[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 168 (Monday, August 31, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46286-46326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23092]
[[Page 46285]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
State Justice Institute
_______________________________________________________________________
Proposed Grant Guideline; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 168 / Monday, August 31, 1998 /
Notices
[[Page 46286]]
STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE
Grant Guideline
AGENCY: State Justice Institute.
ACTION: Proposed grant guideline.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Guideline sets forth the administrative, programmatic,
and financial requirements attendant to Fiscal Year 1999 State Justice
Institute grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.
DATES: The Institute invites public comment on the Guideline until
September 30, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the State Justice Institute, 1650
King St. (Suite 600), Alexandria, VA 22314.
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 quality of justice in the State courts of the
United States.
Status of FY 1999 Appropriations
The Senate has approved an FY 1999 appropriation of $14 million for
the Institute. The House of Representatives has approved a $6.85
million appropriation. The final amount will be determined by a
Conference Committee. The grant program proposed in this Guideline and
the funding targets noted for specific programs may be modified in the
Final Grant Guideline after final Congressional action on the
appropriation.
Types of Grants Available and Funding Schedules
The SJI grant program is designed to be responsive to the most
important needs of the State courts. To meet the full range of the
courts' diverse needs, the Institute offers five different categories
of grants. The types of grants available in FY 1999 and the funding
cycles for each program are provided below:
Project Grants
These grants are awarded to support innovative education, research,
demonstration, and technical assistance projects that can improve the
administration of justice in State courts nationwide. Except for
``Single Jurisdiction'' project grants awarded under section II.C.1.
(see below), project grants are intended to support innovative projects
of national significance. As provided in section V. of the Guideline,
project grants may ordinarily not exceed $200,000 a year; however,
grants in excess of $150,000 are likely to be rare, and awarded only to
support projects likely to have a significant national impact.
Applicants must ordinarily submit a concept paper (see section VI.)
and an application (see section VII.) in order to obtain a project
grant. As indicated in Section VI.C., the Board may make an
``accelerated'' grant of less than $40,000 on the basis of the concept
paper alone when the need for the project is clear and little
additional information about the operation of the project would be
provided in an application.
The FY 1999 mailing deadline for project grant concept papers is
November 24, 1998. Papers must be postmarked or bear other evidence of
submission by that date. The Board of Directors will meet in early
March 1999 to invite formal applications based on the most promising
concept papers. Applications will be due on May 12, 1999 and awards
will be approved by the Board in July.
Single Jurisdiction Project Grants
Section II.C.1. reserves up to $300,000 for Projects Addressing a
Critical Need of a Single State or Local Jurisdiction. To receive a
grant under this program, an applicant must demonstrate that (1) the
proposed project is essential to meeting a critical need of the
jurisdiction and (2) the need cannot be met solely with State and local
resources within the foreseeable future. Applicants are encouraged to
submit proposals to replicate approaches or programs that have been
evaluated as effective under an SJI grant. Examples of projects that
could be replicated are listed in Appendix IV.
Technical Assistance Grants
Section II.C.2. reserves up to $400,000 for Technical Assistance
Grants. Under this program, a State or local court may receive a grant
of up to $30,000 to engage outside experts to provide technical
assistance to diagnose, develop, and implement a response to a
jurisdiction's problems.
Letters of application for a Technical Assistance grant may be
submitted at any time. Applicants submitting letters between June 12
and September 30, 1998 will be notified of the Board's decision by
December 11, 1997; those submitting letters between October 1, 1998 and
January 15, 1999 will be notified by March 31, 1999; those submitting
letters between January 16, 1999 and March 12, 1999 will be notified by
May 28, 1999; and those submitting letters between March 14, 1999 and
June 11, 1999 will be notified by August 31, 1999. Applicants
submitting letters between June 12 and September 30, 1999 will be
notified of the Board's decision by December 17, 1999.
Curriculum Adaptation Grants
A grant of up to $20,000 may be awarded to a State or local court
to replicate or modify a model training program developed with SJI
funds. The Guideline allocates up to $100,000 for these grants in FY
1999. See section II.B.2.b.ii.
Letters requesting Curriculum Adaptation grants may be submitted at
any time during the fiscal year. However, in order to permit the
Institute sufficient time to evaluate these proposals, letters must be
submitted no later than 90 days before the projected date of the
training program. See section II.B.2.b.ii.(c).
Scholarships
The Guideline allocates up to $200,000 of FY 1999 funds for
scholarships to enable judges and court managers to attend out-of-State
education and training programs. See section II.B.2.b.iii.
The Institute proposes to make two significant changes in the
scholarship program this year. The first is that scholarships for
eligible applicants will be approved largely on a ``first come, first
served'' basis, although the Institute may approve or disapprove
scholarship requests in order to achieve appropriate balances on the
basis of geography, program provider, and type of court or applicant
(e.g., trial judge, appellate judge, trial court administrator). The
second is that scholarships will be approved only for programs that
either (1) address topics included in the Guideline's Special Interest
categories (section II.B.); (2) enhance the skills of judges and court
managers; or (3) are part of a graduate program for judges or court
personnel.
Applicants interested in obtaining a scholarship for a program
beginning between January 1 and March 31, 1999 must submit their
applications and any required accompanying documents between October 1
and December 1, 1998. For programs beginning between April 1 and June
30, 1999, the applications and documents must be submitted between
January 8 and March 8, 1999. For programs beginning between July 1 and
September 30, 1999,
[[Page 46287]]
the applications and documents must be submitted between April 1 and
June 1, 1999. For programs beginning between October 1 and December 31,
1999, the applications and documents must be submitted between July 1
and September 1, 1999. For programs beginning between January 1 and
March 31, 2000, the applications and documents must be submitted
between October 1 and December 1, 1999.
Renewal Grants
There are two types of renewal grants available from SJI:
Continuation grants (see sections III.G., V.C. and D., and IX.A.) and
On-going support grants (see sections III.H., V.C. and D., and IX.B.).
Continuation grants are intended to enhance the specific program or
service begun during the initial grant period. On-going support grants
may be awarded for up to a three-year period to support national-scope
projects that provide the State courts with critically needed services,
programs, or products.
The Guideline establishes a target for renewal grants of
approximately 25% of the total amount projected to be available for
grants in FY 1999. See section IX. Grantees should accordingly be aware
that the award of a grant to support a project does not constitute a
commitment to provide either continuation funding or on-going support.
An applicant for a continuation or on-going support grant must
submit a letter notifying the Institute of its intent to seek such
funding, no later than 120 days before the end of the current grant
period. The Institute will then notify the applicant of the deadline
for its renewal grant application. See section IX.
Special Interest Categories
The Guideline includes 12 Special Interest categories, i.e., those
project areas that the Board has identified as being of particular
importance to the State courts this year. The selection of these
categories was based on the Board and staff s experience and
observations over the past year, the recommendations received from
judges, court managers, lawyers, members of the public, and other
groups interested in the administration of justice, and the issues
identified in recent years' concept papers and applications.
Section II.B. of the Proposed Guideline includes the following
Special Interest categories:
Improving Public Confidence in the Courts;
Education and Training for Judges and Other Key Court Personnel
(this category includes Curriculum Adaptation grants, Scholarships for
Judges and Key Court Personnel, and National Conferences);
Dispute Resolution and the Courts;
Application of Technology;
Court Management, Financing, and Planning;
Managed Care and the Courts;
Substance Abuse and the Courts;
Children and Families in Court;
Improving the Courts' Response to Domestic Violence;
Improving Sentencing Practices;
Improving Court Security; and
The Relationship Between State and Federal Courts.
Conferences
The Institute is soliciting proposals to conduct a National
Conference on Evaluating the Impact of `Future and the Courts'
Activities. See section II.B.2.b.iv.
Recommendations to Grant Writers
Over the past 12 years, Institute staff have reviewed approximately
3,600 concept papers and 1,700 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, nor does a clever
but uninformative title.
3. How will you do it?
Describe the methodology carefully so that what you propose to do
and how you would do it are clear. All proposed tasks should be set
forth so that a reviewer can see a logical progression of tasks, and
relate those tasks directly to the accomplishment of the project's
goal(s). When in doubt about whether to provide a more detailed
explanation or to assume a particular level of knowledge or expertise
on the part of the reviewers, provide the additional information. A
description of project tasks also will help identify necessary budget
items. All staff positions and project costs should relate directly to
the tasks described. The Institute encourages applicants to attach
letters of cooperation and support from the courts and related agencies
that will be involved in or directly affected by the proposed project.
4. How will you know it works?
Include an evaluation component that will determine whether the
proposed training, procedure, service, or technology accomplished the
objectives it was designed to meet. Concept papers and applications
should present the criteria that will be used to evaluate the project's
effectiveness; identify program elements which will require further
modification; and describe how the evaluation will be conducted, when
it will occur during the project period, who will conduct it, and what
specific measures will be used. In most instances, the evaluation
should be conducted by persons not connected with the implementation of
the procedure, training, service, or technique, or the administration
of the project.
The Institute has also prepared a more thorough list of
recommendations to grant writers regarding the development of project
evaluation plans. Those recommendations are available from the
Institute upon request.
5. How will others find out about it?
Include a plan to disseminate the results of the training,
research, or demonstration beyond the jurisdictions and individuals
directly affected by the project. The plan should identify the specific
methods which will be used to inform the field about the project, such
as the publication of law review or journal articles, or the
distribution of key materials. A statement that a report or research
findings ``will be made
[[Page 46288]]
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 at least 50 percent of the grant funds requested from the
Institute. All other applicants also are encouraged to provide a
matching contribution to assist in meeting the costs of a project.
The match requirement works as follows: If, for example, the total
cost of a project is anticipated to be $150,000, a State or local court
or executive branch agency may request up to $100,000 from the
Institute to implement the project. The remaining $50,000 (50% of the
$100,000 requested from SJI) must be provided as match.
Cash match includes funds directly contributed to the project by
the applicant, or by other public or private sources. It does not
include income generated from tuition fees or the sale of project
products. Non-cash match refers to in-kind contributions by the
applicant, or other public or private sources. This includes, for
example, the monetary value of time contributed by existing personnel
or members of an advisory committee (but not the time spent by
participants in an educational program attending program sessions).
When match is offered, the nature of the match (cash or in-kind) should
be explained and, at the application stage, the tasks and line items
for which costs will be covered wholly or in part by match should be
specified.
8. Which of the two budget forms should be used?
Section VII.A.3. of the SJI Grant Guideline encourages use of the
spreadsheet format of Form C1 if the application requests $100,000 or
more. Form C1 also works well for projects with discrete tasks,
regardless of the dollar value of the project. Form C, the tabular
format, is preferred for projects lacking a number of discrete tasks,
or for projects requiring less than $100,000 of Institute funding.
Generally, use the form that best lends itself to representing most
accurately the budget estimates for the project.
9. How much detail should be included in the budget narrative?
The budget narrative of an application should provide the basis for
computing all project-related costs, as indicated in section VII.D. of
the SJI Grant Guideline. To avoid common shortcomings of application
budget narratives, applicants should include the following information:
Personnel estimates that accurately provide the amount of time to
be spent by personnel involved with the project and the total
associated costs, including current salaries for the designated
personnel (e.g., Project Director, 50% for one year, annual salary of
$50,000 = $25,000). If salary costs are computed using an hourly or
daily rate, the annual salary and number of hours or days in a work-
year should be shown.
Estimates for supplies and expenses supported by a complete
description of the supplies to be used, the nature and extent of
printing to be done, anticipated telephone charges, and other common
expenditures, with the basis for computing the estimates included
(e.g., 100 reports x 75 pages each x .05/page = $375.00). Supply
and expense estimates offered simply as ``based on experience'' are not
sufficient.
In order to expedite Institute review of the budget, make a final
comparison of the amounts listed in the budget narrative with those
listed on the budget form. In the rush to complete all parts of the
application on time, there may be many last-minute changes;
unfortunately, when there are discrepancies between the budget
narrative and the budget form or the amount listed on the application
cover sheet, it is not possible for the Institute to verify the amount
of the request. A final check of the numbers on the form against those
in the narrative will preclude such confusion.
10. What travel regulations apply to the budget estimates?
Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the
policies of the applicant organization, and a copy of the applicant's
travel policy should be submitted as an appendix to the application. If
the applicant does not have a travel policy established in writing,
then travel rates must be consistent with those established by the
Institute or the Federal Government (a copy of the Institute's travel
policy is available upon request). The budget narrative should state
which regulations are in force for the project.
The budget narrative also should include the estimated fare, the
number of persons traveling, the number of trips to be taken, and the
length of stay. The estimated costs of travel, lodging, ground
transportation, and other subsistence should be listed and explained
separately. It is preferable for the budget to be based on the actual
costs of traveling to and from the project or meeting sites. If the
points of origin or destination are not known at the time the budget is
prepared, an average airfare may be used to estimate the travel costs.
For example, if it is anticipated that a project advisory committee
will include members from around the country, a reasonable airfare from
a central point to the meeting site, or the average of airfares from
each coast to the meeting site may be used. Applicants should arrange
travel so as to be able to take advantage of advance-purchase price
discounts whenever possible.
13. What meeting costs may be covered with grant funds?
SJI grant funds may cover the reasonable cost of meeting rooms,
necessary audio-visual equipment, meeting supplies, and working meals.
14. Does the budget truly reflect all costs required to complete
the project?
After preparing the program narrative portion of the application,
applicants may find it helpful to list all the major tasks or
activities required by the proposed project, including the preparation
of products, and note the individual expenses, including personnel
time, related to each. This will help to ensure that, for all tasks
described in the application (e.g., development of a videotape,
research site visits, distribution of a final report), the related
costs appear in the budget and are explained correctly in the budget
narrative.
Recommendations to Grantees
The Institute's staff works with grantees to help assure the smooth
operation of the project and compliance with the Guideline. On the
basis of monitoring more than 1,600 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
[[Page 46289]]
October 30--regardless of the project's start date. The reporting
periods covered by each quarterly report end 30 days before the
respective deadline for the report. When an award period begins
December 1, for example, the first Quarterly Progress Report describing
project activities between December 1 and December 31 will be due on
January 30. A Financial Status Report should be submitted even if funds
have not been obligated or expended.
By documenting what has happened over the past three months,
Quarterly Progress Reports provide an opportunity for project staff and
Institute staff to resolve any questions before they become problems,
and make any necessary changes in the project time schedule, budget
allocations, etc. The Quarterly Project Report should describe project
activities, their relationship to the approved timeline, and any
problems encountered and how they were resolved, and outline the tasks
scheduled for the coming quarter. It is helpful to attach copies of
relevant memos, draft products, or other requested information. An
original and one copy of a Quarterly Progress Report and attachments
should be submitted to the Institute.
Additional Quarterly Progress Report or Financial Status Report
forms may be obtained from the grantee's Program Manager at SJI, or
photocopies may be made from the supply received with the award.
2. Do reporting requirements differ for renewal grants?
Recipients of a continuation or on-going support grant are required
to submit quarterly progress and financial status reports on the same
schedule and with the same information as recipients of a grant for a
single new project.
A continuation grant and each yearly grant under an on-going
support award should be considered as a separate phase of the project.
The reports should be numbered on a grant rather than project basis.
Thus, the first quarterly report filed under a continuation grant or a
yearly increment of an on-going support award should be designated as
number one, the second as number two, and so on, through the final
progress and financial status reports due within 90 days after the end
of the grant period.
3. What information about project activities should be communicated
to SJI?
In general, grantees should provide prior notice of critical
project events such as advisory board meetings or training sessions so
that the Institute Program Manager can attend if possible. If
methodological, schedule, staff, budget allocations, or other
significant changes become necessary, the grantee should contact the
Program Manager prior to implementing any of these changes, so that
possible questions may be addressed in advance. Questions concerning
the financial requirements section of the Guideline, quarterly
financial reporting, or payment requests, should be addressed to the
Grants Financial Manager listed in the award letter.
It is helpful to include the grant number assigned to the award on
all correspondence to the Institute.
4. Why is it important to address the special conditions that are
attached to the award document?
In some instances, a list of special conditions is attached to the
award document. Special conditions may be imposed to establish a
schedule for reporting certain key information, to assure that the
Institute has an opportunity to offer suggestions at critical stages of
the project, and to provide reminders of some, but not all of the
requirements contained in the Grant Guideline. Accordingly, it is
important for grantees to check the special conditions carefully and
discuss with their Program Manager any questions or problems they may
have with the conditions. Most concerns about timing, response time,
and the level of detail required can be resolved in advance through a
telephone conversation. The Institute's primary concern is to work with
grantees to assure that their projects accomplish their objectives, not
to enforce rigid bureaucratic requirements. However, if a grantee fails
to comply with a special condition or with other grant requirements,
the Institute may, after proper notice, suspend payment of grant funds
or terminate the grant.
Sections X., XI., and XII. of the Grant Guideline contain the
Institute's administrative and financial requirements. Institute
Finance Division staff are always available to answer questions and
provide assistance regarding these provisions.
5. What is a Grant Adjustment?
A Grant Adjustment is the Institute's form for acknowledging the
satisfaction of special conditions, or approving changes in grant
activities, schedule, staffing, sites, or budget allocations requested
by the project director. It also may be used to correct errors in grant
documents or deobligate funds from the grant.
6. What schedule should be followed in submitting requests for
reimbursements or advance payments?
Requests for reimbursements or advance payments may be made at any
time after the project start date and before the end of the 90-day
close-out period. However, the Institute follows the U.S. Treasury's
policy limiting advances to the minimum amount required to meet
immediate cash needs. Given normal processing time, grantees should not
seek to draw down funds for periods greater than 30 days from the date
of the request.
7. Do procedures for submitting requests for reimbursement or
advance payment differ for renewal grants?
The basic procedures are the same for any grant. A continuation
grant or the yearly grant under an on-going support award should be
considered as a separate phase of the project. Payment requests should
be numbered on a grant rather than a project basis. The first request
for funds from a continuation grant or a yearly increment under an on-
going support award should be designated as number one, the second as
number two, and so on through the final payment request for that grant.
8. If things change during the grant period, can funds be
reallocated from one budget category to another?
The Institute recognizes that some flexibility is required in
implementing a project design and budget. Thus, grantees may shift
funds among direct cost budget categories. When any one reallocation or
the cumulative total of reallocations are expected to exceed five
percent of the approved project budget, a grantee must specify the
proposed changes, explain the reasons for the changes, and request
Institute approval.
The same standard applies to renewal grants. In addition, prior
written Institute approval is required to shift leftover funds from the
original award to cover activities to be conducted under the renewal
award, or to use renewal grant monies to cover costs incurred during
the original grant period.
9. What is the 90-day close-out period?
Following the last day of the grant, a 90-day period is provided to
allow for all grant-related bills to be received and posted, and grant
funds drawn down to cover these expenses. No obligations of grant funds
may be incurred during this period. The last day on which an
expenditure of grant funds can be obligated is the end date of the
grant period. Similarly, the 90-day period is not intended as an
opportunity to finish and disseminate grant products. This should occur
before the end of the grant period.
During the 90 days following the end of the award period, all
monies that have been obligated should be expended. All payment
requests must be received by the end of the 90-day ``close-out-
period.'' Any unexpended
[[Page 46290]]
monies held by the grantee that remain after the 90-day follow-up
period must be returned to the Institute. Any funds remaining in the
grant that have not been drawn down by the grantee will be deobligated.
