Administrative Office of
the Courts, 1915 North Stiles, Suite 305, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
73105, (405) 521-2450
STATE: Oregon
LOCATION: Administrative Office of the Courts
CONTACT: Mr. R. William Linden, Jr., State Court Administrator,
Supreme Court of Oregon, Supreme Court Building, Salem, Oregon
97310, (503) 378-6046
STATE: Pennsylvania
LOCATION: State Library of Pennsylvania
CONTACT: Ms. Betty Lutz, Head, Acquisitions Section, State Library
of Pennsylvania, Technical Services, G46 Forum Building, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105, (717) 787-4440
STATE: Puerto Rico
LOCATION: Office of Court Administration
CONTACT: Mr. Alfreado Rivera-Mendoza, Esq., Director, Area of
Planning and Management, Office of Court, Administration, P.O. Box
917, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919
STATE: Rhode Island
LOCATION: State Law Library
CONTACT: Mr. Kendall F. Svengalis, Law Librarian, Licht Judicial
Complex, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, (401)
277-3275
STATE: South Carolina
LOCATION: Coleman Karesh Law Library (University of South Carolina
School of Law)
CONTACT: Mr. Bruce S. Johnson, Law Librarian, Associate, Professor
of Law Coleman Karesh Law Library U. S. C. Law Center, University of
South, Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, (803) 777-5944
STATE: Tennessee
LOCATION: Tennessee State Law Library
CONTACT: Ms. Donna C. Wair, Librarian, Tennessee State Law Library,
Supreme Court Building, 401 Seventh Avenue N, Nashville, Tennessee
37243-0609, (615) 741-2016
STATE: Texas
LOCATION: State Law Library
CONTACT: Ms. Kay Schleuter, Director, State Law Library, P.O. Box
12367, Austin, Texas 78711, (512) 463-1722
STATE: U.S. Virgin Islands
LOCATION: Library of the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands
(St. Thomas)
CONTACT: Librarian, The Library, Territorial Court of the Virgin
Islands, Post Office Box 70, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S.
Virgin Islands 00804
STATE: Utah
LOCATION: Utah State Judicial Administration Library
CONTACT: Ms. Jennifer Bullock, Librarian, Utah State Judicial
Administration Library, 230 South 500 East, Suite 300, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84102, (801) 533-6371
STATE: Vermont
LOCATION: Supreme Court of Vermont
CONTACT: Mr. Thomas J. Lehner, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Vermont, 111 State Street, c/o Pavilion Office, Building,
Montpelier, Vermont 05602 (802) 828-3278
STATE: Virginia
LOCATION: Administrative Office of the Courts
CONTACT: Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, Executive Secretary, Supreme Court
of Virginia, Administrative Offices, 100 North Ninth Street, Third
Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219, (804) 786-6455
STATE: Washington
LOCATION: Washington State Law Library
CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Norwood, State Law Librarian, Washington State
Law Library, Temple of Justice, Mail Stop AV-02, Olympia, Washington
98504-0502, (206) 357-2146
STATE: West Virginia
LOCATION: Administrative Office of the Courts
CONTACT: Mr. Richard H. Rosswurm, Deputy Administrative Director,
for Judicial Education, West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals,
State Capitol, Capitol E-400, Charleston, West Virginia 25305, (304)
348-0145
STATE: Wisconsin
LOCATION: State Law Library
CONTACT: Ms. Marcia Koslov, State Law Librarian, State Law Library,
310E State Capitol, P.O. Box 7881, Madison, Wisconsin 53707 (608)
266-1424
STATE: Wyoming
LOCATION: Wyoming State Law Library
CONTACT: Ms. Kathy Carlson, Law Librarian, Wyoming State Law
Library, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, (307) 777-
7509
CONTACT: Clara Wells, Assistant for Information and Library
Services, American Judicature Society, 25 East Washington Street,
Suite 1600, Chicago, Illinois 60602, (312) 558-6900
CONTACT: Peggy Rogers, Acquisitions/Serials Librarian, National
Center for State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia
23187-8798, (804) 253-2000
Appendix III
State Justice Institute Scholarship Application
(This application does not serve as a registration for the
course. Please contact the education provider.)
Applicant Information:
1. Applicant Name:-----------------------------------------------------
(Last) (First) (M)
2. Position:-----------------------------------------------------------
3. Name of Court:------------------------------------------------------
4. Address:------------------------------------------------------------
Street/P.O. Box
City-------------------------------------------------------------------
State------------------------------------------------------------------
Zip Code---------------------------------------------------------------
5. Telephone No.-------------------------------------------------------
6. Congressional District:---------------------------------------------
Program Information:
7. Course Name:--------------------------------------------------------
8. Course Dates:-------------------------------------------------------
9. Course Provider:----------------------------------------------------
10. Location Offered:--------------------------------------------------
Estimated Expenses:
(Please note, scholarships are limited to tuition and
transportation expenses to and from the site of the course up to a
maximum of $1,500.)
Tuition: $-------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation: $------------------------------------------------------
(airfare, trainfare or if you plan to drive, the approximate
distance and mileage rate)
Amount Requested: $----------------------------------------------------
Additional Information:
Please attach a current resume or professional summary, and
answer the following questions. (You may attach additional pages if
necessary.)
1. How will your taking this course benefit you, your court, and
the State's courts generally?
2. Is there any education or training currently available
through your State on this topic?
3. How will you apply what you have learned? Please include any
plans you may have to develop/teach a course on this topic in your
jurisdiction/State, provide in-service training, or otherwise
disseminate what you have learned to colleagues.
4. Are State or local funds available to support your attendance
at the proposed course? If so, what amount(s) will be provided?
5. How long have you served as a judge or court manager?
6. How long do you anticipate serving as a judge or court
manager, assuming reelection or reappointment?
7. How long has it been since you attended a non-mandatory
continuing professional education program?
Statement of Applicant's Commitment
If a scholarship is awarded, I will submit an evaluation of the
educational program to the State Justice Institute and to the Chief
Justice of my State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature-------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Please return this form and Form S-2 to: State Justice
Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria Virginia 22314.
State Justice Institute--Scholarship Application
Concurrence
I, ________, Name of Chief Justice (or Chief Justice's Designee)
have reviewed the application for a scholarship to attend the
program entitled ________, prepared by ________, (Name of Applicant)
and concur in its submission to the State Justice Institute. The
applicant's participation in the program would benefit the State;
the applicant's absence to attend the program would not present an
undue hardship to the court; and receipt of a scholarship would not
diminish the amount of funds made available by the State for
judicial education.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Appendix IV--State Justice Institute Project Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-Kind Match
Category SJI Funds Cash Match
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel.................. $ $ $
Fringe Benefits............ $ $ $
Consultant/Contractual..... $ $ $
Travel..................... $ $ $
Equipment.................. $ $ $
Supplies................... $ $ $
Telephone.................. $ $ $
Postage.................... $ $ $
Printing/Photocopying...... $ $ $
Audit...................... $ $ $
Other...................... $ $ $
Indirect Costs (%)......... $ $ $
TOTAL.................. $ $ $
Project Total.......... ............. ............. $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial assistance has been or will be sought for this project
from the following other sources:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix V--State Justice Institute Certificate of State Approval
The ________ (Name of State Supreme Court or Designated Agency
or Council) has reviewed the application entitled ________ prepared
by ________ (Name of Applicant) approves its submission to the State
Justice Institute, and
[ ] agrees to receive and administer and be accountable for all
funds awarded by the Institute pursuant to the application.
[ ] designates ________. (Name of Trial or Appellate Court or
Agency) as the entity to receive, administer, and be accountable for
all funds awarded by the Institute pursuant to the application.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Instructions--Form B
The State Justice Institute Act requires that:
Each application for funding by a State or local court shall be
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court,
or its designated agency or council, which shall receive,
administer, and be accountable for all funds awarded by the
Institute to such courts. 42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(4).
FORM B should be signed by the Chief Judge or Chief Justice of
the State Supreme Court, or by the director of the designated agency
or chair of the designated council. If the designated agency or
council differs from the designee listed in Appendix I to the State
Justice Institute Grant Guideline, evidence of the new or additional
designation should be attached.
The term ``State Supreme Court'' refers to the court of last
resort of a State. ``Designated agency or council'' refers to the
office or judicial body which is authorized under State law or by
delegation from the State Supreme Court to approve applications for
funds and to receive, administer and be accountable for those funds.
Appendix VI
Illustrative List of Model Curricula
The following list includes examples of curricula that have been
developed with support from SJI, and that might be--or in some cases
have been--successfully adapted for State-based education programs
for judges and other court personnel. A list of all SJI-supported
education projects is available from the Institute. Please also
check with the JERITT project (517/353-8603) and with your State
SJI-designated library (see Appendix II) for information on other
curricula that may be appropriate for your State's needs.