10. Are funds granted by SJI ``Federal'' funds?
The State Justice Institute Act provides that, except for purposes
unrelated to this question, ``the Institute shall not be considered a
department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government.'' 42
U.S.C. Sec. 10704(c)(1). Because SJI receives appropriations from
Congress, some grantee auditors have reported SJI grants funds as
``Other Federal Assistance.'' This classification is acceptable to SJI
but is not required.
11. If SJI is not a Federal Agency, do OMB circulars apply with
respect to audits?
Except to the extent that they are inconsistent with the express
provisions of the SJI Grant Guideline, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circulars A-110, A-21, A-87, A-88, A-102, A-122, 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.)
SJI will accept audits conducted in accordance with the Single
Audit Act of 1984 and OMB Circulars A-128, or A-133, in satisfaction of
the annual fiscal audit requirement. Grantees that are required to
undertake these audits in conjunction with Federal grants may include
SJI funds as part of the audit even if the receipt of SJI funds would
not require such audits. This approach gives grantees an option to fold
SJI funds into the governmental audit rather than to undertake a
separate audit to satisfy SJI's Guideline requirements.
In sum, educational and nonprofit organizations that receive
payments from the Institute that are sufficient to meet the
applicability thresholds of OMB Circular A-133 must have their annual
audit conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued
by the Comptroller General of the United States rather than with
generally accepted auditing standards. Grantees in this category that
receive amounts below the minimum threshold referenced in Circular A-
133 must also submit an annual audit to SJI, but they would have the
option to conduct an audit of the entire grantee organization in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; include SJI
funds in an audit of Federal funds conducted in accordance with the
Single Audit Act of 1984 and OMB Circulars A-128 or A-133; or conduct
an audit of only the SJI funds in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards. (See Guideline Section XI.J.) A copy of the above-
noted circulars may be obtained by calling OMB at (202) 395-7250.
12. Does SJI have a CFDA number?
Auditors often request that a grantee provide the Institute's
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for guidance in
conducting an audit in accordance with Government Accounting Standards.
Because SJI is not a Federal agency, it has not been issued such a
number, and there are no additional compliance tests to satisfy under
the Institute's audit requirements beyond those of a standard
governmental audit.
Moreover, because SJI is not a Federal agency, SJI funds should not
be aggregated with Federal funds to determine if the applicability
threshold of Circular A-133 has been reached. For example, if in fiscal
year 1997 grantee ``X'' received $10,000 in Federal funds from a
Department of Justice (DOJ) grant program and $20,000 in grant funds
from SJI, the minimum A-133 threshold would not be met. The same
distinction would preclude an auditor from considering the additional
SJI funds in determining what Federal requirements apply to the DOJ
funds.
Grantees who are required to satisfy either the Single Audit Act,
OMB Circulars A-128, or A-133 and who include SJI grant funds in those
audits, need to remember that because of its status as a private non-
profit corporation, SJI is not on routing lists of cognizant Federal
agencies. Therefore, the grantee needs to submit a copy of the audit
report prepared for such a cognizant Federal agency directly to SJI.
The Institute's audit requirements may be found in Section XI.J. of the
Grant Guideline.
The following Grant Guideline is proposed by the State Justice
Institute for FY 1999:
State Justice Institute Grant Guideline
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Scope of the Program
III. Definitions
IV. Eligibility for Award
V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of Awards
VI. Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects
VII. Application Requirements for New Projects.
VIII. Application Review Procedures
IX. Renewal Funding Procedures and Requirements
X. Compliance Requirements
XI. Financial Requirements
XII. Grant Adjustments
Appendix I--List of State Contacts Regarding Administration of
Institute Grants to State and Local Courts
Appendix II--SJI Libraries: Designated Sites and Contacts
Appendix III--Illustrative List of Model Curricula
Appendix IV--Illustrative List of Replicable Projects
Appendix V--Judicial Education Scholarship Application Forms (Forms
S1 and S2)
Appendix VI--Preliminary Budget Form (Form E)
Appendix VII--Certificate of State Approval Form (Form B)
I. Background
The Institute was established by Pub. L. 98-620 to improve the
administration of justice in the State courts in the United States.
Incorporated in the State of Virginia as a private, nonprofit
corporation, the Institute is charged, by statute, with the
responsibility to:
A. Direct a national program of financial assistance designed to
assure that each citizen of the United States is provided ready access
to a fair and effective system of justice;
B. Foster coordination and cooperation with the Federal judiciary;
C. Promote recognition of the importance of the separation of
powers doctrine to an independent judiciary; and
D. Encourage education for judges and support personnel of State
court systems through national and State organizations, including
universities.
To accomplish these broad objectives, the Institute is authorized
to provide funds to State courts, national organizations which support
and are supported by State courts, national judicial education
organizations, and other organizations that can assist in improving the
quality of justice in the State courts.
The Institute is supervised by an 11-member Board of Directors
appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate. The
Board is statutorily composed of six judges, a State court
administrator, and four members of the public, no more than two of whom
can be of the same political party.
Through the award of grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements,
the Institute is authorized to perform the following activities:
A. Support research, demonstrations, special projects, technical
assistance, and training to improve the administration of justice in
the State courts;
[[Page 46291]]
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 1999, the Institute will consider applications for
funding support that address any of the areas specified in its enabling
legislation. The Board, however, has designated 12 program categories
as being of ``special interest.'' See section II.B.
A. Authorized Program Areas
The Institute is authorized to fund projects addressing one or more
of the following program areas listed in the State Justice Institute
Act, the Battered Women's Testimony Act, the Judicial Training and
Research for Child Custody Litigation Act, and the International
Parental Kidnapping Crime Act.
1. Assistance to State and local court systems in establishing
appropriate procedures for the selection and removal of judges and
other court personnel and in determining appropriate levels of
compensation;
2. Education and training programs for judges and other court
personnel for the performance of their general duties and for
specialized functions, and national and regional conferences and
seminars for the dissemination of information on new developments and
innovative techniques;
3. Research on alternative means for using judicial and nonjudicial
personnel in court decisionmaking activities, implementation of
demonstration programs to test such innovative approaches, and
evaluations of their effectiveness;
4. Studies of the appropriateness and efficacy of court
organizations and financing structures in particular States, and
support to States to implement plans for improved court organization
and financing;
5. Support for State court planning and budgeting staffs and the
provision of technical assistance in resource allocation and service
forecasting techniques;
6. Studies of the adequacy of court management systems in State and
local courts, and implementation and evaluation of innovative responses
to records management, data processing, court personnel management,
reporting and transcription of court proceedings, and juror utilization
and management;
7. Collection and compilation of statistical data and other
information on the work of the courts and on the work of other agencies
which relates to and affects the work of courts;
8. Studies of the causes of trial and appellate court delay in
resolving cases, and establishing and evaluating experimental programs
for reducing case processing time;
9. Development and testing of methods for measuring the performance
of judges and courts, and experiments in the use of such measures to
improve the functioning of judges and the courts;
10. Studies of court rules and procedures, discovery devices, and
evidentiary standards to identify problems with the operation of such
rules, procedures, devices, and standards, and the development of
alternative approaches to better reconcile the requirements of due
process with the need for swift and certain justice, and testing of the
utility of those alternative approaches;
11. Studies of the outcomes of cases in selected areas to identify
instances in which the substance of justice meted out by the courts
diverges from public expectations of fairness, consistency, or equity,
and the development, testing, and evaluation of alternative approaches
to resolving cases in such problem areas;
12. Support for programs to increase court responsiveness to the
needs of citizens through citizen education, improvement of court
treatment of witnesses, victims, and jurors, and development of
procedures for obtaining and using measures of public satisfaction with
court processes to improve court performance;
13. Testing and evaluating experimental approaches to provide
increased citizen access to justice, including processes which reduce
the cost of litigating common grievances, and alternative techniques
and mechanisms for resolving disputes between citizens;
14. Collection and analysis of information regarding the
admissibility and quality of expert testimony on the experiences of
battered women offered as part of the defense in criminal cases under
State law, as well as sources of and methods to obtain funds to pay
costs incurred to provide such testimony, particularly in cases
involving indigent women defendants;
15. Development of training materials to assist battered women,
operators of domestic violence shelters, battered women's advocates,
and attorneys to use expert testimony on the experiences of battered
women in appropriate cases, and individuals with expertise in the
experiences of battered women to develop skills appropriate to
providing such testimony;
16. Research regarding State judicial decisions relating to child
custody litigation involving domestic violence;
17. Development of training curricula to assist State courts to
develop an understanding of, and appropriate responses to child custody
litigation involving domestic violence;
18. Dissemination of information and training materials and
provision of technical assistance regarding the issues listed in
paragraphs 14-17 above;
19. Development of national, regional, and in-State training and
educational programs dealing with criminal and civil aspects of
interstate and international parental child abduction;
20. Other programs, consistent with the purposes of the State
Justice Institute Act, as may be deemed appropriate by the Institute,
including projects dealing with the relationship between Federal and
State court systems such as where there is concurrent State-Federal
jurisdiction and where Federal courts, directly or indirectly, review
State court proceedings.
Funds will not be made available for the ordinary, routine
operation of court systems or programs in any of these areas.
B. Special Interest Program Categories
1. General Description
The Institute is interested in funding both innovative programs and
programs of proven merit that can be replicated in other jurisdictions.
Although applications in any of the statutory program areas are
eligible for funding in FY 1999, 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;
[[Page 46292]]
b. Address aspects of the State judicial systems that are in
special need of serious attention;
c. Have national significance by developing products, services, and
techniques that may be used in other States; and
d. Create and disseminate products that effectively transfer the
information and ideas developed to relevant audiences in State and
local judicial systems, or provide technical assistance to facilitate
the adaptation of effective programs and procedures in other State and
local jurisdictions.
A project will be identified as a ``Special Interest'' project if
it meets the four criteria set forth above and (1) it falls within the
scope of the ``special interest'' program areas designated below, or
(2) information coming to the attention of the Institute from the State
courts, their affiliated organizations, the research literature, or
other sources demonstrates that the project responds to another special
need or interest of the State courts.
Concept papers and applications which address a ``Special
Interest'' category will be accorded a preference in the rating
process. (See the selection criteria listed in sections VI.B.,
``Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects,'' and
VIII.B., ``Application Review Procedures.'')
2. Specific Categories
The Board has designated the areas set forth below as ``Special
Interest'' program categories. The order of listing does not imply any
ordering of priorities among the categories.
a. Improving public confidence in the courts. This category
includes demonstration, evaluation, research, and education projects
designed to improve the responsiveness of courts to public concerns
regarding the fairness, equity, accessibility, timeliness, and
comprehensibility of the court process, and test innovative methods for
increasing the public's confidence in the State courts.
The Institute is particularly interested in supporting innovative
projects that examine, develop, and test methods that trial or
appellate courts may use to:
Test methods for more effectively achieving the
educational function of the court by clearly communicating information
to litigants and the public about judicial decisions, the trial and
appellate court process, and court operations;
Eliminate race, ethnic, and gender bias in the courts
through innovative programs, procedures, materials, and court-community
collaborations to help make courts more accessible, understandable, and
inclusive for all segments of the communities they serve;
Assure that judges and court employees meet the highest
ethical standards and that judicial disciplinary procedures are known,
fair, and effective;
Address court-community problems resulting from the influx
of legal and illegal immigrants, including projects to inform judges
about the effects of recent Federal and State legislation regarding
immigrants; design and assess procedures for use in custody,
visitation, and other domestic relations cases when key family members
or property are outside the United States; and develop protocols to
facilitate service of process, the enforcement of orders of judgment,
and the disposition of criminal and juvenile cases when a non-U.S.
citizen or corporation is involved;
Demonstrate and evaluate approaches courts can use to
implement the concept of restorative justice, including methods for
involving the community in the sentencing process;
Test the impact of methods for improving juror
comprehension in criminal and civil cases, including preparation and
use of jury instructions in as ``plain English'' as possible, and
providing access to videotaped instructions and testimony,
electronically-based evidence, and other aids to comprehension in the
jury room.
In addition, the Institute is interested in supporting projects to
complement or enhance the National Conference on Unrepresented
Litigants in Court, scheduled to be held in late 1999. and anticipates
supporting projects to implement the action plans and findings
developed at that Conference in fiscal year 2000. However, applicants
are advised that Institute funds may not be used to directly or
indirectly support legal representation of individuals in specific
cases.
Previous SJI-supported projects that address these issues include:
Enhancing Court-Community Relationships: A National Town Hall Meeting
Videoconference and projects to implement the action plans developed at
the conference; national and State conferences on Enhancing Public
Trust and Confidence in the Courts; educational materials for court
employees on serving the public; surveys and focus groups to identify
concerns about the courts and assess how courts are serving the needs
of the public; a videotape on the role and operation of a State supreme
court; a demonstration of the use of reparative community sentencing
boards and community volunteers to monitor adult probationers and to
monitor guardianships; evaluation of community-based court programs in
New York City; and guidelines for court-annexed day-care systems;
Serving Unrepresented Litigants: A national conference on
unrepresented litigants in courts; a guidebook on the extent of self-
representation and the problems being encountered, and the procedures,
and programs being used by courts to assist pro se litigants;
educational materials and a benchbook to assist courts in responding to
individuals and groups unwilling to comply with legal and
administrative procedures; developing and evaluating various means by
which courts can assist unrepresented litigants including local and
Statewide self-service centers, touchscreen computer kiosks,
videotapes, plain-English forms and other written materials; assessing
effective and efficient methods for providing legal representation to
indigent parties in criminal and family cases; and examining the
methods courts in rural communities can use to assure access and
fairness for immigrants;
Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts: Presenting a
National Conference on Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts
and supporting projects to implement the action plans developed at the
conference; examining the applicability of various dispute resolution
procedures to different cultural groups; and developing educational
programs and materials for judges and court staff on diversity and
related issues;
Facilitating the Use of Qualified Court Interpreters: Preparing a
manual and other materials for managing and coordinating court
interpretation services; developing basic and graduate level curricula
and other materials for training and assisting court interpreters; and
assessing the feasibility and effectiveness of interpreting in court
via the telephone;
Improving Jury Service and Jury System Management: Developing a
manual for implementing innovations in jury selection, use, and
management; preparing a guide for making juries accessible to persons
with disabilities; documenting methods for reducing juror stress; and
assessing the effect of allowing jurors to discuss the evidence prior
to the deliberations on the verdict.
b. Education and training for judges and other key court personnel.
The Institute is interested in supporting an array of projects that
will continue to strengthen and broaden the availability of court
education programs at the State,
[[Page 46293]]
regional, and national levels. This category is divided into four
subsections: (i) Innovative Educational Programs; (ii) Curriculum
Adaptation Projects; (iii) Scholarships; and (iv) National Conferences.
i. Innovative educational programs. This category includes support
for the development and pilot-testing of innovative, high-quality
educational programs for judges or court personnel that address key
substantive and administrative issues of concern to the nation's
courts, or help local courts or State court systems develop or enhance
their capacity to deliver quality continuing education. Programs may be
designed for presentation at the local, State, regional, or national
level. Ordinarily, court education programs should be based on some
form of assessment of the needs of the target audience; include clearly
stated learning objectives that delineate the new knowledge or skills
that participants will acquire (as opposed to a description of what
will be taught); incorporate adult education principles and multiple
teaching/learning methods; and result in the development of a
disseminable curriculum as defined in section III.J.
(a) The Institute is particularly interested in the development of
education programs that:
Include innovative self-directed learning packages for use
by judges and court personnel, and distance-learning approaches to
assist those who do not have ready access to classroom-centered
programs. These packages and approaches should include the appropriate
use of various media and technologies such as Internet-based
programming, interactive CD-ROM or floppy disk-based programs, videos,
or other audio and visual media, supported by written materials or
manuals. They also should include a meaningful program evaluation and a
self-evaluation process that assesses pre-and post-program knowledge
and skills;
Familiarize faculty with the effective use of
instructional technology including methods for effectively presenting
information through distance learning approaches including the
Internet, videos, and satellite teleconferences;
Assist local courts, State court systems, and court
systems in a geographic region to develop or enhance a comprehensive
program of continuing education, training, and career development for
judges and court personnel as an integral part of court operations;
Test the effectiveness of including a variety of
experiential instructional approaches in judicial branch education
programs such as field studies and interchanges with community
programs, organizations, and institutions; and
Encourage intergovernmental teambuilding, collaboration,
and planning among the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of
government, or courts within a metropolitan area or multi-State region
(b) The Institute also is interested in supporting the development
and testing of curricula on issues of critical importance to the
courts, including those listed in the other Special Interest categories
described in this Chapter.
ii. Curriculum Adaptation Projects. (a) Description of the program.
The Board is reserving up to $160,000 to provide support for projects
that adapt a model curriculum developed with SJI support and to pilot
test it to determine its appropriateness, quality, and effectiveness
for inclusion in the jurisdiction's judicial branch education program.
An illustrative list of the curricula that may be appropriate for
adaptation is contained in Appendix III.
The goal of the Curriculum Adaptation program is to provide State
and local courts with sufficient support to modify a model curriculum,
course module, or national or regional conference program developed
with SJI funds so as to meet a State's or local jurisdiction's
educational needs, to pilot-test it to determine its appropriateness,
quality, and effectiveness, and train future instructors to enable them
to make future presentations of the curriculum. It is anticipated that
the adapted curriculum will become part of the grantee's ongoing
educational offerings.
Only State or local courts may apply for Curriculum Adaptation
funding. Grants to support adaptation of educational programs
previously developed with SJI funds are limited to no more than $20,000
each. As with other awards to State or local courts, cash or in-kind
match must be provided in an amount equal to at least 50% of the grant
amount requested.
(b) Review criteria and procedures. Curriculum Adaptation grants
will be awarded on the basis of criteria including: the goals and
objectives of the proposed project; the need for outside funding to
support the program; the appropriateness of the educational approach in
achieving the project's educational objectives; the likelihood of
effective implementation and integration into the State's or local
jurisdiction's ongoing educational programming; and expressions of
interest by the judges and/or court personnel who would be directly
involved in or affected by the project. In making curriculum adaptation
awards, the Institute will also consider factors such as the
reasonableness of the amount requested, compliance with match
requirements, diversity of subject matter, geographic diversity, the
level of appropriations available in the current year, and the amount
expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.
The Board anticipates acting upon applications within 45 days after
receipt. Grant funds will be available only after Board approval, and
negotiation of the final terms of the grant.
(c) Application procedures. In lieu of concept papers and formal
applications, applicants should submit a detailed letter and three
photocopies. Although there is no prescribed form for the letter, or a
minimum or maximum page limit, letters of application should include
the following information to assure that each of the review criteria
listed above is addressed:
Project Description. What is the title of the model
curriculum to be adapted and who developed it? What are the project's
goals? Why is this education program needed at the present time? What
program components would be implemented, and what types of
modifications, if any, are anticipated in length, format, learning
objectives, teaching methods, or content? Who would be responsible for
adapting the model curriculum? Who would the participants be, how many
would there be, how will they be recruited, and from where would they
come (e.g., from across the State, from a single local jurisdiction,
from a multi-State region)?
Need for Funding. Why are sufficient State or local
resources unavailable to fully support the modification and
presentation of the model curriculum? What is the potential for
replicating or integrating the program in the future using State or
local funds, once it has been successfully adapted and tested?
Likelihood of Implementation. What is the proposed
timeline for modifying and presenting the program? Who would serve as
faculty and how were they selected? What measures would be taken to
facilitate subsequent presentations of the adapted program?
(Ordinarily, an independent evaluation of a curriculum adaptation
project is not required; however, the results of any evaluation should
be included in the final report.)
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
[[Page 46294]]
to attend? (This may be demonstrated by attaching letters of support.)
Budget and Matching State Contribution. Applicants should
attach a copy of budget Form E (see Appendix V) and a budget narrative
(see Section VII.B.) that describes the basis for the computation of
all project-related costs and the source of the match offered.
Chief Justice's Concurrence. Local courts should attach a
concurrence form signed by the Chief Justice of the State or his or her
designee. (See Form B, Appendix VI.)
Letters of application may be submitted at any time. However,
applicants should allow at least 90 days between the date of submission
and the date of the proposed program to allow sufficient time for
needed planning.
(d) Grantee responsibilities. A recipient of a Curriculum
Adaptation grant must:
(1) Comply with the same quarterly reporting requirements as other
Institute grantees (see Section X.L.);
(2) Include in each grant product a prominent acknowledgment that
support was received from the Institute, along with the ``SJI'' logo
and a disclaimer paragraph (See section X.Q.); and
(3) Submit two copies of the manuals, handbooks, or conference
packets developed under the grant at the conclusion of the grant
period, along with a final report that includes any evaluation results
and explains how the grantee intends to present the program in the
future.
iii. Scholarships for Judges and Court Personnel. The Institute is
reserving up to $200,000 to support a scholarship program for State
court judges and court managers.
(a) Program description/scholarship amounts. The purposes of the
Institute scholarship program are to: enhance the skills, knowledge,
and abilities of judges and court managers; enable State court judges
and court managers to attend out-of-State educational programs
sponsored by national and State providers that they could not otherwise
attend because of limited State, local and personal budgets; and
provide States, judicial educators, and the Institute with evaluative
information on a range of judicial and court-related education
programs.
Scholarships will be granted to individuals only for the purpose of
attending an out-of-State educational program within the United States.
A scholarship may cover the cost of tuition and transportation up
to a maximum total of $1,500 per scholarship. (Transportation expenses
include round-trip coach airfare or train fare. Recipients who drive to
the site of the program may receive $.31/mile up to the amount of the
advanced purchase round-trip airfare between their home and the program
site.) Funds to pay tuition and transportation expenses in excess of
$1,500, and other costs of attending the program such as lodging,
meals, materials, transportation to and from airports, and local
transportation (including rental cars) at the site of the education
program, must be obtained from other sources or be borne by the
scholarship recipient.
Scholarship applicants are encouraged to check other sources of
financial assistance and to combine aid from various sources whenever
possible. In addition, 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: (1) Recipients. Scholarships can be awarded only to
full-time judges of State or local trial and appellate courts; full-
time professional, State or local court personnel with management
responsibilities; and supervisory and management probation personnel in
judicial branch probation offices. Senior judges, part-time judges,
quasi-judicial hearing officers including referees and commissioners,
State administrative law judges, staff attorneys, law clerks, line
staff, law enforcement officers, and other executive branch personnel
are not eligible to receive a scholarship.
(2) Courses. Scholarships can be awarded only for courses presented
in a U.S. jurisdiction other than the one in which the applicant
resides that are designed to enhance the skills of new or experienced
judges and court managers; address any of the topics listed in the
Institute's Special Interest categories; or are offered by a recognized
graduate program for judges or court managers. 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.
(c) Application procedures. (1) Forms. Judges and court managers
interested in receiving a scholarship must submit the Institute's
Judicial Education Scholarship Application Form and the written
concurrence of the Chief Justice of their State's Supreme Court (or the
Chief Justice's designee) on the Institute's Judicial Education
Scholarship Concurrence form (Forms S1 & S2, see Appendix V). The
signature of the presiding judge of the applicant's court cannot be
substituted for that of the Chief Justice or the Chief Justice's
designee. Court managers, other than elected clerks of court, also must
submit a letter of support from their immediate supervisor.
An applicant may apply for a scholarship for only one educational
program during any one application cycle.
(2) Dates. Scholarship applications with the accompanying documents
must be submitted during the periods specified below:
October 1-December 1, 1998, for programs beginning between January
1 and March 31, 1999;
January 8-March 8, 1999, for programs beginning between April 1 and
June 30, 1999;
April 1-June 1, 1999, for programs beginning between July 1 and
September 30, 1999;
July 1-September 1, 1999, for programs beginning between October 1
and December 31, 1999; and
October 1-December 1, 1999, for programs beginning between January
1 and March 31, 2000.
No exceptions or extensions will be granted. For the Scholarship
application cycle beginning January 8, 1999 and all subsequent cycles,
applications sent prior to the application period will be considered to
have been sent one week after the beginning of that application period.
All the required items must be received in order for an application to
be considered. If the Concurrence form or letter of support is sent
separately from the application, the postmark date of the last item to
be sent will be used in applying the above criteria.
All applications should be sent by mail or courier (not fax or e-
mail) to: Scholarship Program Coordinator, State Justice Institute,
1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Applicants are encouraged not to wait for the decision on the
scholarship to register for the educational program they wish to
attend.
(d) Selection criteria/review procedures. Scholarships will be
awarded on the basis of:
The date on which the application and concurrence (and
support letter, if required) were sent;
The unavailability of State or local funds to cover the
costs of attending the program or scholarship funds from another
source;
' Geographic balance among the recipients;
The balance of scholarships among educational programs;
The balance of scholarships among the types of courts
represented; and
The level of appropriations available to the Institute in
the current
[[Page 46295]]
year and the amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal
years.
The postmark or courier receipt will be used to determine the date
on which the application form and other required items were sent.
The Institute intends to notify each applicant whether a
scholarship has been approved within 30 days after the close of the
relevant application period. The Institute will reserve sufficient
funds each quarter to assure the availability of scholarships
throughout the year.
(e) Non-transferability. A scholarship is not transferable to
another individual. It may be used only for the course specified in the
application unless attendance at a different course that meets the
eligibility requirements is approved in writing by the Institute.
Decisions on such requests will be made within 30 days after the
receipt of the request letter.
(f) Responsibilities of scholarship recipients. Scholarship
recipients are responsible for disseminating the information received
from the course to their court colleagues locally, and if possible,
throughout the State (e.g., by developing a formal seminar, circulating
the written material, or discussing the information at a meeting or
conference). Recipients also must submit to the Institute a certificate
of attendance at the program, an evaluation of the educational program
they attended, and a copy of the notice of any scholarship funds
received from other sources. A copy of the evaluation must be sent to
the Chief Justice of their State. A State or local jurisdiction may
impose additional requirements on scholarship recipients.
In order to receive the funds authorized by a scholarship award,
recipients must submit a Scholarship Payment Voucher (Form S3) together
with a tuition statement from the program sponsor, and a transportation
fare receipt (or statement of the driving mileage to and from the
recipient's home to the site of the educational program). Scholarship
Payment Vouchers should be submitted within 90 days after the end of
the course which the recipient attended.
iv. National Conferences. This category includes support for
national conferences on topics of major concern to State court judges
and personnel across the nation. Applicants are encouraged to consider
the use of videoconference and other technologies to increase
participation and limit travel expenses in planning and presenting
conferences. In planning a conference, applicants should provide for a
written, video, or computer-based product that would widely disseminate
information, findings, and any recommendations resulting from the
conference.
The Institute is particularly interested in supporting a National
Symposium on Evaluating the Impact of `Future and the Courts'
Activities. In the late 1980's, Virginia and Arizona established the
first commissions on the future of their State courts. SJI contributed
support to those commissions, and in May 1990, under a cooperative
agreement with the American Judicature Society, convened a ``National
Conference on the Future and the Courts'' in San Antonio. Over the next
several years, almost every State court system established a
``futures'' commission, convened a futures conference, or engaged in
some other long-range planning exercise. Each of those ventures
produced a set of recommendations for steps that could be taken by the
courts, the legislature, the bar, other professional disciplines, and
the public to improve the administration of justice in the State.
Anecdotal information suggest that, in many States, those
recommendations produced significant long-term change in a number of
areas but, in other States, little, if any, change occurred. The
purpose of the national conference would be to:
(a) Evaluate the impact of the national and State futures
activities conducted over the past decade;
(b) Identify the reasons why some States were more successful than
others in implementing change; and
(c) Assess what steps can be taken or methods developed to:
(1) Facilitate the recommended changes that are still appropriate;
(2) More fully institutionalize long-range planning by State court
systems and, where appropriate, local courts; and
(3) Assist each State court system or local court in identifying
future trends that may significantly affect its ability to deliver
justice.
The Board wishes to emphasize that it does not envision this
conference as a second San Antonio conference. The purpose of the
proposed conference should not be to develop trends, scenarios, and
strategies for improving American courts over the next 30 years, but to
meet the specific goals articulated above.
c. Dispute resolution and the courts.
This category includes research, evaluation, and demonstration
projects to evaluate or enhance the effectiveness of court-connected
dispute resolution programs. The Institute is interested in projects
that facilitate comparison among research studies by using similar
measures and definitions; address the nature and operation of ADR
programs within the context of the court system as a whole; and compare
dispute resolution processes to attorney settlement as well as trial.
Specific topics of interest include:
Determining the appropriate timing for referrals to
dispute resolution services to enhance settlements and reduce time to
disposition;
Assessing the effect of different referral methods
including any differences in outcome between voluntary and mandatory
referrals;
Comparing the appropriateness and effectiveness of
facilitative and evaluative mediation in various types of cases;
Evaluating the effectiveness of the use of family group
conferencing procedures in dependency, delinquency, and status offense
cases;
Evaluating innovative court-connected dispute resolution
programs for resolving specific types of cases such as minor criminal
cases, probate proceedings, land-use disputes, and complex and multi-
party litigation;
Testing of methods that courts can use to assure the
quality of court-connected dispute resolution programs; and
Developing methods to eliminate race, ethnic, or gender
bias in court-connected dispute resolution programs, testing approaches
for assuring that such programs are open to all members of the
community served by the court, and assessing whether having a mediator
pool that reflects the diversity of the community it serves, has an
impact on the use of mediation by minorities and its effectiveness.
Applicants should be aware that the Institute will not provide
operational support for on-going ADR programs or start-up costs of non-
innovative ADR programs. Courts also should be advised that it is
preferable for the applicant to use its funds to support the
operational costs of an innovative program and request Institute funds
to support related technical assistance, training, and evaluation
elements of the program.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported projects to
evaluate the use of mediation in civil, domestic relations, juvenile,
guardianship, medical malpractice, appellate, and minor criminal cases,
as well as in resolving grievances of court employees. SJI grants also
have supported assessments of the impact of private judging on State
courts; multi-door courthouse programs; arbitration of civil cases;
screening and intake procedures for mediation; early referrals to
mediation in divorce proceedings;
[[Page 46296]]
and trial and appellate level civil settlement programs.
In addition, SJI has supported two national conferences on court-
connected dispute resolution; a national ADR resource center and a
national database of court-connected dispute resolution programs;
training programs for judges and mediators; the testing of Statewide
and trial court-based ADR monitoring/evaluation systems and
implementation manuals; the promulgation and implementation of
principles and policies regarding the qualifications, selection, and
training of court-connected neutrals; development of standards for
court-annexed mediation programs; development of guidelines to help
mediators avoid conduct that may be considered the unauthorized
practice of law; and an examination of the applicability of various
dispute resolution procedures to different cultural groups.
d. Application of technology. This category includes the testing of
innovative applications of technology to improve the operation of court
management systems and judicial practices at both the trial and
appellate court levels.
The Institute seeks to support local experiments with promising but
untested applications of technology in the courts that include an
evaluation of the impact of the technology in terms of costs, benefits,
and staff workload, and a training component to assure that staff is
appropriately educated about the purpose and use of the new technology.
In this context, ``untested'' refers to novel applications of
technology developed for the private sector and other fields that have
not previously been applied to the courts.
The Institute is particularly interested in supporting efforts to:
Evaluate innovative approaches for filing pleadings and
documents electronically;
Develop model rules or standards to govern the use of
electronic filing, electronic notices, and electronic data and document
interchange;
Test innovative telecommunications links among courts, and
between courts and executive branch or private agencies and services.
Test innovative applications of voice recognition
technology by judges and clerks in the adjudication process;
Evaluate and document the innovative uses of technology to
improve jury management;
Assess the impact of the use of comprehensive electronic
court records systems on case management and court procedures;
Demonstrate and evaluate the use of technology to assist
judicial decisionmaking;
Evaluate the use of digital audio and video technology for
making a record of court proceedings;
Demonstrate and evaluate the use of videoconferencing
technology to present testimony by witnesses in remote locations, and
appellate arguments (but see the limitations specified below);
Assess the impact of the use of multimedia CD-ROM-based
briefs on the courts, parties, counsel, and the trial or appellate
process;
Assist courts in determining the policies and procedures
that should govern public access to information filed in electronically
stored case records; and
Assist courts in identifying and solving potential ``Year
2000'' problems.
Ordinarily, the Institute will not provide support for the purchase
of equipment or software in order to implement a technology that is
commonly used by courts, such as videoconferencing between courts and
jails, optical imaging for recordkeeping, and automated management
information systems. (See also section XI.H.2.b. regarding other limits
on the use of grant funds to purchase equipment and software.)
In previous funding cycles, grants have been awarded to support
projects that: demonstrate, document, and evaluate the availability of
electronic forms and information on the Internet to assist pro se
litigants; access to case data via the Internet; electronic filing and
document transfer; an electronic document management system; a court
management information display system; the integration of bar-coding
technology with an existing automated case management system; an on-
bench automated system for generating and processing court orders; an
automated judicial education management system; a document management
system for small courts using imaging technology; a computerized
citizen intake and referral service; an ``analytic judicial desktop
system'' to assist judges in making sentencing decisions; the
application of voice-recognition technology to stenomask reporting; and
the use of automated teller machines for paying jurors.
Grants have also supported national court technology conferences; a
court technology laboratory to provide judges and court managers an
opportunity to test automated court-related hardware and software; a
technical information service to respond to specific inquiries
concerning court-related technologies; development of recommendations
for electronic transfer of court documents, model rules on the use of
computer-generated demonstrative evidence and electronic documentary
evidence, and guidelines on privacy and public access to electronic
court information and on court access to the information superhighway;
implementation and evaluation of a Statewide automated integrated case
docketing and record-keeping system; computer simulation models to
assist State courts in evaluating potential strategies for improving
civil caseflow; and an examination of the impact of the use of
technology in the trial process.
e. Court planning, management, financing. The Institute is
interested in supporting projects that explore emerging issues that
will affect the State courts as they enter the 21st Century, as well as
projects that develop and test innovative approaches for managing the
courts, and securing, managing, and demonstrating the effective use of
the resources required to fully meet the responsibilities of the
judicial branch, and institutionalizing long-range planning processes.
In particular the Institute is interested in:
i. Demonstration, evaluation, education, research, and technical
assistance projects to:
Develop, implement, and assess innovative case management
techniques for specialized calendars including but not limited to drug
courts, domestic violence courts, juvenile courts, and family courts;
Facilitate communication, information sharing, and
coordination between the juvenile and criminal courts;
Assess the effects of innovative management approaches
designed to assure quality services to court users;
Strengthen the judge's and court manager's skills in
leadership, planning, and building community confidence in the courts;
Develop and test innovative educational programs and
materials to enhance the core competencies required of court managers
and staff;
Develop and test methods for facilitating and implementing
change and for encouraging excellence in court operations;
Demonstrate and assess the effective use of staff teams in
court operations; and
Implement and evaluate approaches for institutionalizing
long-range strategic planning in individual States and local
jurisdictions including development of the capacity to conduct
environmental scanning, trends analysis, and benchmarking.
[[Page 46297]]
ii. Demonstration, evaluation, education, technical assistance, and
research projects to implement the National Agenda for Assuring Prompt
and Affordable Justice in the 21st Century, including projects to:
Document and publicize successful innovative programs and
practices and establish mentor courts to assist other jurisdictions in
reducing litigation costs and delay.
Develop and test rules and procedures that will establish
economic and other incentives that reduce the cost and time required
for the resolution of disputes.
Examine and test how the techniques applied to pretrial
caseflow management and trial management in general jurisdiction court
civil and criminal cases can be used to reduce the cost and time
required in limited jurisdiction high volume courts, domestic relations
proceedings, cases involving children, and post-adjudication matters.
iii. The preparation of ``think pieces'' exploring emerging issues
that may result in significant changes in the court process or judicial
administration and their implications for judges, court managers,
policymakers, and the public. Grants supporting such projects are
limited to no more than $10,000. The resulting essay should be directed
to the court community and be of publishable quality.
Possible topics include, but are not limited to:
The implications on court procedures, court operations,
and judicial selection of the changing expectations about the proper
role of courts--from adjudicators to problem solvers;
The proper balance between collaboration with the
community and judicial independence;
The implications of the increasing commerce via the
Internet for the State courts--what special problems may arise and what
new rules and procedures may be needed to address those problems;
How the increased litigation resulting from the North
American Free Trade Agreement and the global integration of business
affect the State courts--are special rules and procedures needed?
What the new ``community courts'' can learn from the
experience of the old justice of the peace courts,
The appropriateness of modifying methods for selecting,
qualifying, and using juries; and
The likely extent, nature, and impact on the courts of
litigation arising from ``Year 2000'' problems.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported national
and Statewide ``future and the courts'' conferences and training;
curricula, guidebooks, a video on visioning, and a long-range planning
guide for trial courts; the testing of coordinated State/local
approaches to institutionalizing long-range planning by the courts; and
technical assistance to courts conducting futures and long-range
planning.
SJI has also supported technical assistance and training to assist
jurisdictions establish court-led multi-agency teams to address
critical community problems; executive management programs for teams of
judges and court administrators; a test of the feasibility of
implementing the Trial Court Performance Standards in general
jurisdiction and family courts; Appellate Court Performance Standards
and Measures; tests of the use of TQM approaches in trial and appellate
court and State court administrative offices; revision of the Standards
on Judicial Administration; projects identifying the causes of delay in
trial and appellate courts; the preparation of a national agenda for
assuring prompt and affordable justice and the development of
educational programs for reducing litigation cost and delay in civil,
criminal, domestic relations, and juvenile courts; the testing of
various types of weighted caseload systems; a National Interbranch
Conference on Funding the State Courts; and National Symposia on Court
Management.
f. Managed care and the courts. The First National Conference on
Managed Care and the Criminal Justice System, held June 28-30, 1998 in
Albuquerque, highlighted what many judges and court personnel need to
know about the implications of managed care for the courts and for
court-ordered substance abuse, mental health, and other services.
Accordingly, the Institute is interested in supporting educational,
research, and demonstration projects to:
Develop and test State, regional, and local educational
programs for judges and court staff on the implications of managed care
for the provision of drug and alcohol treatment, mental health
treatment, and other services to adult and juvenile offenders,
neglected and abused children and their families, and persons subject
to civil commitment. In addition to defining managed care principles
and procedures, the curricula and materials (which could include
modules for use at State judicial conferences and meetings of State
clerk and court managers associations) should cover such matters as:
(i) Strategies for ensuring that contracts with managed care
organizations satisfactorily address court concerns such as protecting
public safety, dealing appropriately with non-compliance by a person
under court order, reporting, providing ancillary services, and (ii)
assuring the continuity and prompt provision of ordered services; and
methods for establishing collaborative public sector managed care
programs for court-ordered services.