``Manual for Judicial Writing Workshop for Trial Judges''
(University of Georgia/Colorado Judicial Department: SJI-87-018/019)
``Judicial Education Curriculum: Teaching Guides on Court Security,
and Jury Management and Impanelment'' (Institute for Court
Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI-88-053)
``Caseflow Management Principles and Practices'' (Institute for
Court Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI-87-056)
``Adjudication of Farm Credit Issues'' (Rural Justice Center: SJI-
87-059)
``A National Program for Reporting on the Courts and the Law''
(American Judicature Society: SJI-88-014)
``Model Judicial Mediation Training Program'' (American Arbitration
Association: SJI-88-078)
``Domestic Violence: A Curriculum for Rural Courts'' from ``A
Project to Improve Access to Rural Courts for Victims of Domestic
Violence'' (Rural Justice Center: SJI-88-081)
``Career Writing Program for Appellate Judges'' (American Academy of
Judicial Education: SJI-88-086-P92-1)
``Judges Media Relations Seminar'' from ``A Statewide Program for
Improving Media and Judicial Relations'' (Minnesota Supreme Court:
SJI-89-024)
``Minding the Courts into the Twentieth Century'' (Michigan Judicial
Institute: SJI-89-029)
``Innovative Juvenile and Family Court Training'' (Youth Law Center:
SJI-87-060, SJI-89-039)
``Troubled Families, Troubled Judges'' (Brandeis University: SJI-89-
071)
``Judicial Settlement Manual'' from ``Judicial Settlement:
Development of a New Course Module, Film, and Instructional Manual''
(National Judicial College: SJI-89-089)
``Judicial Training Materials on Spousal Support''; ``Family
Violence: Effective Judicial Intervention''; ``Judicial Training
Materials on Child Custody and Visitation'' from ``Enhancing Gender
Fairness in the State Courts'' (Women Judges' Fund for Justice: SJI-
89-062)
``Introduction to the Jurisprudence of Victims' Rights'' from
``Victim Rights and the Judiciary: A Training and Implementation
Project'' (National Organization for Victim Assistance: SJI-89-083)
``Fundamental Skills Training Curriculum for Juvenile Probation
Officers'' (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges:
(SJI-90-017)
``Pre-Bench Training for New Judges'' (American Judicature Society:
SJI-90-028)
``A Manual for Workshops on Processing Felony Dispositions in
Limited Jurisdiction Courts'' (National Center for State Courts:
SJI-90-052)
``The Crucial Nature of Attitudes and Values in Judicial Education''
(National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-90-058)
``Policy Alternatives and Current Court Practices in the Special
Problem Areas of Jurisdiction Over the Family'' from ``Juvenile and
Family Court Key Issues Curriculum Enhancement Project'' (National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-90-066)
``Gender Fairness Faculty Development Workshops'' (National Judicial
College: SJI-90-077)
``A Unified Orientation and Mentoring Program for New Judges of All
Arizona Trial Courts'' (Arizona Supreme Court: SJI-90-078)
``National Guardianship Monitoring Program'' from ``AARP Volunteers:
A Resource for State Guardianship Services'' (Association for the
Advancement of Retired Persons: SJI-91-013)
``Medicine, Ethics, and the Law: Preconception to Birth'' (Women
Judges Fund for Justice: SJI-89-062, SJI-91-019)
``The Leadership Institute in Judicial Education'' and ``The
Advanced Leadership Institute in Judicial Education'' (Appalachian
State University: SJI-91-021)
``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)
``Faculty Development Instructional Program'' from ``Curriculum
Review'' (National Judicial College: SJI-91-039)
``Legal Institute for Special and Limited Jurisdiction Judges''
(National Judicial College: SJI-89-043, SJI-91-040)
``Managerial Budgeting in the Courts''; ``Performance Appraisal in
the Courts''; ``Managing Change in the Courts''; all three from
``Broadening Educational Opportunities for Judges and Other Key
Court Personnel'' (Institute for Court Management/National Center
for State Courts: SJI-91-043)
``An Approach to Long-Range Strategic Planning in the Courts''
(Center for Effective Public Policy Studies: SJI-91-045)
``Implementing the Court-Related Needs of Older People and Persons
with Disabilities: An Instructional Guide'' (National Judicial
College: SJI-91-054)
``National Judicial Response to Domestic Violence: Civil and
Criminal Curricula'' (Family Violence Prevention Fund: SJI-87-061,
SJI-89-070, SJI-91-055)
``Access to Justice: The Impartial Jury and the Justice System'' and
``When Justice is Up to You'' from ``Pre-Juror Education Project''
(Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area:
SJI-91-071)
``Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Decisions'' (National
Judicial College: SJI-91-080)
``Strengthening Rural Courts of Limited Jurisdiction'' and ``Team
Training for Judges and Clerks'' from ``Rural Limited Jurisdiction
Court Curriculum Project (Rural Justice Center: SJI-90-014, SJI-91-
082)
``Medical/Legal Issues in Juvenile and Family Courts'' (National
Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-91-091)
``Good Times, Bad Times: Drugs, Youth, and the Judiciary''
(Professional Development and Training Center, Inc.: SJI-91-095)
``Judicial Response to Stranger and Nonstranger Rape and Sexual
Assault'' (National Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality
for Women and Men: SJI-92-003)
``Interbranch Relations Workshop'' (Ohio Judicial Conference: SJI-
92-079)
``Legal Institute for Non-Law Trained Judges'' (Arizona Supreme
Court: SJI-92-146)
``New Employee Orientation Facilitators Guide'' from ``The Minnesota
Comprehensive Curriculum Design and Training Program for Court
Personnel'' (Minnesota Supreme Court: SJI-92-155)
``Magistrates Correspondence Course'' (Alaska Court System: SJI-92-
156)
``Southwestern Judges' Conference on Environmental Law'' (University
of New Mexico: SJI-92-162)
``Cultural Diversity Awareness in Nebraska Courts'' from ``Native
American Alternatives to Incarceration Project'' (Nebraska Urban
Indian Health Coalition: SJI-93-028)
``A Videotape Training Program in Ethics and Professional Conduct
for Nonjudicial Court Personnel'' (American Judicature Society: SJI-
93-068)
``Integrating Trial Management and Caseflow Management'' (Justice
Management Institute: SJI-93-214)
[FR Doc. 94-24660 Filed 10-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-P