Draft model managed care contract provisions and letters
of agreement for the provision of court-ordered treatment and services
to adults and juveniles.
Develop and test performance measures to determine the
quality and appropriateness of court-ordered treatment and services.
Document public sector and private sector managed care
programs that effectively provide court-ordered treatment and other
services to adults and juveniles.
g. Substance abuse. This category includes education, technical
assistance, research, and evaluation projects to assist courts in
handling a large volume of substance abuse-related criminal, civil,
juvenile, and domestic relations cases fairly and expeditiously. (It
does not include providing support for planning, establishing,
operating, or enhancing a local drug court.) The Institute is
particularly interested in projects to:
Evaluate the effectiveness of ``family drug court''
programs (i.e. specialized calendars that provide intensely supervised,
court-enforced substance abuse treatment and other services to families
involved in child neglect, child abuse, domestic violence, or other
family cases);
Develop a self-evaluation guide for ``juvenile drug
court'' programs;
Develop and test curricula on the specific knowledge and
skills needed to manage drug court programs for adults, juveniles, or
families.
Develop and test effective approaches for identifying and
treating substance abuse by judges, lawyers, and court staff, and
determining and lessening the impact on the courts of such substance
abuse.
(Applicants interested in obtaining grants to plan, implement,
operate, or enhance a drug court program should contact the Drug
Court Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of
Justice.)
The Institute has supported the presentation of the 1995 National
Symposium on the Implementation and Operation of Court-Enforced Drug
Treatment Programs as well as the 1991 National Conference on Substance
[[Page 46298]]
Abuse and the Courts, and efforts to implement the State and local
plans developed at these Conferences.
It has also supported projects to evaluate court-enforced treatment
programs, and other court-based alcohol and drug assessment programs;
develop a self-evaluation guide for drug courts; test the applicability
of drug courts in non-urban sites and develop guidance for
jurisdictions establishing juvenile drug courts; involve community
groups and families in drug court programs; assess the impact of
legislation and court decisions dealing with drug-affected infants;
develop strategies for coping with increasing caseload pressures, and
benchbooks and other educational materials on child abuse and neglect
cases involving parental substance abuse and appropriate sentences for
pregnant substance abusers; test the use of a dual diagnostic treatment
model for domestic violence cases in which substance abuse was a
factor; and present local and regional educational programs for judges
and other court personnel on substance abuse and its treatment. In
addition, SJI has supported an information system that permits courts,
criminal justice agencies, and drug treatment providers to share
information electronically.
h. Children and families in court. This category includes
education, demonstration, evaluation, technical assistance, and
research projects to identify and inform judges of innovative,
effective approaches for handling cases involving children and
families. The Institute is particularly interested in projects to:
Develop and test innovative protocol, procedures,
educational programs, and other measures to determine and address the
service needs of children exposed to family violence and the methods
for mitigating those effects when issuing protection, custody,
visitation, or other orders;
Develop and test guidelines, curricula, and other
materials to assist judges in establishing and enforcing custody, and
support orders in cases in which a child s parents were never married
to each other;
Develop and test effective approaches for the detention,
adjudication, and disposition of juveniles under age 13 who are accused
of involvement in a violent offense;
Develop and test procedures and programs to include
victims of offenses committed by juveniles in the juvenile court
process (other than victim-offender mediation programs);
Create and test educational programs, guidelines, and
monitoring systems to assure that the juvenile justice system meets the
needs of girls and children of color;
Develop and test innovative techniques for improving
communication, sharing information, and coordinating juvenile and
criminal courts and divisions;
Design or evaluate information systems that not only
provide aggregate data, but are able to track individual cases,
individual juveniles, and specific families, so that judges and court
managers can manage their caseloads effectively, track placement and
service delivery, and coordinate orders in different proceedings
involving members of the same family; and
Develop and test educational programs to assure that
everyone coming into contact with courts serving children and families
are treated with dignity, respect, and courtesy.
See also the topics listed in the Special Interest Category on
Managed Care and the Courts (section II.B.2.f.)
In previous funding cycles, the Institute supported national and
State conferences on courts, children, and the family; a review of
juvenile courts in light of the upcoming 100th anniversary of the
founding of the first juvenile court; testing of alternative models for
achieving the goals of a family court without altering court structure;
the authority of the juvenile court to enforce treatment orders and the
role of juvenile court judges; validation of a risk assessment tool for
juvenile offenders; and an assessment of the effectiveness of various
intervention strategies for young violent offenders and for low-risk
juvenile offenders.
In addition, the Institute has supported a symposium on the
resolution of interstate child welfare issues; and educational
materials on the questioning of child witnesses, determining the best
interest of a child and making reasonable efforts to preserve families,
adjudicating allegations of child sexual abuse when custody is in
dispute, child victimization, handling child abuse and neglect cases
when parental substance abuse is involved, and on children as the
silent victims of spousal abuse.
Other Institute grants have supported the development of computer-
based training on the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, and the
examination of supervised visitation programs, effective court
responses when domestic violence and custody disputes coincide, and
foster care review procedures.
The Institute also has supported projects to enhance coordination
of cases involving the same family that are being heard in different
courts; develop an MIS system to link the court with executive branch
and private juvenile justice agencies and services; assist States
considering establishment of a family court; develop national and
State-based training materials for guardians ad litem as well as a set
of performance measures; test the use of differentiated case management
in juvenile court and methods for reducing the use of continuances; and
develop innovative approaches for coordinating the appointment of
guardians and Federal representative payees for disabled persons.
i. Improving the courts' response to domestic violence. This
category includes innovative education, demonstration, technical
assistance, evaluation, and research projects to improve the fair and
effective processing, consideration, and disposition of cases
concerning domestic violence and gender-related violent crimes,
including projects to:
Develop and test methods for facilitating recognition and
enforcement of protection orders issued by a State, Federal, or Tribal
court in another jurisdiction;
Determine the effective use of information contained in
protection order files stored in court electronic databases consistent
with the protection of the privacy and safety of victims of violence;
Evaluate the effectiveness of domestic violence courts
(i.e., specialized calendars or divisions for considering domestic
violence cases and related matters), including their impact on victims,
offenders, and court operations;
Assess the effectiveness of including jurisdiction over
family violence in a unified family court;
Demonstrate effective ways to coordinate the response to
domestic violence and gender-related crimes of violence among courts,
criminal justice agencies, and social services programs, and to assure
that courts are fully accessible to victims of domestic violence and
other gender-related violent crimes;
Test the effectiveness of innovative sentencing and
treatment approaches in cases involving domestic violence and other
gender-related crimes including sentences that incorporate restorative
justice measures.
Institute funds may not be used to provide operational support to
programs offering direct services or compensation to victims of crimes.
(Applicants interested in obtaining such operational support should
contact the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), Office of Justice
Programs, U.S.
[[Page 46299]]
Department of Justice, or the agency in their State that awards OVC
funds to State and local victim assistance and compensation programs.)
In previous funding cycles, the Institute supported national and
State conferences on family violence and the courts as well as projects
to implement the action plans developed at these conferences;
preparation of descriptions of innovative court practices in family
violence cases, including programs for battered mothers and their
children; and development of recommendations on how to improve access
to rural courts for victims of family violence, conduct fatality
reviews, and collect and report dispositional and other data concerning
family violence cases.
The Institute also supported a national conference, national and
regional symposia, and the development of guides on the implementation
of the full faith and credit requirements included in the Violence
Against Women Act; and the drafting of a proposed uniform statute on
the recognition of protection orders from other jurisdictions.
In addition, Institute grants have resulted in the development of
curricula for judges on a range of topics regarding the handling of
family violence, rape, and sexual assault cases; evaluations of the
effectiveness of specialized domestic violence calendars, court-ordered
treatment for family violence offenders, the use of alternatives to
adjudication in child abuse cases, and procedures to improve the
effectiveness of civil protection orders for family violence victims;
research on the use of mediation in domestic relations cases involving
allegations of violence, the relevancy of culture in adjudicating and
disposing of family violence cases, and effective sentencing of sex
offenders; and analyses of the issues related to the use of expert
testimony in criminal cases involving domestic violence.
The Institute also has funded testing of procedures for
coordinating multiple cases involving a single family and for
electronic filing of petitions for protection orders; development of
links among courts, criminal justice agencies, and service providers to
share information and assist victims of violence; and the production of
videotapes and other educational programs for the parties in divorce
actions and their children.
j. Improving sentencing practices. This category includes
education, demonstration, technical assistance, evaluation, and
research projects to address and implement the findings and
recommendations reached at the National Symposium on Sentencing: The
Judicial Response to Crime. In particular, the Institute is interested
in projects to:
Identify and document effective sentencing approaches for
particular types of offenders and offenses including juvenile offenders
tried as adults;
Improve public understanding of sentencing options and
approaches and their cost and effectiveness;
Eliminate disparities in sentencing on the basis of race,
gender, ethnicity, national origin, and income;
Assess effective and appropriate approaches for sentencing
mentally ill and mentally retarded offenders; and
Develop and test educational programs and materials for
judges on evaluating expert testimony regarding sex offenders;
appropriate and effective sentencing and treatment of sex offenders;
and assuring the safety of the victim, the public, and the offender
when a community-based sentence is imposed.
See also the paragraph on developing and testing the effectiveness
of sentences based on restorative justice principles in section
II.B.2.a. and the topics listed in the Special Interest category on
Managed Care and the Courts, section II.B.2.f.
In addition to the National Symposium on Sentencing, the Institute
has supported development of a handbook, educational materials,
symposia, and technical assistance on the appropriate and effective use
of intermediate sanctions; tests of the use of day-fines, community
reparation boards, special court-ordered programs for women offenders,
and various fine and restitution collection programs; and presentation
of a regional conference on implementation of sentencing innovations.
k. Improving court security. This category includes demonstration,
evaluation, technical assistance, education, and research projects to
enhance the security of courthouses and the people who use and work in
them. The Institute is particularly interested in supporting innovative
projects to:
Develop policies, protocols, and procedures designed to
prevent harassment, threats, and incidents endangering the lives and
property of judges, court employees, jurors, litigants, witnesses, and
other members of the public in court facilities;
Evaluate innovative applications of technology to prevent
courthouse incidents that endanger the lives and property of judges,
court personnel, and courtroom participants; and
Develop and test model training programs that will assist
judges and court personnel in protecting their safety and that of
jurors, litigants, witnesses, and other members of the public in court
facilities, and in managing cases involving individuals or
organizations unwilling to cooperate with legal or administrative
procedures.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported Statewide
strategic planning to enhance court security; a demonstration project
to organize sharing of court security staff between counties; a court
security clearinghouse; and an educational program and benchbook on the
common law court movement.
l. The relationship between State and Federal courts. This category
includes education, research, demonstration, and evaluation projects
designed to facilitate appropriate and effective communication,
cooperation, and coordination between State and Federal courts. The
Institute is particularly interested in innovative projects that:
i. Develop and test curricula and disseminate information regarding
effective methods being used at the trial court, State, and Circuit
levels to coordinate cases and administrative activities, and share
facilities; and
ii. Develop and test new approaches to:
Implement the habeas corpus provisions of the Anti-
Terrorism Act of 1996;
Handle capital habeas corpus cases fairly and efficiently;
Coordinate and process mass tort cases fairly and
efficiently at the trial and appellate levels;
Coordinate cases in which there is concurrent jurisdiction
including State and Federal cases brought under the Violence Against
Women Act;
Develop a guidebook for judges to assist in determining
whether punitive damages should be awarded, calculating the amount in
which they should be awarded, and instructing jurors regarding these
issues.
Exchange information and coordinate calendars among State
and Federal courts; and
Share facilities, jury pools, alternative dispute
resolution programs, information regarding persons on pretrial release
or probation, and court services.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported national
and regional conferences on State-Federal judicial relationships, a
national conference on mass tort litigation, and the Chief Justices'
Special Committee on Mass Tort Litigation.
In addition, the Institute has supported projects testing the use
common electronic filing process for the
[[Page 46300]]
State and Federal courts in New Mexico, and other methods of State and
Federal trial and appellate court cooperation; developing judicial
impact statement procedures for national legislation affecting State
courts; establishing procedures for facilitating certification of
questions of law; assessing the impact on the State courts of diversity
cases and cases brought under section 1983, the procedures used in
Federal habeas corpus review of State court criminal cases, and the
factors that motivate litigants to select Federal or State courts; and
the mechanisms for transferring cases between Federal and State courts,
as well as the methods for effectively consolidating, deciding, and
managing complex litigation.
The Institute has also supported a clearinghouse of information on
State constitutional law decisions; educational programs for State
judges on coordination of Federal bankruptcy cases with State
litigation as well as research on the impact of bankruptcy stays on
State litigation; and the assignment of specialized law clerks to trial
courts hearing capital cases in order to improve the fairness and
efficiency of death penalty litigation at the trial level.
C. Single Jurisdiction Projects
The Board will consider supporting a limited number of projects
submitted by State or local courts that address the needs of only the
applicant State or local jurisdiction. The Institute has established
two categories of Single Jurisdiction Projects:
1. Projects Addressing a Critical Need of a Single State or Local
Jurisdiction Including ``Replication Grants''
a. Description of the program. The Board will set aside up to
$300,000 to support projects submitted by State or local courts that
address the needs of only the applicant State or local jurisdiction. A
project under this section may address any of the topics included in
the Special Interest Categories or Statutory Program Areas. Ordinarily,
the Institute will not provide support solely for the purchase of
equipment or software.
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.
The Board is particularly interested in supporting projects to
replicate programs, procedures, or strategies that have been developed,
demonstrated, or evaluated through an SJI grant. (A list of examples of
such grants is contained in Appendix IV.) Replication grants are
subject to the same limits on amount and duration as other project
grants. (See section V.)
b. Application procedures. Concept papers and applications
requesting funds for projects under this section must meet the
requirements of sections VI. (``Concept Paper Submission Requirements
for New Projects'') and VII. (``Application Requirements''),
respectively, and must demonstrate that:
i. The proposed project is essential to meeting a critical need of
the jurisdiction; and
ii. The need cannot be met solely with State and local resources
within the foreseeable future.
2. Technical Assistance Grants
a. Description of the program. The Board will set aside up to
$400,000 to support the provision of technical assistance to State and
local courts. The exact amount to be awarded for these grants will
depend on the number and quality of the applications submitted in this
category and other categories of the Guideline. The Committee will
reserve sufficient funds each quarter to assure the availability of
technical assistance grants throughout the year. The program is
designed to provide State and local courts with sufficient support to
obtain technical assistance to diagnose a problem, develop a response
to that problem, and initiate implementation of any needed changes.
Technical Assistance grants are limited to no more than $30,000
each, and may cover the cost of obtaining the services of expert
consultants; travel by a team of officials from one court to examine a
practice, program, or facility in another jurisdiction that the
applicant court is interested in replicating; or both. Technical
assistance grant funds ordinarily may not be used to support production
of a videotape. Normally, the technical assistance must be completed
within 12 months after the start-date of the grant.
b. Eligibility for technical assistance grants. Only a State or
local court may apply for a Technical Assistance grant. As with other
awards to State or local courts, cash or in-kind match must be provided
equal to at least 50% of the grant amount.
c. Review criteria. Technical Assistance grants will be awarded on
the basis of criteria including: whether the assistance would address a
critical need of the court; the soundness of the technical assistance
approach to the problem; the qualifications of the consultant(s) to be
hired, or the specific criteria that will be used to select the
consultant(s); commitment on the part of the court to act on the
consultant's recommendations; and the reasonableness of the proposed
budget. The Institute also will consider factors such as the level and
nature of the match that would be provided, diversity of subject
matter, geographic diversity, the level of appropriations available to
the Institute in the current year, and the amount expected to be
available in succeeding fiscal years.
d. Application procedures. In lieu of formal applications,
applicants for Technical Assistance grants may submit, at any time, an
original and three copies of a detailed letter describing the proposed
project and addressing the issues listed below. Letters from an
individual trial or appellate court must be signed by the presiding
judge or manager of that court. Letters from the State court system
must be signed by the Chief Justice or State Court Administrator.
Although there is no prescribed form for the letter nor a minimum
or maximum page limit, letters of application should include the
following information to assure that each of the criteria is addressed:
i. Need for Funding. What is the critical need facing the court?
How will the proposed technical assistance help the court meet this
critical need? Why cannot State or local resources fully support the
costs of the required consultant services?
ii. Project Description. What tasks would the consultant be
expected to perform and how would they be accomplished? Which
organization or individual would be hired to provide the assistance and
how was this consultant selected? If a consultant has not yet been
identified, what procedures and criteria would be used to select the
consultant? (Applicants are expected to follow their jurisdiction's
normal procedures for procuring consultant services.) What is the time
frame for completion of the technical assistance? How would the court
oversee the project and provide guidance to the consultant, and who at
the court would be responsible for coordinating all project tasks and
submitting quarterly progress and financial status reports?
If the consultant has been identified, the applicant should provide
a letter from that individual or organization documenting interest in
and availability for the project, as well as the consultant's ability
to complete the assignment within the proposed time period and for the
proposed cost. The consultant must agree to submit a detailed written
report to the court and
[[Page 46301]]
the Institute upon completion of the technical assistance.
iii. Likelihood of Implementation. What steps have been/will be
taken to facilitate implementation of the consultant's recommendations
upon completion of the technical assistance? For example, if the
support or cooperation of specific court officials or committees, other
agencies, funding bodies, organizations, or a court other than the
applicant will be needed to adopt the changes recommended by the
consultant and approved by the court, how will they be involved in the
review of the recommendations and development of the implementation
plan?
iv. Budget and Matching State Contribution. A completed Form E,
``Preliminary Budget'' (see Appendix V) and budget narrative must be
included with the applicant's letter requesting technical assistance.
The estimated cost of the technical assistance services should be
broken down into the categories listed on the budget form rather than
aggregated under the Consultant/Contractual category.
The budget narrative should provide the basis for all project-
related costs, including the basis for determining the estimated
consultant costs, if compensation of the consultant is required (e.g.,
number of days per task times the requested daily consultant rate).
Applicants should be aware that consultant rates above $300 per day
must be approved in advance by the Institute, and that no consultant
will be paid at a rate in excess of $900 per day. In addition, the
budget should provide for submission of two copies of the consultant's
final report to the Institute.
Recipients of technical assistance grants do not have to submit an
audit, but must maintain appropriate documentation to support
expenditures. (See section X.M.)
v. Support for the Project from the State Supreme Court or its
Designated Agency or Council. Written concurrence on the need for the
technical assistance must be submitted. This concurrence may be a copy
of SJI Form B (see Appendix VI) signed by the Chief Justice of the
State Supreme Court or the Chief Justice's designee, or a letter from
the State Chief Justice or designee. The concurrence may be submitted
with the applicant's letter or under separate cover prior to
consideration of the application. The concurrence also must specify
whether the State Supreme Court would receive, administer, and account
for the grant funds, if awarded, or would designate the local court or
a specified agency or council to receive the funds directly.
Letters of application may be submitted at any time; however, all
of the letters received during a calendar quarter will be considered at
one time. Applicants submitting letters between June 12 and September
30, 1998 will be notified of the Board's decision by December 11, 1998;
those submitting letters between October 1, 1998 and January 15, 1999
will be notified by March 31, 1999; notification of the Board's
decisions concerning letters mailed between January 16 and March 12,
1999, will be made by May 28, 1999; notice of decisions regarding
letters submitted between March 13 and June 11, 1999 will be made by
August 31, 1999. Subject to the availability of sufficient
appropriations for fiscal year 2000, applicants submitting letters
between June 12 and September 30, 1999, will be notified by December
17, 1999.
If the support or cooperation of agencies, funding bodies,
organizations, or courts other than the applicant would be needed in
order for the consultant to perform the required tasks, written
assurances of such support or cooperation should accompany the
application letter. Support letters also may be submitted under
separate cover; however, to ensure that there is sufficient time to
bring them to the attention of the Board's Technical Assistance
Committee, letters sent under separate cover must be received not less
than three weeks prior to the Board meeting at which the technical
assistance requests will be considered (i.e., by October 30, 1998, and
February 11, April 9, and July 16, 1999).
vi. Grantee Responsibilities. Technical Assistance grant recipients
are subject to the same quarterly reporting requirements as other
Institute grantees. At the conclusion of the grant period, a Technical
Assistance grant recipient must complete a Technical Assistance
Evaluation Form. The grantee also must submit to the Institute two
copies of a final report that explains how it intends to act on the
consultant's recommendations, as well as two copies of the consultant's
written report.
III. Definitions
The following definitions apply for the purposes of this Guideline:
A. Institute
The State Justice Institute.
B. State Supreme Court
The highest appellate court in a State, or, for the purposes of the
Institute program, a constitutionally or legislatively established
judicial council that acts in place of that court. In States having
more than one court with final appellate authority, State Supreme Court
shall mean that court which also has administrative responsibility for
the State's judicial system. State Supreme Court also includes the
office of the court or council, if any, it designates to perform the
functions described in this Guideline.
C. Designated Agency or Council
The office or judicial body which is authorized under State law or
by delegation from the State Supreme Court to approve applications for
funds and to receive, administer, and be accountable for those funds.
D. Grantee
The organization, entity, or individual to which an award of
Institute funds is made. For a grant based on an application from a
State or local court, grantee refers to the State Supreme Court or its
designee.
E. Subgrantee
A State or local court which receives Institute funds through the
State Supreme Court.
F. Match
The portion of project costs not borne by the Institute. Match
includes both in-kind and cash contributions. Cash match is the direct
outlay of funds by the grantee to support the project. In-kind match
consists of contributions of time, services, space, supplies, etc.,
made to the project by the grantee or others (e.g., advisory board
members) working directly on the project. Under normal circumstances,
allowable match may be incurred only during the project period. When
appropriate, and with the prior written permission of the Institute,
match may be incurred from the date of the Board of Directors' approval
of an award. Match does not include project-related income such as
tuition or revenue from the sale of grant products, or the time of
participants attending an education program. Amounts contributed as
cash or in-kind match may not be recovered through the sale of grant
products during or following the grant period.
G. Continuation Grant
A grant of no more than 24 months to permit completion of
activities initiated under an existing Institute grant or enhancement
of the products or services produced during the prior grant period.
H. On-going Support Grant
A grant of up to 36 months to support a project that is national in
scope and that provides the State courts with
[[Page 46302]]
services, programs or products for which there is a continuing
important need.
I. Human Subjects
Individuals who are participants in an experimental procedure or
who are asked to provide information about themselves, their attitudes,
feelings, opinions and/or experiences through an interview,
questionnaire, or other data collection technique.
J. Curriculum
The materials needed to replicate an education or training program
developed with grant funds including, but not limited to: the learning
objectives; the presentation methods; a sample agenda or schedule; an
outline of presentations and other instructors' notes; copies of
overhead transparencies or other visual aids; exercises, case studies,
hypotheticals, quizzes and other materials for involving the
participants; background materials for participants; evaluation forms;
and suggestions for replicating the program including possible faculty
or the preferred qualifications or experience of those selected as
faculty.
K. Products
Tangible materials resulting from funded projects including, but
not limited to: curricula; monographs; reports; books; articles;
manuals; handbooks; benchbooks; guidelines; videotapes; audiotapes;
computer software; and CD-ROM disks.
IV. Eligibility for Award
In awarding funds to accomplish these objectives and purposes, the
Institute has been authorized by Congress to award grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts to State and local courts and their agencies
(42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(1)(A)); national nonprofit organizations controlled
by, operating in conjunction with, and serving the judicial branches of
State governments (42 U.S.C. 10705 (b)(1)(B)); and national nonprofit
organizations for the education and training of judges and support
personnel of the judicial branch of State governments (42 U.S.C.
10705(b)(1)(C)).
An applicant will be considered a national education and training
applicant under section 10705(b)(1)(C) if: (1) the principal purpose or
activity of the applicant is to provide education and training to State
and local judges and court personnel; and (2) the applicant
demonstrates a record of substantial experience in the field of
judicial education and training.
The Institute also is authorized to make awards to other nonprofit
organizations with expertise in judicial administration, institutions
of higher education, individuals, partnerships, firms, corporations,
and private agencies with expertise in judicial administration,
provided that the objectives of the relevant program area(s) can be
served better. In making this judgment, the Institute will consider the
likely replicability of the projects' methodology and results in other
jurisdictions. For-profit organizations are also eligible for grants
and cooperative agreements; however, they must waive their fees.
The Institute may also make awards to Federal, State or local
agencies and institutions other than courts for services that cannot be
adequately provided through nongovernmental arrangements.
In addition, the Institute may enter into inter-agency agreements
with other public or private funders to support projects consistent
with the purpose of the State Justice Institute Act.
Each application for funding from a State or local court must be
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court or
its designated agency or council. The latter shall receive all
Institute funds awarded to such courts and be responsible for assuring
proper administration of Institute funds, in accordance with section
XI.B.2. of this Guideline. A list of persons to contact in each State
regarding approval of applications from State and local courts and
administration of Institute grants to those courts is contained in
Appendix I.
V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of Awards
A. Types of Projects
Except as expressly provided in section II.B.2.b. and II.C. above,
the Institute has placed no limitation on the overall number of awards
or the number of awards in each special interest category. The general
types of projects are:
1. Education and training;
2. Research and evaluation;
3. Demonstration; and
4. Technical assistance.
B. Types of Grants
The Institute has established the following types of grants:
1. Project grants (See sections II.B., and C.1., VI., and VII.);
2. Continuation grants (See sections III.H. and IX.A.);
3. On-going Support grants (See sections III.I. and IX.B.);
4. Technical Assistance grants (See section II.C.2);
5. Curriculum Adaptation grants (See section II.B.2.b.ii.); and
6. Scholarships (See section II.B.2.b.iii).
C. Maximum Size of Awards
1. Except as specified below, applications for new project grants
and applications for continuation grants may request funding in amounts
up to $200,000, although new and continuation awards in excess of
$150,000 are likely to be rare and to be made, if at all, only for
highly promising proposals that will have a significant impact
nationally.
2. Applications for on-going support grants may request funding in
amounts up to $600,000 over three years, although awards in excess of
$450,000 are likely to be rare. At the discretion of the Board, the
funds for on-going support grants may be awarded either entirely from
the Institute's appropriations for the fiscal year of the award or from
the Institute's appropriations for successive fiscal years beginning
with the fiscal year of the award. When funds to support the full
amount of an on-going support grant are not awarded from the
appropriations for the fiscal year of award, funds to support any
subsequent years of the grant will be made available upon (1) the
satisfactory performance of the project as reflected in the Quarterly
Progress Reports required to be filed and grant monitoring; (2) the
availability of appropriations for that fiscal year; and (3) a
determination that the project continues to fall within the Institute's
priorities.
3. Applications for technical assistance grants may request funding
in amounts up to $30,000.
4. Applications for curriculum adaptation grants may request
funding in amounts up to $20,000.
5. Applications for scholarships may request funding in amounts up
to $1,500.
D. Length of Grant Periods
1. Grant periods for all new and continuation projects ordinarily
will not exceed 15 months.
2. Grant periods for on-going support grants ordinarily will not
exceed 36 months.
3. Grant periods for technical assistance grants and curriculum
adaptation grants ordinarily will not exceed 12 months.
VI. Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects
Concept papers are an extremely important part of the application
process because they enable the
[[Page 46303]]
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. The
concept paper requirement and the submission deadlines for concept
papers and applications may be waived by the Executive Director for
good cause (e.g., the proposed project could provide a significant
benefit to the State courts or the opportunity to conduct the project
did not arise until after the deadline).
A. Format and Content
All concept papers must include a cover sheet, a program narrative,
and a preliminary budget.
1. The Cover Sheet
The cover sheet for all concept papers must contain:
a. A title that clearly describes the proposed project;
b. The name and address of the court, organization, or individual
submitting the paper;
c. The name, title, address (if different from that in b.), and
telephone number of a contact person who can provide further
information about the paper;
d. The letter of the Special Interest Category (see section
II.B.2.) or the number of the statutory Program Area (see section
II.A.) that the proposed project addresses most directly; and
e. The estimated length of the proposed project.
Applicants requesting the Board to waive the application
requirement and approve a grant of less than $40,000 based on the
concept paper, should add APPLICATION WAIVER REQUESTED to the
information on the cover page.
2. The Program Narrative
The program narrative of a concept paper should be no longer than
necessary, but must not exceed eight (8) double-spaced pages on 8\1/2\
by 11 inch paper. Margins must be at least 1 inch and type size must be
at least 12 point and 12 cpi. The pages should be numbered. The
narrative should describe:
a. Why is this project needed and how will it benefit State courts?
If the project is to be conducted in a specific location(s), applicants
should discuss the particular needs of the project site(s) to be
addressed by the project, why those needs are not being met through the
use of existing materials, programs, procedures, services, or other
resources, and the benefits that would be realized by the proposed
site(s).
If the project is not site-specific, applicants should discuss the
problems that the proposed project will address, why existing
materials, programs, procedures, services, or other resources do not
adequately resolve those problems, and the benefits that would be
realized from the project by State courts generally.
b. What will be done if a grant is awarded? Applicants should
include a summary description of the project to be conducted and the
approach to be taken, including the anticipated length of the grant
period. Applicants requesting a waiver of the application requirement
for a grant of less than $40,000 should explain the proposed methods
for conducting the project as fully as space allows, and include a
detailed task schedule as an attachment to the concept paper.
c. How will the effects and quality of the project be determined?
Applicants should include a summary description of how the project will
be evaluated, including the evaluation criteria.
d. How will others find out about the project and be able to use
the results? Applicants should describe the products that will result,
the degree to which they will be applicable to courts across the
nation, and to whom the products and results of the project will be
disseminated in addition to the SJI-designated libraries (e.g., State
chief justices, specified groups of trial judges, State court
administrators, specified groups of trial court administrators, State
judicial educators, or other audiences).
3. The Budget
a. Preliminary budget. A preliminary budget must be attached to the
narrative that includes the information specified on Form E included in
Appendix VI of this Guideline. Applicants should be aware that prior
written Institute approval is required for any consultant rate in
excess of $300 per day, and that Institute funds may not be used to pay
a consultant in excess of $900 per day.
b. Concept papers requesting accelerated award of a grant of less
than $40,000. Applicants requesting a waiver of the application
requirement and approval of a grant based on a concept paper under
section VI.C., must attach to Form E (see Appendix VI) a budget
narrative that explains the basis for each of the items listed, and
indicates whether the costs would be paid from grant funds, through a
matching contribution, or from other sources. Courts requesting an
accelerated award must also attach a Certificate of State Approval
(Form B) signed by the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court or the
Chief Justice s designee.
4. Letters of Cooperation or Support
The Institute encourages concept paper applicants to attach letters
of cooperation and support from the courts and related agencies that
will be involved in or directly affected by the proposed project.
Letters of support also may be sent under separate cover. However, in
order to ensure that there is sufficient time to bring them to the
Board's attention, support letters sent under separate cover must be
received no later than January 6, 1999.
5. Page Limits
a. The Institute will not accept concept papers with program
narratives exceeding the limits set in sections VI.A.2. The page limit
does not include the cover page, budget form, the budget narrative if
required under section VI.A.3.b., the task schedule if required under
section VI.A.2.b., and any letters of cooperation or endorsements.
Additional material should not be attached unless it is essential to
impart a clear understanding of the project.
b. Applicants submitting more than one concept paper may include
material that would be identical in each concept paper in a cover
letter, and incorporate that material by reference in each paper. The
incorporated material will be counted against the eight-page limit for
each paper. A copy of the cover letter should be attached to each copy
of each concept paper.
6. Sample Concept Papers
Sample concept papers from previous funding cycles are available
from the Institute upon request.
B. Selection Criteria
1. All concept papers will be evaluated on the basis of the
following criteria:
a. The demonstration of need for the project;
b. The soundness and innovativeness of the approach described;
c. The benefits to be derived from the project;
d. The reasonableness of the proposed budget;
e. The proposed project's relationship to one of the ``Special
Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B; and
f. The degree to which the findings, procedures, training,
technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other
jurisdictions.
``Single jurisdiction'' concept papers submitted pursuant to
section II.C. will be rated on the proposed project's relation to one
of the ``Special Interest''
[[Page 46304]]
categories set forth in section II.B., and on the special requirements
listed in section II.C.1.
2. In determining which concept papers will be approved for award
or selected for development into full applications, the Institute will
also consider the availability of financial assistance from other
sources for the project; the amount and nature (cash or in-kind) of the
applicant's anticipated match; whether the applicant is a State court,
a national court support or education organization, a non-court unit of
government, or another type of entity eligible to receive grants under
the Institute's enabling legislation (see 42 U.S.C. 10705(b), as
amended and section IV above); the extent to which the proposed project
would also benefit the Federal courts or help the State courts enforce
Federal constitutional and legislative requirements, and the level of
appropriations available to the Institute in the current year and the
amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.
C. Review Process
Concept papers will be reviewed competitively by the Board of
Directors. Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary and a
rating sheet assigning points for each relevant selection criterion for
those concept papers which fall within the scope of the Institute's
funding program and merit serious consideration by the Board. Staff
will also prepare a list of those papers that, in the judgment of the
Executive Director, propose projects that lie outside the scope of the
Institute's funding program or are not likely to merit serious
consideration by the Board. The narrative summaries, rating sheets, and
list of non-reviewed papers will be presented to the Board for its
review. Committees of the Board will review concept paper summaries
within assigned program areas and prepare recommendations for the full
Board. The full Board of Directors will then decide which concept paper
applicants should be invited to submit formal applications for funding.
The decision to invite an application is solely that of the Board of
Directors.
The Board may waive the application requirement and approve a grant
based on a concept paper for a project requiring less than $40,000,
when the need for and benefits of the project are clear, and the
methodology and budget require little additional explanation.
Applicants considering whether to request consideration for an
accelerated award should make certain that the proposed budget is
sufficient to accomplish the project objectives in a quality manner.
Because the Institute's experience has been that projects to conduct
empirical research or a program evaluation ordinarily require a more
thorough explanation of the methodology to be used than can be provided
within the space limitations of a concept paper, the Board is unlikely
to waive the application requirement for such projects.
D. Submission Requirements
Except as noted below, an original and three copies of all concept
papers submitted for consideration in Fiscal Year 1999 must be sent by
first class or overnight mail or by courier (but not by fax or e-mail)
no later than November 24, 1998.
A postmark or courier receipt will constitute evidence of the
submission date. All envelopes containing concept papers should be
marked CONCEPT PAPER and should be sent to: State Justice Institute,
1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
The Institute will send written notice to all persons submitting
concept papers, informing them of the Board's decisions regarding their
papers and of the key issues and questions that arose during the review
process. A decision by the Board not to invite an application may not
be appealed, but applicants may resubmit the concept paper or a
revision thereof in a subsequent round of funding. The Institute will
also notify the designated State contact listed in Appendix I when the
Board invites applications that are based on concept papers which are
submitted by courts within their State or which specify a participating
site within their State.
Receipt of each concept paper will be acknowledged in writing.
Extensions of the deadline for submission of concept papers will not be
granted.
VII. Application Requirements for New Projects
An application for Institute funding support must include an
application form; budget forms (with appropriate documentation); a
project abstract and program narrative; a disclosure of lobbying form,
when applicable; and certain certifications and assurances. The
required application forms will be sent to applicants invited to submit
a full application. Applicants may photocopy the forms to make
completion easier.
A. Forms
1. Application Form (FORM A)
The application form requests basic information regarding the
proposed project, the applicant, and the total amount of funding
support requested from the Institute. It also requires the signature of
an individual authorized to certify on behalf of the applicant that the
information contained in the application is true and complete, that
submission of the application has been authorized by the applicant, and
that if funding for the proposed project is approved, the applicant
will comply with the requirements and conditions of the award,
including the assurances set forth in Form D.
2. Certificate of State Approval (FORM B)
An application from a State or local court must include a copy of
FORM B signed by the State's Chief Justice or Chief Judge, the director
of the designated agency, or the head of the designated council. The
signature denotes that the proposed project has been approved by the
State's highest court or the agency or council it has designated. It
denotes further that if funding for the project is approved by the
Institute, the court or the specified designee will receive,
administer, and be accountable for the awarded funds.
3. Budget Forms (FORM C or C1)
Applicants may submit the proposed project budget either in the
tabular format of FORM C or in the spreadsheet format of FORM C1.
Applicants requesting $100,000 or more are strongly encouraged to use
the spreadsheet format. If the proposed project period is for more than
a year, a separate form should be submitted for each year or portion of
a year for which grant support is requested, as well as for the total
length of the project.
In addition to FORM C or C1, applicants must provide a detailed
budget narrative providing an explanation of the basis for the
estimates in each budget category. (See section VII.D.)
If funds from other sources are required to conduct the project,
either as match or to support other aspects of the project, the source,
current status of the request, and anticipated decision date must be
provided.
4. Assurances (FORM D)
This form lists the statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements
and conditions with which recipients of Institute funds must comply.
5. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
This form requires applicants other than units of State or local
government to disclose whether they, or another entity that is part of
the same organization as the applicant, have
[[Page 46305]]
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 1
single-spaced page on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper.
C. Program Narrative
The program narrative for an application should not exceed 25
double-spaced pages on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper. Margins must be at
least 1 inch, and type size must be at least 12-point and 12 cpi. The
pages should be numbered. This page limit does not include the forms,
the abstract, the budget narrative, and any appendices containing
resumes and letters of cooperation or endorsement. Additional
background material should be attached only if it is essential to
impart a clear understanding of the proposed project. Numerous and
lengthy appendices are strongly discouraged.
The program narrative should address the following topics:
1. Project Objectives
The applicant should include a clear, concise statement of what the
proposed project is intended to accomplish. In stating the objectives
of the project, applicants should focus on the overall programmatic
objective (e.g., to enhance understanding and skills regarding a
specific subject, or to determine how a certain procedure affects the
court and litigants) rather than on operational objectives (e.g.,
provide training for 32 judges and court managers, or review data from
300 cases).
2. Program Areas To Be Covered
The applicant should list the Special Interest Category or
Categories that are addressed by the proposed project (see section
II.B.). If the proposed project does not fall within one of the
Institute's Special Interest Categories, the applicant should list the
Statutory Program Area or Areas that are addressed by the proposed
project. (See section II.A.)
3. Need for the Project
If the project is to be conducted in a specific location(s), the
applicant should discuss the particular needs of the project site(s) to
be addressed by the project and why those needs are not being met
through the use of existing materials, programs, procedures, services,
or other resources.
If the project is not site-specific, the applicant should discuss
the problems that the proposed project would address, and why existing
materials, programs, procedures, services, or other resources do not
adequately resolve those problems. The discussion should include
specific references to the relevant literature and to the experience in
the field.
4. Tasks, Methods and Evaluation
a. Tasks and methods. The applicant should delineate the tasks to
be performed in achieving the project objectives and the methods to be
used for accomplishing each task. For example:
i. For research and evaluation projects, the applicant should
include the data sources, data collection strategies, variables to be
examined, and analytic procedures to be used for conducting the
research or evaluation and ensuring the validity and general
applicability of the results. For projects involving human subjects,
the discussion of methods should address the procedures for obtaining
respondents' informed consent, ensuring the respondents' privacy and
freedom from risk or harm, and the protection of others who are not the
subjects of research but would be affected by the research. If the
potential exists for risk or harm to the human subjects, a discussion
should be included that explains the value of the proposed research and
the methods to be used to minimize or eliminate such risk.
ii. For education and training projects, the applicant should
include the adult education techniques to be used in designing and
presenting the program, including the teaching/learning objectives of
the educational design, the teaching methods to be used, and the
opportunities for structured interaction among the participants; how
faculty will be recruited, selected, and trained; the proposed number
and length of the conferences, courses, seminars, or workshops to be
conducted and the estimated number of persons who will attend them; the
materials to be provided and how they will be developed; and the cost
to participants.
iii. For demonstration projects, the applicant should include the
demonstration sites and the reasons they were selected, or if the sites
have not been chosen, how they will be identified and their cooperation
obtained; and how the program or procedures will be implemented and
monitored.
iv. For technical assistance projects, the applicant should explain
the types of assistance that will be provided; the particular issues
and problems for which assistance will be provided; how requests will
be obtained and the type of assistance determined; how suitable
providers will be selected and briefed; how reports will be reviewed;
and the cost to recipients.
b. Evaluation. Every project design must include an evaluation plan
to determine whether the project met its objectives. The evaluation
should be designed to provide an objective and independent assessment
of the effectiveness or usefulness of the training or services
provided; the impact of the procedures, technology, or services tested;
or the validity and applicability of the research conducted. In
addition, where appropriate, the evaluation process should be designed
to provide on-going or periodic feedback on the effectiveness or
utility of particular programs, educational offerings, or achievements
which can then be further refined as a result of the evaluation
process. The plan should present the qualifications of the
evaluator(s); describe the criteria, related to the project's
programmatic objectives, that will be used to evaluate the project's
effectiveness; explain how the evaluation will be conducted, including
the specific data collection and analysis techniques to be used;
discuss why this approach is appropriate; and present a schedule for
completion of the evaluation within the proposed project period.
The evaluation plan should be appropriate to the type of project
proposed. For example:
i. Research. An evaluation approach suited to many research
projects is a review by an advisory panel of the research methodology,
data collection instruments, preliminary analyses, and products as they
are drafted. The panel should be comprised of independent researchers
and practitioners representing the perspectives affected by the
proposed project.
ii. Education and Training. The most valuable approaches to
evaluating educational or training programs will serve to reinforce the
participants' learning experience while providing useful feedback on
the impact of the program and possible areas for improvement. One
appropriate evaluation approach is to assess the acquisition of new
knowledge, skills, attitudes or understanding through participant
feedback on the seminar or training event. Such feedback might include
a self-assessment on what was learned along with the participant's
response to the quality and effectiveness of faculty presentations, the
format of
[[Page 46306]]
sessions, the value or usefulness of the material presented, and other
relevant factors. Another appropriate approach would be to use an
independent observer who might request both verbal and written
responses from participants in the program. When an education project
involves the development of curricular materials, an advisory panel of
relevant experts can be coupled with a test of the curriculum to obtain
the reactions of participants and faculty as indicated above.
iii. Demonstration. The evaluation plan for a demonstration project
should encompass an assessment of program effectiveness (e.g., How well
did it work?); user satisfaction, if appropriate; the cost-
effectiveness of the program; a process analysis of the program (e.g.,
Was the program implemented as designed? Did it provide the services
intended to the targeted population?); the impact of the program (e.g.,
What effect did the program have on the court? What benefits resulted
from the program?); and the replicability of the program or components
of the program.
iv. Technical Assistance. For technical assistance projects,
applicants should explain how the quality, timeliness, and impact of
the assistance provided will be determined, and should develop a
mechanism for feedback from both the users and providers of the
technical assistance.
v. Evaluation plans involving human subjects should include a
discussion of the procedures for obtaining respondents' informed
consent, ensuring the respondents' privacy and freedom from risk or
harm, and the protection of others who are not the subjects of
evaluation but would be affected by it. Other than the provision of
confidentiality to respondents, human subject protection issues
ordinarily are not applicable to participants evaluating an education
program.
5. Project Management
The applicant should present a detailed management plan including
the starting and completion date for each task; the time commitments to
the project of key staff and their responsibilities regarding each
project task; and the procedures that will be used to ensure that all
tasks are performed on time, within budget, and at the highest level of
quality. In preparing the project time line, Gantt Chart, or schedule,
applicants should make certain that all project activities, including
publication or reproduction of project products and their initial
dissemination will occur within the proposed project period. The
management plan must also provide for the submission of Quarterly
Progress and Financial Reports within 30 days after the close of each
calendar quarter (i.e., no later than January 30, April 30, July 30,
and October 30).
Applicants should be aware that the Institute is unlikely to
approve more than one limited extension of the grant period. Therefore,
the management plan should be as realistic as possible and fully
reflect the time commitments of the proposed project staff and
consultants.
6. Products
The application should contain a description of the products to be
developed by the project (e.g., training curricula and materials,
videotapes, articles, manuals, or handbooks), including when they will
be submitted to the Institute.
a. Dissemination Plan. The application must explain how and to whom
the products will be disseminated; describe how they will benefit the
State courts, including how they can be used by judges and court
personnel; identify development, production, and dissemination costs
covered by the project budget; and present the basis on which products
and services developed or provided under the grant will be offered to
the courts community and the public at large (i.e., whether products
will be distributed at no cost to recipients, or if costs are involved,
the reason for charging recipients and the estimated price of the
product). (See section X.V.) Ordinarily, applicants should schedule all
product preparation and distribution activities within the project
period.
A copy of each product must be sent to the library established in
each State to collect the materials developed with Institute support.
(A list of these libraries is contained in Appendix II.) To facilitate
their use, all videotaped products should be distributed in VHS format.
Twenty copies of all project products must be submitted to the
Institute. A master copy of each videotape, in addition to 20 copies of
each videotape product, must also be provided to the Institute.
b. Types of products, abstracts, and press releases. The type of
product to be prepared depends on the nature of the project. For
example, in most instances, the products of a research, evaluation, or
demonstration project should include an article summarizing the project
findings that is publishable in a journal serving the courts community
nationally, an executive summary that 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.
However, all grantees must submit a diskette containing a one-page
abstract summarizing the products resulting from a project in Word or
ASCII for posting on the Institutes website. In addition, recipients of
project grants must prepare a press release describing the project and
announcing the results and distribute the release to a list of national
and State judicial branch organizations. Both the format for the
abstract and a list of press release recipients will be provided to
grantees at least 30 days before the end of the grant period.
c. Institute review. Applicants must provide for submitting a final
draft of all written grant products to the Institute for review and
approval at least 30 days before the products are submitted for
publication or reproduction. For products in a videotape or CD-ROM
format, applicants must provide for incremental Institute review of the
product at the treatment, script, rough-cut, and final stages of
development, or their equivalents. 1No grant funds may be obligated for
publication or reproduction of a final grant product without the
written approval of the Institute.
d. Acknowledgment, disclaimer, and logo. Applicants must also
provide for including in all project products a prominent
acknowledgment that support was received from the Institute and a
disclaimer paragraph based on the example provided in section X.Q. of
the Guideline. The ``SJI'' logo must appear on the front cover of a
written product, or in the opening frames of a video product, unless
the Institute approves another placement.
7. Applicant Status
An applicant that is not a State or local court and has not
received a grant from the Institute within the past two years should
state whether it is either a national non-profit organization
controlled by, operating in conjunction with, and serving the judicial
branches of State governments; or a national non-profit organization
for the education and training of State court judges and support
personnel. See section IV. If the applicant is a nonjudicial unit of
[[Page 46307]]
Federal, State, or local government, it must explain whether the
proposed services could be adequately provided by non-governmental
entities.
8. Staff Capability
The applicant should include a summary of the training and
experience of the key staff members and consultants that qualify them
for conducting and managing the proposed project. Resumes of identified
staff should be attached to the application. If one or more key staff
members and consultants are not known at the time of the application, a
description of the criteria that will be used to select persons for
these positions should be included. The applicant also should identify
the person who would be responsible for the financial management and
financial reporting for the proposed project.
9. Organizational Capacity
Applicants that have not received a grant from the Institute within
the past two years should include a statement describing the capacity
of the applicant to administer grant funds including the financial
systems used to monitor project expenditures (and income, if any), and
a summary of the applicant's past experience in administering grants,
as well as any resources or capabilities that the applicant has that
will particularly assist in the successful completion of the project.
Unless requested otherwise, an applicant that has received a grant
from the Institute within the past two years should describe only the
changes in its organizational capacity, tax status, or financial
capability that may affect its capacity to administer a grant.
If the applicant is a non-profit organization (other than a
university), it must also provide documentation of its 501(c) tax
exempt status as determined by the Internal Revenue Service and a copy
of a current certified audit report. For purposes of this requirement,
``current'' means no earlier than two years prior to the current
calendar year.
If a current audit report is not available, the Institute will
require the organization to complete a financial capability
questionnaire which must be signed by a Certified Public Accountant.
Other applicants may be required to provide a current audit report, a
financial capability questionnaire, or both, if specifically requested
to do so by the Institute.
10. Statement of Lobbying Activities
Non-governmental applicants must submit the Institute's Disclosure
of Lobbying Activities Form that requires them to state whether they,
or another entity that is a part of the same organization as the
applicant, have advocated a position before Congress on any issue, and
identifies the specific subjects of their lobbying efforts.
11. Letters of Cooperation or Support
If the cooperation of courts, organizations, agencies, or
individuals other than the applicant is required to conduct the
project, the applicant should attach written assurances of cooperation
and availability to the application, or send them under separate cover.
In order to ensure that there is sufficient time to bring them to the
Board's attention, letters of support sent under separate cover must be
received no more than 30 days after the deadline for mailing the
application.
D. Budget Narrative
The budget narrative should provide the basis for the computation
of all project-related costs. When the proposed project would be
partially supported by grants from other funding sources, applicants
should make clear what costs would be covered by those other grants.
Additional background or schedules may be attached if they are
essential to obtaining a clear understanding of the proposed budget.
Numerous and lengthy appendices are strongly discouraged.
The budget narrative should cover the costs of all components of
the project and clearly identify costs attributable to the project
evaluation. Under OMB grant guidelines incorporated by reference in
this Guideline, grant funds may not be used to purchase alcoholic
beverages.
1. Justification of Personnel Compensation
The applicant should set forth the percentages of time to be
devoted by the individuals who will serve as the staff of the proposed
project, the annual salary of each of those persons, and the number of
work days per year used for calculating the percentages of time or
daily rate of those individuals. The applicant should explain any
deviations from current rates or established written organization
policies. If grant funds are requested to pay the salary and related
costs for a current employee of a court or other unit of government,
the applicant should explain why this would not constitute a
supplantation of State or local funds in violation of 42 U.S.C.
10706(d)(1). An acceptable explanation may be that the position to be
filled is a new one established in conjunction with the project or that
the grant funds will be supporting only the portion of the employee's
time that will be dedicated to new or additional duties related to the
project.
2. Fringe Benefit Computation
The applicant should provide a description of the fringe benefits
provided to employees. If percentages are used, the authority for such
use should be presented as well as a description of the elements
included in the determination of the percentage rate.
3. Consultant/Contractual Services and Honoraria
The applicant should describe the tasks each consultant will
perform, the estimated total amount to be paid to each consultant, the
basis for compensation rates (e.g., number of days x the daily
consultant rates), and the method for selection. Rates for consultant
services must be set in accordance with section XI.H.2.c. Honorarium
payments must be justified in the same manner as other consultant
payments. Prior written Institute approval is required for any
consultant rate in excess of $300 per day; Institute funds may not be
used to pay a consultant at a rate in excess of $900 per day.
4. Travel
Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the
policies of the applicant organization. If the applicant does not have
an established travel policy, then travel rates must be consistent with
those established by the Institute or the Federal Government. (A copy
of the Institute's travel policy is available upon request.) The budget
narrative should include an explanation of the rate used, including the
components of the per diem rate and the basis for the estimated
transportation expenses. The purpose of the travel should also be
included in the narrative.
5. Equipment
Grant funds may be used to purchase only the equipment that is
necessary to demonstrate a new technological application in a court, or
that is otherwise essential to accomplishing the objectives of the
project. Equipment purchases to support basic court operations
ordinarily will not be approved. The applicant should describe the
equipment to be purchased or leased and explain why the acquisition of
that equipment is essential to accomplish the project's goals and
objectives. The narrative should clearly identify which equipment is to
be leased and which is to be purchased. The method of procurement
should also be described.
[[Page 46308]]
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.
12. Match
The applicant should describe the source of any matching
contribution and the nature of the match provided. Any additional
contributions to the project should be described in this section of the
budget narrative as well. If in-kind match is to be provided, the
applicant should describe how the amount and value of the time,
services, or materials actually contributed will be documented
sufficiently clearly to permit them to be included in an audit of the
grant. Applicants should be aware that the time spent by participants
in education courses does not qualify as in-kind match.
Applicants that do not contemplate making matching contributions
continuously throughout the course of the project or on a task-by-task
basis must provide a schedule within 30 days after the beginning of the
project period indicating at what points during the project period the
matching contributions will be made. (See sections III.F., VIII.B.,
X.B. and XI.D.1.)
E. Submission Requirements
1. Every applicant must submit an original and four copies of the
application package consisting of FORM A; FORM B, if the application is
from a State or local court, or a Disclosure of Lobbying Form, if the
applicant is not a unit of State or local government; the Budget Forms
(either FORM C or C-1), the Application Abstract, Program Narrative,
Budget Narrative, and any necessary appendices.
All invited must be sent by first class or overnight mail or by
courier, no later than May 12, 1999. A postmark or courier receipt will
constitute evidence of the submission date. Please mark APPLICATION on
all application package envelopes and send to: State Justice Institute
1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Receipt of each proposal will be acknowledged in writing.
Extensions of the deadline for submission of applications will not be
granted. See section VII.C.11. for receipt deadlines for letters of
support.
2. Applicants submitting more than one application may include
material that would be identical in each application in a cover letter,
and incorporate that material by reference in each application. The
incorporated material will be counted against the 25-page limit for the
program narrative. A copy of the cover letter should be attached to
each copy of each application.
VIII. Application Review Procedures
A. Preliminary Inquiries
The Institute staff will answer inquiries concerning application
procedures. The staff contact will be named in the Institute's letter
acknowledging receipt of the application.
B. Selection Criteria
1. All applications will be rated on the basis of the criteria set
forth below.
The Institute will accord the greatest weight to the following
criteria:
a. The soundness of the methodology;
b. The demonstration of need for the project;
c. The appropriateness of the proposed evaluation design;
d. The applicant's management plan and organizational capabilities;
e. The qualifications of the project's staff;
f. The products and benefits resulting from the project including
the extent to which the project will have long-term benefits for State
courts across the nation;
g. The degree to which the findings, procedures, training,
technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other
jurisdictions.
h. The reasonableness of the proposed budget;
i. The demonstration of cooperation and support of other agencies
that may be affected by the project; and
j. The proposed project's relationship to one of the ``Special
Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B.
2. In determining which applicants to fund, the Institute will also
consider whether the applicant is a State court, a national court
support or education organization, a non-court unit of government, or
other type of entity eligible to receive grants under the Institute's
enabling legislation (see 42 U.S.C. 10705(6) (as amended) and Section
IV above); the availability of financial assistance from other sources
for the project; the amount and nature (cash or in-kind) of the
applicant's match; the extent to which the proposed project would also
benefit the Federal courts or help State courts enforce Federal
constitutional and legislative requirements; and the level of
appropriations available to the Institute in the current year and the
amount 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
[[Page 46309]]
applications within assigned program categories and prepare
recommendations to the full Board. The full Board of Directors will
then decide which applications to approve for a grant. The decision to
award a grant is solely that of the Board of Directors.
Awards approved by the Board will be signed by the Chairman of the
Board on behalf of the Institute.
D. Return Policy
Unless a specific request is made, unsuccessful applications will
not be returned. Applicants are advised that Institute records are
subject to the provisions of the Federal Freedom of Information Act, 5
U.S.C. 552.
E. Notification of Board Decision
The Institute will send written notice to applicants concerning all
Board decisions to approve, defer, or deny their respective
applications and the key issues and questions that arose during the
review process. A decision by the Board to deny an application may not
be appealed, but does not prohibit resubmission of a proposal based on
that application in a subsequent round of funding. The Institute will
also notify the designated State contact listed in Appendix I when
grants are approved by the Board to support projects that will be
conducted by or involve courts in their State.
F. Response to Notification of Approval
Applicants have 30 days from the date of the letter notifying them
that the Board has approved their application to respond to any
revisions requested by the Board. If the requested revisions (or a
reasonable schedule for submitting such revisions) have not been
submitted to the Institute within 30 days after notification, the
approval may be automatically rescinded and the application presented
to the Board for reconsideration.
IX. Renewal Funding Procedures and Requirements
The Institute recognizes two types of renewal funding as described
below--``continuation grants'' and ``on-going support grants.'' The
award of an initial grant to support a project does not constitute a
commitment by the Institute to renew funding. The Board of Directors
anticipates allocating no more than 25% of available FY 1999 grant
funds for renewal grants.
A. Continuation Grants
1. Purpose and Scope
Continuation grants are intended to support projects with a limited
duration that involve the same type of activities as the previous
project. They are intended to enhance the specific program or service
produced or established during the prior grant period. They may be
used, for example, when a project is divided into two or more
sequential phases, for secondary analysis of data obtained in an
Institute-supported research project, or for more extensive testing of
an innovative technology, procedure, or program developed with SJI
grant support.
In order for a project to be considered for continuation funding,
the grantee must have completed the project tasks and met all grant
requirements and conditions in a timely manner, absent extenuating
circumstances or prior Institute approval of changes to the project
design. Continuation grants are not intended to provide support for a
project for which the grantee has underestimated the amount of time or
funds needed to accomplish the project tasks.
2. Application Procedures--Letters of Intent
In lieu of a concept paper, a grantee seeking a continuation grant
must inform the Institute, by letter, of its intent to submit an
application for such funding as soon as the need for renewal funding
becomes apparent but no less than 120 days before the end of the
current grant period.
a. A letter of intent must be no more than 3 single-spaced pages on
8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper and must contain a concise but thorough
explanation of the need for continuation; an estimate of the funds to
be requested; and a brief description of anticipated changes in the
scope, focus, or audience of the project.
b. Within 30 days after receiving a letter of intent, Institute
staff will review the proposed activities for the next project period
and inform the grantee of specific issues to be addressed in the
continuation application and the date by which the application for a
continuation grant must be submitted.
3. Application Format
An application for a continuation grant must include an application
form, budget forms (with appropriate documentation), a project abstract
conforming to the format set forth in section VII.B., a program
narrative, a budget narrative, a Certificate of State Approval (FORM B)
if the applicant is a State or local court, a disclosure of lobbying
form (from applicants other than units of State or local government),
and any necessary appendices.
The program narrative should conform to the length and format
requirements set forth in section VII.C. However, rather than the
topics listed in section VII.C., the program narrative of an
application for a continuation grant should include:
a. Project objectives. The applicant should clearly and concisely
state what the continuation project is intended to accomplish.
b. Need for continuation. The applicant should explain why
continuation of the project is necessary to achieve the goals of the
project, and how the continuation will benefit the participating courts
or the courts community generally. That is, to what extent will the
original goals and objectives of the project be unfulfilled if the
project is not continued, and conversely, how will the findings or
results of the project be enhanced by continuing the project?
c. Report of current project activities. The applicant should
discuss the status of all activities conducted during the previous
project period. Applicants should identify any activities that were not
completed, and explain why.
d. Evaluation findings. The applicant should present the key
findings, impact, or recommendations resulting from the evaluation of
the project, if they are available, and how they will be addressed
during the proposed continuation. If the findings are not yet
available, applicants should provide the date by which they will be
submitted to the Institute. Ordinarily, the Board will not consider an
application for continuation funding until the Institute has received
the evaluator's report.
e. Tasks, methods, staff and grantee capability. The applicant
should fully describe any changes in the tasks to be performed, the
methods to be used, the products of the project, and how and to whom
those products will be disseminated, as well as any changes in the
assigned staff or the grantee's organizational capacity. Applicants
should include, in addition, the criteria and methods by which the
proposed continuation project would be evaluated.
f. Task schedule. The applicant should present a detailed task
schedule and timeline for the next project period.
g. Other sources of support. The applicant should indicate why
other sources of support are inadequate, inappropriate or unavailable.
4. Budget and Budget Narrative
The applicant should provide a complete budget and budget narrative
conforming to the requirements set forth in paragraph VII.D. Changes in
the funding level requested should be discussed in terms of
corresponding increases or decreases in the scope of
[[Page 46310]]
activities or services to be rendered. In addition, the applicant
should estimate the amount of grant funds that will remain unobligated
at the end of the current grant period.
5. References to Previously Submitted Material
An application for a continuation grant should not repeat
information contained in a previously approved application or other
previously submitted materials, but should provide specific references
to such materials where appropriate.
6. Submission Requirements, Review and Approval Process, and
Notification of Decision
The submission requirements set forth in section VII.E., other than
the deadline for mailing, apply to applications for a continuation
grant. Such applications will be rated on the selection criteria set
forth in section VIII.B. The key findings and recommendations resulting
from an evaluation of the project and the proposed response to those
findings and recommendations will also be considered. The review and
approval process, return policy, and notification procedures are the
same as those for new projects set forth in sections VIII.C.-VIII.E.
B. On-going Support Grants
1. Purpose and Scope
On-going support grants are intended to support projects that are
national in scope and that provide the State courts with services,
programs or products for which there is a continuing critical need. An
on-going support grant may also be used to fund longitudinal research
that directly benefits the State courts. On-going support grants are
subject to the limits on size and duration set forth in V.C.2. and
V.D.2. The Board will consider awarding an on-going support grant for a
period of up to 36 months. The total amount of the grant will be fixed
at the time of the initial award. Funds ordinarily will be made
available in annual increments as specified in section V.C.2.
A project is eligible for consideration for an on-going support
grant if:
a. The project is supported by and has been evaluated under a grant
from the Institute;
b. The project is national in scope and provides a significant
benefit to the State courts;
c. There is a continuing critical need for the services, programs
or products provided by the project as indicated by the level of use
and support by members of the court community;
d. The project is accomplishing its objectives in an effective and
efficient manner; and
e. It is likely that the service or program provided by the project
would be curtailed or significantly reduced without Institute support.
Each project supported by an on-going support grant must include an
evaluation component assessing its effectiveness and operation
throughout the grant period. The evaluation should be independent, but
may be designed collaboratively by the evaluator and the grantee. The
design should call for regular feedback from the evaluator to the
grantee throughout the project period concerning recommendations for
mid-course corrections or improvement of the project, as well as
periodic reports to the Institute at relevant points in the project.
An interim evaluation report must be submitted 18 months into the
grant period. The decision to obligate Institute funds to support the
third year of the project will be based on the interim evaluation
findings and the applicant's response to any deficiencies noted in the
report.
A final evaluation assessing the effectiveness, operation of, and
continuing need for the project must be submitted 90 days before the
end of the 3-year project period. In addition, a detailed annual task
schedule must be submitted not later than 45 days before the end of the
first and second years of the grant period, along with an explanation
of any necessary revisions in the projected costs for the remainder of
the project period. (See also section IX.B.3.h.)
2. Letters of Intent
In lieu of a concept paper, a grantee seeking an on-going support
grant must inform the Institute, by letter, of its intent to submit an
application for such funding as soon as the need for renewal funding
becomes apparent but no less than 120 days before the end of the
current grant period. The letter of intent should be in the same format
as that prescribed for continuation grants in section IX.A.2.a.
3. Format
An application for an on-going support grant must include an
application form, budget forms (with appropriate documentation), a
Certificate of State Approval (FORM B) if the applicant is a State or
local court, a disclosure of lobbying form (from applicants other than
units of State or local government), a project abstract conforming to
the format set forth in section VII.B., a program narrative, a budget
narrative, and any necessary appendices.
The program narrative should conform to the length and format
requirements set forth in section VII.C. However, rather than the
topics listed in section VII.C., the program narrative of applications
for on-going support grants should address:
a. Description of need for and benefits of the project. The
applicant should provide a detailed discussion of the benefits provided
by the project to the State courts around the country, including the
degree to which State courts, State court judges, or State court
managers and personnel are using the services or programs provided by
the project.
b. Demonstration of court support. The applicant should demonstrate
support for the continuation of the project from the courts community.
c. Report on current project activities. The applicant should
discuss the extent to which the project has met its goals and
objectives, identify any activities that have not been completed, and
explain why.
d. Evaluation findings. The applicant should attach a copy of the
final evaluation report regarding the effectiveness, impact, and
operation of the project, specify the key findings or recommendations
resulting from the evaluation, and explain how they will be addressed
during the proposed renewal period. Ordinarily, the Board will not
consider an application for on-going support until the Institute has
received the evaluator's report.
e. Objectives, tasks, methods, staff and grantee capability. The
applicant should describe fully any changes in the objectives; tasks to
be performed; the methods to be used; the products of the project; how
and to whom those products will be disseminated; the assigned staff;
and the grantee's organizational capacity. The grantee also should
describe the steps it will take to obtain support from other sources
for the continued operation of the project.
f. Task schedule. The applicant should present a general schedule
for the full proposed project period and a detailed task schedule for
the first year of the proposed new project period.
g. Other sources of support. The applicant should describe what
efforts it has taken to secure support for the project from other
sources and discuss why other sources of support are inadequate,
inappropriate, or unavailable.
[[Page 46311]]
4. Budget and Budget Narrative
The applicant should provide a complete three-year budget and
budget narrative conforming to the requirements set forth in paragraph
VII.D., and estimate the amount of grant funds that will remain
unobligated at the end of the current grant period. Changes in the
funding level requested should be discussed in terms of corresponding
increases or decreases in the scope of activities or services to be
rendered. A complete budget narrative should be provided for the full
project as well as for each year, or portion of a year, for which grant
support is requested. Changes in the funding level requested should be
discussed in terms of corresponding increases or decreases in the scope
of activities or services to be rendered. The budget should provide for
realistic cost-of-living and staff salary increases over the course of
the requested project period. Applicants should be aware that the
Institute is unlikely to approve a supplemental budget increase for an
on-going support grant in the absence of well-documented, unanticipated
factors that clearly justify the requested increase.
5. References to Previously Submitted Material
An application for an on-going support grant should not repeat
information contained in a previously approved application or other
previously submitted materials, but should provide specific references
to such materials where appropriate.
6. Submission Requirements, Review and Approval Process, and
Notification of Decision
The submission requirements set forth in section VII.E., other than
the deadline for mailing, apply to applications for an on-going support
grant. Such applications will be rated on the selection criteria set
forth in section VIII.B. The key findings and recommendations resulting
from an evaluation of the project and the proposed response to those
findings and recommendations will also be considered. The review and
approval process, return policy, and notification procedures are the
same as those for new projects set forth in sections VIII.C.-VIII.E.
X. Compliance Requirements
The State Justice Institute Act contains limitations and conditions
on grants, contracts and cooperative agreements of which applicants and
recipients should be aware. In addition to eligibility requirements
which must be met to be considered for an award from the Institute, all
applicants should be aware of and all recipients will be responsible
for ensuring compliance with the following:
A. State and Local Court Systems
Each application for funding from a State or local court must be
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court, or
its designated agency or council. The Supreme Court or its designee
shall receive, administer, and be accountable for all funds awarded on
the basis of such an application. 42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(4). Appendix I to
this Guideline lists the person to contact in each State regarding the
administration of Institute grants to State and local courts.
B. Matching Requirements
1. All awards to courts or other units of State or local government
(not including publicly supported institutions of higher education)
require a match from private or public sources of not less than 50% of
the total amount of the Institute's award. For example, if the total
cost of a project is anticipated to be $150,000, a State court or
executive branch agency may request up to $100,000 from the Institute
to implement the project. The remaining $50,000 (50% of the $100,000
requested from SJI) must be provided as a match. A cash match, non-cash
match, or both may be provided, but the Institute will give preference
to those applicants that provide a cash match to the Institute's award.
(For a further definition of match, see section III.F.)
The requirement to provide match may be waived in exceptionally
rare circumstances upon the request of the Chief Justice of the highest
court in the State and approval by the Board of Directors. 42 U.S.C.
10705(d).
2. Other eligible recipients of Institute funds are not required to
provide a match, but are encouraged to contribute to meeting the costs
of the project. In instances where match is proposed, the grantee is
responsible for ensuring that the total amount proposed is actually
contributed. If a proposed contribution is not fully met, the Institute
may reduce the award amount accordingly, in order to maintain the ratio
originally provided for in the award agreement (see sections VIII.B.
above and XI.D.).
C. Conflict of Interest
Personnel and other officials connected with Institute-funded
programs shall adhere to the following requirements:
1. No official or employee of a recipient court or organization
shall participate personally through decision, approval, disapproval,
recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise in
any proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other
determination, contract, grant, cooperative agreement, claim,
controversy, or other particular matter in which Institute funds are
used, where to his/her knowledge he/she or his/her immediate family,
partners, organization other than a public agency in which he/she is
serving as officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee or any
person or organization with whom he/she is negotiating or has any
arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial
interest.
2. In the use of Institute project funds, an official or employee
of a recipient court or organization shall avoid any action which might
result in or create the appearance of:
a. Using an official position for private gain; or
b. Affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the
integrity of the Institute program.
3. Requests for proposals or invitations for bids issued by a
recipient of Institute funds or a subgrantee or subcontractor will
provide notice to prospective bidders that the contractors who develop
or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, and/or
requests for proposals for a proposed procurement will be excluded from
bidding on or submitting a proposal to compete for the award of such
procurement.
D. Lobbying
Funds awarded to recipients by the Institute shall not be used,
indirectly or directly, to influence Executive orders or similar
promulgations by Federal, State or local agencies, or to influence the
passage or defeat of any legislation by Federal, State or local
legislative bodies. 42 U.S.C. 10706(a).
It is the policy of the Board of Directors to award funds only to
support applications submitted by organizations that would carry out
the objectives of their applications in an unbiased manner. Consistent
with this policy and the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 10706, the Institute
will not knowingly award a grant to an applicant that has, directly or
through an entity that is part of the same organization as the
applicant, 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
[[Page 46312]]
any candidate for public or party office. Recipients are also
prohibited from using funds in advocating or opposing any ballot
measure, initiative, or referendum. Officers and employees of
recipients shall not intentionally identify the Institute or recipients
with any partisan or nonpartisan political activity associated with a
political party or association, or the campaign of any candidate for
public or party office. 42 U.S.C. 10706(a).
F. Advocacy
No funds made available by the Institute may be used to support or
conduct training programs for the purpose of advocating particular
nonjudicial public policies or encouraging nonjudicial political
activities. 42 U.S.C. 10706(b).
G. Prohibition Against Litigation Support
No funds made available by the Institute may be used directly or
indirectly to support legal assistance to parties in litigation,
including cases involving capital punishment.
H. Supplantation and Construction
To ensure that funds are used to supplement and improve the
operation of State courts, rather than to support basic court services,
funds shall not be used for the following purposes:
1. To supplant State or local funds supporting a program or
activity (such as paying the salary of court employees who would be
performing their normal duties as part of the project, or paying rent
for space which is part of the court's normal operations);
2. To construct court facilities or structures, except to remodel
existing facilities or to demonstrate new architectural or
technological techniques, or to provide temporary facilities for new
personnel or for personnel involved in a demonstration or experimental
program; or
3. Solely to purchase equipment.
I. Confidentiality of Information
Except as provided by Federal law other than the State Justice
Institute Act, no recipient of financial assistance from SJI may use or
reveal any research or statistical information furnished under the Act
by any person and identifiable to any specific private person for any
purpose other than the purpose for which the information was obtained.
Such information and copies thereof shall be immune from legal process,
and shall not, without the consent of the person furnishing such
information, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any
action, suit, or other judicial, legislative, or administrative
proceedings.
J. Human Research Protection
All research involving human subjects shall be conducted with the
informed consent of those subjects and in a manner that will ensure
their privacy and freedom from risk or harm and the protection of
persons who are not subjects of the research but would be affected by
it, unless such procedures and safeguards would make the research
impractical. In such instances, the Institute must approve procedures
designed by the grantee to provide human subjects with relevant
information about the research after their involvement and to minimize
or eliminate risk or harm to those subjects due to their participation.
K. Nondiscrimination
No person may, on the basis of race, sex, national origin,
disability, color, or creed be excluded from participation in, denied
the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity supported by Institute funds. Recipients of
Institute funds must immediately take any measures necessary to
effectuate this provision.
L. Reporting Requirements
Recipients of Institute funds, other than scholarships awarded
under section II.B.2.b.iii., shall submit Quarterly Progress and
Financial Reports within 30 days of the close of each calendar quarter
(that is, no later than January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30).
Two copies of each report must be sent. The Quarterly Progress Reports
shall include a narrative description of project activities during the
calendar quarter, the relationship between those activities and the
task schedule and objectives set forth in the approved application or
an approved adjustment thereto, any significant problem areas that have
developed and how they will be resolved, and the activities scheduled
during the next reporting period.
The quarterly financial status report shall be submitted in
accordance with section XI.G.2. of this Guideline. A final project
progress report and financial status report shall be submitted within
90 days after the end of the grant period in accordance with section
XI.K.2. of this Guideline.
M. Audit
Recipients, other than those noted below, must provide for an
annual fiscal audit which shall include an opinion on whether the
financial statements of the grantee present fairly its financial
position and financial operations are in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. (See section XI.J. of the Guideline for
the requirements of such audits.) Recipients of a scholarship,
curriculum adaptation, or technical assistance grant are not required
to submit an audit, but must maintain appropriate documentation to
support all expenditures.
N. Suspension of Funding
After providing a recipient reasonable notice and opportunity to
submit written documentation demonstrating why fund termination or
suspension should not occur, the Institute may terminate or suspend
funding of a project that fails to comply substantially with the Act,
the Guideline, or the terms and conditions of the award. 42 U.S.C.
10708(a).
O. Title to Property
At the conclusion of the project, title to all expendable and
nonexpendable personal property purchased with Institute funds shall
vest in the recipient court, organization, or individual that purchased
the property if certification is made to and approved by the Institute
that the property will continue to be used for the authorized purposes
of the Institute-funded project or other purposes consistent with the
State Justice Institute Act. If such certification is not made or the
Institute disapproves such certification, title to all such property
with an aggregate or individual value of $1,000 or more shall vest in
the Institute, which will direct the disposition of the property.
P. Original Material
All products prepared as the result of Institute-supported projects
must be originally-developed material unless otherwise specified in the
award documents. Material not originally developed that is included in
such products must be properly identified, whether the material is in a
verbatim or extensive paraphrase format.
Q. Acknowledgment and Disclaimer
Recipients of Institute funds shall acknowledge prominently on all
products developed with grant funds that support was received from the
Institute. The ``SJI'' logo must appear on the front cover of a written
product, or in the opening frames of a video product, unless another
placement is approved in writing by the Institute. This includes final
products printed or otherwise reproduced during the grant period, as
well as reprintings or reproductions of those materials
[[Page 46313]]
following the end of the grant period. A camera-ready logo sheet is
available from the Institute upon request.
Recipients also shall display the following disclaimer on all grant
products:
This [document, film, videotape, etc.] was developed under
[grant/cooperative agreement, number SJI--(insert number)] from the
State Justice Institute. The points of view expressed are those of
the [author(s), filmmaker(s), etc.] and do not necessarily represent
the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.
R. Institute Approval of Grant Products
No grant funds may be obligated for publication or reproduction of
a final product developed with grant funds without the written approval
of the Institute. Grantees shall submit a final draft of each written
product to the Institute for review and approval. These drafts shall be
submitted at least 30 days before the product is scheduled to be sent
for publication or reproduction to permit Institute review and
incorporation of any appropriate changes agreed upon by the grantee and
the Institute. Grantees shall provide for timely reviews by the
Institute of videotape or CD-ROM products at the treatment, script,
rough cut, and final stages of development or their equivalents, prior
to initiating the next stage of product development.
S. Distribution of Grant Products
In addition to the distribution specified in the grant application,
grantees shall send:
1. Twenty copies of each final product developed with grant funds
to the Institute, unless the product was developed under either a
curriculum adaptation or a technical assistance grant, in which case
submission of 2 copies is required.
2. A mastercopy of each videotape produced with grant funds to the
Institute.
3. 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.
4. A one-page abstract to the Institute summarizing the products
produced during the project for posting on the Internet together with a
diskette containing the abstract in Word or ASCII in a format
prescribed by the Institute for posting on the Institute's website.
5. In addition, recipients of project grants must prepare a press
release describing the project and announcing the results and
distribute the release to a list of national and State judicial branch
organizations provided by the Institute.
T. Copyrights
Except as otherwise provided in the terms and conditions of an
Institute award, a recipient is free to copyright any books,
publications, or other copyrightable materials developed in the course
of an Institute-supported project, but the Institute shall reserve a
royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish,
or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the materials for
purposes consistent with the State Justice Institute Act.
U. Inventions and Patents
If any patentable items, patent rights, processes, or inventions
are produced in the course of Institute-sponsored work, such fact shall
be promptly and fully reported to the Institute. Unless there is a
prior agreement between the grantee and the Institute on disposition of
such items, the Institute shall determine whether protection of the
invention or discovery shall be sought. The Institute will also
determine how the rights in the invention or discovery, including
rights under any patent issued thereon, shall be allocated and
administered in order to protect the public interest consistent with
``Government Patent Policy'' (President's Memorandum for Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies, February 18, 1983, and statement of
Government Patent Policy).
V. Charges for Grant-Related Products/Recovery of Costs
When Institute funds fully cover the cost of developing, producing,
and disseminating a product, (e.g., a report, curriculum, videotape or
software), the product should be distributed to the field without
charge. When Institute funds only partially cover the development,
production, or dissemination costs, the grantee may, with the
Institute's prior written approval, recover its costs for developing,
producing, and disseminating the material to those requesting it, to
the extent that those costs were not covered by Institute funds or
grantee matching contributions.
Applicants should disclose their intent to sell grant-related
products in both the concept paper and the application. Grantees must
obtain the written, prior approval of the Institute of their plans to
recover project costs through the sale of grant products.
Written requests to recover costs ordinarily should be received
during the grant period and should specify the nature and extent of the
costs to be recouped, the reason that such costs were not budgeted (if
the rationale was not disclosed in the approved application), the
number of copies to be sold, the intended audience for the products to
be sold, and the proposed sale price. If the product is to be sold for
more than $25.00, the written request also should include a detailed
itemization of costs that will be recovered and a certification that
the costs were not supported by either Institute grant funds or grantee
matching contributions.
In the event that the sale of grant products results in revenues
that exceed the costs to develop, produce, and disseminate the product,
the revenue must continue to be used for the authorized purposes of the
Institute-funded project or other purposes consistent with the State
Justice Institute Act that have been approved by the Institute. See
sections III.F. and XI.F. for requirements regarding project-related
income realized during the project period.
W. Availability of Research Data for Secondary Analysis
Upon request, grantees must make available for secondary analysis a
diskette(s) or data tape(s) containing research and evaluation data
collected under an Institute grant and the accompanying code manual.
Grantees may recover the actual cost of duplicating and mailing or
otherwise transmitting the data set and manual from the person or
organization requesting the data. Grantees may provide the requested
data set in the format in which it was created and analyzed.
X. Approval of Key Staff
If the qualifications of an employee or consultant assigned to a
key project staff position are not described in the application or if
there is a change of a person assigned to such a position, a recipient
shall submit a description of the qualifications of the newly assigned
person to the Institute. Prior written approval of the qualifications
of the new person assigned to a key staff position 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.
[[Page 46314]]
XI. Financial Requirements
A. Accounting Systems and Financial Records
All grantees, subgrantees, contractors, and other organizations
directly or indirectly receiving Institute funds are required to
establish and maintain accounting systems and financial records to
accurately account for funds they receive. These records shall include
total program costs, including Institute funds, State and local
matching shares, and any other fund sources included in the approved
project budget.
1. Purpose
The purpose of this section is to establish accounting system
requirements and offer guidance on procedures which will assist all
grantees/subgrantees in:
a. Complying with the statutory requirements for the awarding,
disbursement, and accounting of funds;
b. Complying with regulatory requirements of the Institute for the
financial management and disposition of funds;
c. Generating financial data which can be used in the planning,
management and control of programs; and
d. Facilitating an effective audit of funded programs and projects.
2. References
Except where inconsistent with specific provisions of this
Guideline, the following regulations, directives and reports are
applicable to Institute grants and cooperative agreements under the
same terms and conditions that apply to Federal grantees. These
materials supplement the requirements of this section for accounting
systems and financial recordkeeping and provide additional guidance on
how these requirements may be satisfied. (Circulars may be obtained
from OMB by calling 202-395-7250.)
a. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-21, Cost
Principles for Educational Institutions.
b. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost
Principles for State and Local Governments.
c. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-88 (revised),
Indirect Cost Rates, Audit and Audit Follow-up at Educational
Institutions.
d. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102, Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local
Governments.
e. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110, Grants and
Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and other
Non-Profit Organizations.
f. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-128, Audits of
State and Local Governments.
g. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-122, Cost
Principles for Non-profit Organizations.
h. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of
Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non-profit Institutions.
B. Supervision and Monitoring Responsibilities
1. Grantee Responsibilities
All grantees receiving direct awards from the Institute are
responsible for the management and fiscal control of all funds.
Responsibilities include accounting for receipts and expenditures,
maintaining adequate financial records, and refunding expenditures
disallowed by audits.
2. Responsibilities of State Supreme Court
Each application for funding from a State or local court must be
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court, or
its designated agency or council.
The State Supreme Court or its designee shall receive all Institute
funds awarded to such courts; be responsible for assuring proper
administration of Institute funds; and be responsible for all aspects
of the project, including proper accounting and financial recordkeeping
by the subgrantee. These responsibilities include:
a. Reviewing financial operations. The State Supreme Court or its
designee should be familiar with, and periodically monitor, its
subgrantees' financial operations, records system and procedures.
Particular attention should be directed to the maintenance of current
financial data.
b. Recording financial activities. The subgrantee's grant award or
contract obligation, as well as cash advances and other financial
activities, should be recorded in the financial records of the State
Supreme Court or its designee in summary form. Subgrantee expenditures
should be recorded on the books of the State Supreme Court Or evidenced
by report forms duly filed by the subgrantee. Non-Institute
contributions applied to projects by subgrantees should likewise be
recorded, as should any project income resulting from program
operations.
c. Budgeting and budget review. The State Supreme Court or its
designee should ensure that each subgrantee prepares an adequate budget
as the basis for its award commitment. The detail of each project
budget should be maintained on file by the State Supreme Court.
d. Accounting for non-institute contributions. The State Supreme
Court or its designee will ensure, in those instances where subgrantees
are required to furnish non-Institute matching funds, that the
requirements and limitations of the Guideline are applied to such
funds.
e. Audit requirement. The State Supreme Court or its designee is
required to ensure that subgrantees have met the necessary audit
requirements set forth by the Institute (see sections X.M. and XI.J).
f. Reporting irregularities. The State Supreme Court, its
designees, and its subgrantees are responsible for promptly reporting
to the Institute the nature and circumstances surrounding any financial
irregularities discovered.
C. Accounting System
The grantee is responsible for establishing and maintaining an
adequate system of accounting and internal controls for itself and for
ensuring that an adequate system exists for each of its subgrantees and
contractors. An acceptable and adequate accounting system is considered
to be one which:
1. Properly accounts for receipt of funds under each grant awarded
and the expenditure of funds for each grant by category of expenditure
(including matching contributions and project income);
2. Assures that expended funds are applied to the appropriate
budget category included within the approved grant;
3. Presents and classifies historical costs of the grant as
required for budgetary and evaluation purposes;
4. Provides cost and property controls to assure optimal use of
grant funds;
5. Is integrated with a system of internal controls adequate to
safeguard the funds and assets covered, check the accuracy and
reliability of the accounting data, promote operational efficiency, and
assure conformance with any general or special conditions of the grant;
6. Meets the prescribed requirements for periodic financial
reporting of operations; and
7. Provides financial data for planning, control, measurement, and
evaluation of direct and indirect costs.
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.
[[Page 46315]]
That is, total project costs, including Institute funds, State and
local matching shares, and any other fund sources included in the
approved project budget shall be the foundation for fiscal
administration and accounting. Grant applications and financial reports
require budget and cost estimates on the basis of total costs.
1. Timing of Matching Contributions
Matching contributions need not be applied at the exact time of the
obligation of Institute funds. However, the full matching share must be
obligated during the award period, except that, with the prior written
permission of the Institute, contributions made following approval of
the grant by the Institute's Board of Directors but before the
beginning of the grant may be counted as match. Grantees that do not
contemplate making matching contributions continuously throughout the
course of a project, or on a task-by-task basis, are required to submit
a schedule within 30 days after the beginning of the project period
indicating at what points during the project period the matching
contributions will be made. In instances where a proposed cash match is
not fully met, the Institute may reduce the award amount accordingly,
in order to maintain the ratio originally provided for in the award
agreement.
2. Records for Match
All grantees must maintain records which clearly show the source,
amount, and timing of all matching contributions. In addition, if a
project has included, within its approved budget, contributions which
exceed the required matching portion, the grantee must maintain records
of those contributions in the same manner as it does the Institute
funds and required matching shares. For all grants made to State and
local courts, the State Supreme Court has primary responsibility for
grantee/subgrantee compliance with the requirements of this section.
(See section XI.B.2.)
E. Maintenance and Retention of Records
All financial records, supporting documents, statistical records
and all other records pertinent to grants, subgrants, cooperative
agreements or contracts under grants shall be retained by each
organization participating in a project for at least three years for
purposes of examination and audit. State Supreme Courts may impose
record retention and maintenance requirements in addition to those
prescribed in this chapter.
1. Coverage
The retention requirement extends to books of original entry,
source documents supporting accounting transactions, the general
ledger, subsidiary ledgers, personnel and payroll records, canceled
checks, and related documents and records. Source documents include
copies of all grant and subgrant awards, applications, and required
grantee/subgrantee financial and narrative reports. Personnel and
payroll records shall include the time and attendance reports for all
individuals reimbursed under a grant, subgrant or contract, whether
they are employed full-time or part-time. Time and effort reports will
be required for consultants.
2. Retention Period
The three-year retention period starts from the date of the
submission of the final expenditure report or, for grants which are
renewed annually, from the date of submission of the annual expenditure
report.
3. Maintenance
Grantees and subgrantees are expected to see that records of
different fiscal years are separately identified and maintained so that
requested information can be readily located. Grantees and subgrantees
are also obligated to protect records adequately against fire or other
damage. When records are stored away from the grantee's/subgrantee's
principal office, a written index of the location of stored records
should be on hand, and ready access should be assured.
4. Access
Grantees and subgrantees must give any authorized representative of
the Institute access to and the right to examine all records, books,
papers, and documents related to an Institute grant.
F. Project-Related Income
Records of the receipt and disposition of project-related income
must be maintained by the grantee in the same manner as required for
the project funds that gave rise to the income and must be reported to
the Institute. (See section XI.G.2.) The policies governing the
disposition of the various types of project-related income are listed
below.
1. Interest
A State and any agency or instrumentality of a State, including
State institutions of higher education and State hospitals, shall not
be held accountable for interest earned on advances of project funds.
When funds are awarded to subgrantees through a State, the subgrantees
are not held accountable for interest earned on advances of project
funds. Local units of government and nonprofit organizations that are
direct grantees must refund any interest earned. Grantees shall ensure
minimum balances in their respective grant cash accounts.
2. Royalties
The grantee/subgrantee may retain all royalties received from
copyrights or other works developed under projects or from patents and
inventions, unless the terms and conditions of the grant provide
otherwise.
3. Registration and Tuition Fees
Registration and tuition fees shall be used to pay project-related
costs not covered by the grant, or to reduce the amount of grant funds
needed to support the project. Registration and tuition fees may be
used for other purposes only with the prior written approval of the
Institute. Estimates of registration and tuition fees, and any expenses
to be offset by the fees, should be included in the application budget
forms and narrative.
4. Income From the Sale of Grant Products
When grant funds fully cover the cost of producing and
disseminating a limited number of copies of a product, the grantee may,
with the written prior approval of the Institute, sell additional
copies reproduced at its expense only at a price intended to recover
actual reproduction and distribution costs that were not covered by
Institute grant funds or grantee matching contributions to the project.
When grant funds only partially cover the costs of developing,
producing and disseminating a product, the grantee may, with the
written prior approval of the Institute, recover costs for developing,
reproducing, and disseminating the material to the extent that those
costs were not covered by Institute grant funds or grantee matching
contributions. If the grantee recovers its costs in this manner, then
amounts expended by the grantee to develop, produce, and disseminate
the material may not be considered match.
If the sale of products occurs during the project period, the costs
and income generated by the sales must be reported on the Quarterly
Financial Status Reports and documented in an auditable manner.
Whenever possible, the intent to sell a product should be disclosed in
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
[[Page 46316]]
development, reproduction, and dissemination costs as specified in
section X.V.
5. Other
Other project income shall be treated in accordance with
disposition instructions set forth in the grant's terms and conditions.
G. Payments and Financial Reporting Requirements
1. Payment of Grant Funds
The procedures and regulations set forth below are applicable to
all Institute grant funds and grantees.
a. Request for advance or reimbursement of funds. Grantees will
receive funds on a ``Check-Issued'' basis. Upon receipt, review, and
approval of a Request for Advance or Reimbursement by the Institute, a
check will be issued directly to the grantee or its designated fiscal
agent. A request must be limited to the grantee's immediate cash needs.
The Request for Advance or Reimbursement, along with the instructions
for its preparation, will be included in the official Institute award
package.
b. Continuation and on-going support awards. For purposes of
submitting Requests for Advance or Reimbursement, recipients of
continuation and on-going support grants should treat each grant as a
new project and number their requests accordingly (i.e. on a grant
rather than a project basis). For example, the first request for
payment from a continuation grant or each year of an on-going support
would be number 1, the second number 2, etc. (See Recommendations to
Grantees in the Introduction for further guidance.)
c. Termination of advance and reimbursement funding. When a grantee
organization receiving cash advances from the Institute:
i. Demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to attain program or
project goals, or to establish procedures that will minimize the time
elapsing between cash advances and disbursements, or cannot adhere to
guideline requirements or special conditions;
ii. Engages in the improper award and administration of subgrants
or contracts; or
iii. Is unable to submit reliable and/or timely reports; the
Institute may terminate advance financing and require the grantee
organization to finance its operations with its own working capital.
Payments to the grantee shall then be made by check to reimburse the
grantee for actual cash disbursements. In the event the grantee
continues to be deficient, the Institute may suspend reimbursement
payments until the deficiencies are corrected.
d. Principle of minimum cash on hand. Recipient organizations
should request funds based upon immediate disbursement requirements.
Grantees should time their requests to ensure that cash on hand is the
minimum needed for disbursements to be made immediately or within a few
days. Idle funds in the hands of subgrantees will impair the goals of
good cash management.
2. Financial Reporting
a. General requirements. In order to obtain financial information
concerning the use of funds, the Institute requires that grantees/
subgrantees of these funds submit timely reports for review.
Three copies of the Financial Status Report are required from all
grantees, other than recipients of scholarships under section
II.B.2.b.iii., for each active quarter on a calendar-quarter basis.
This report is due within 30 days after the close of the calendar
quarter. It is designed to provide financial information relating to
Institute funds, State and local matching shares, project income, and
any other sources of funds for the project, as well as information on
obligations and outlays. A copy of the Financial Status Report, along
with instructions for its preparation, will be included in the official
Institute Award package. In circumstances where an organization
requests substantial payments for a project prior to the completion of
a given quarter, the Institute may request a brief summary of the
amount requested, by object class, in support of the Request for
Advance or Reimbursement.
b. Additional requirements for Renewal Grants. Grantees receiving a
continuation or on-going support grant should number their quarterly
Financial Status Reports on a grant rather than a project basis. For
example, the first quarterly report for a continuation grant or each
year of an on-going support award should be number 1, the second number
2, etc.
3. Consequences of Non-Compliance with Submission Requirements
Failure of the grantee organization to submit required financial
and program reports may result in a suspension or termination of grant
payments.
H. Allowability of Costs
1. General
Except as may be otherwise provided in the conditions of a
particular grant, cost allowability shall be determined in accordance
with the principles set forth in OMB Circulars A-87, Cost Principles
for State and Local Governments; A-21, Cost Principles Applicable to
Grants and Contracts with Educational Institutions; and A-122, Cost
Principles for Non-Profit Organizations. No costs may be recovered to
liquidate obligations which are incurred after the approved grant
period. Copies of these circulars may be obtained from OMB by calling
(202) 395-7250.
2. Costs Requiring Prior Approval
a. Pre-agreement costs. The written prior approval of the Institute
is required for costs which are considered necessary to the project but
occur prior to the award date of the grant.
b. Equipment. Grant funds may be used to purchase or lease only
that equipment which is essential to accomplishing the goals and
objectives of the project. The written prior approval of the Institute
is required when the amount of automated data processing (ADP)
equipment to be purchased or leased exceeds $10,000 or the software to
be purchased exceeds $3,000.
c. Consultants. The written prior approval of the Institute is
required when the rate of compensation to be paid a consultant exceeds
$300 a day. Institute funds may not be used to pay a consultant at a
rate in excess of $900 per day.
3. Travel Costs
Transportation and per diem rates must comply with the policies of
the applicant organization. If the applicant does not have an
established written travel policy, then travel rates shall be
consistent with those established by the Institute or the Federal
Government. Institute funds may not be used to cover the transportation
or per diem costs of a member of a national organization to attend an
annual or other regular meeting of that organization.
4. Indirect Costs
These are costs of an organization that are not readily assignable
to a particular project, but are necessary to the operation of the
organization and the performance of the project. The cost of operating
and maintaining facilities, 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.
[[Page 46317]]
a. Approved plan available. i. The Institute will accept an
indirect cost rate or allocation plan approved for a grantee during the
preceding two years by any Federal granting agency on the basis of
allocation methods substantially in accord with those set forth in the
applicable cost circulars. A copy of the approved rate agreement must
be submitted to the Institute.
ii. Where flat rates are accepted in lieu of actual indirect costs,
grantees may not also charge expenses normally included in overhead
pools, e.g., accounting services, legal services, building occupancy
and maintenance, etc., as direct costs.
iii. Organizations with an approved indirect cost rate, utilizing
total direct costs as the base, usually exclude contracts under grants
from any overhead recovery. The negotiated agreement will stipulate
that contracts are excluded from the base for overhead recovery.
b. Establishment of indirect cost rates. In order to be reimbursed
for indirect costs, a grantee or organization must first establish an
appropriate indirect cost rate. To do this, the grantee must prepare an
indirect cost rate proposal and submit it to the Institute within three
months after the start of the grant period to assure recovery of the
full amount of allowable indirect costs. The rate must be developed in
accordance with principles and procedures appropriate to the type of
grantee institution involved as specified in the applicable OMB
Circular. Copies of OMB Circulars may be obtained directly from OMB by
calling (202) 395-7250.
c. No approved plan. If an indirect cost proposal for recovery of
actual indirect costs is not submitted to the Institute within three
months after the start of the grant period, indirect costs will be
irrevocably disallowed for all months prior to the month that the
indirect cost proposal is received. This policy is effective for all
grant awards.
I. Procurement and Property Management Standards
1. Procurement Standards
For State and local governments, the Institute adopts the standards
set forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular A-102. Institutions of higher
education, hospitals; other non-profit organizations will be governed
by the standards set forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular A-110.
2. Property Management Standards
The property management standards as prescribed in Attachment N of
OMB Circulars A-102 and A-110 shall be applicable to all grantees and
subgrantees of Institute funds except as provided in section X.O.
All grantees/subgrantees are required to be prudent in the
acquisition and management of property with grant funds. If suitable
property required for the successful execution of projects is already
available within the grantee or subgrantee organization, expenditures
of grant funds for the acquisition of new property will be considered
unnecessary.
J. Audit Requirements
1. Implementation
Each recipient of a grant from the Institute other than a
scholarship, curriculum adaptation, or technical assistance grant
(including a State or local court receiving a subgrant from the State
Supreme Court) shall provide for an annual fiscal audit. The audit may
be of the entire grantee organization (e.g., a university) or of the
specific project funded by the Institute. Audits conducted in
accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 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 or
termination of payments for active Institute grants to that
organization.
K. Close-Out of Grants
1. Definition
Close-out is a process by which the Institute determines that all
applicable administrative and financial actions and all required work
of the grant have been completed by both the grantee and the Institute.
2. Grantee Close-Out Requirements
Within 90 days after the end date of the grant or any approved
extension thereof (See section XI.K.3), the following documents must be
submitted to the Institute by the grantee other than a recipient of a
scholarship under section II.B.2.b.iii. These reporting requirements
apply at the conclusion of any non-scholarship grant, even when the
project will receive renewal funding through a continuation or on-going
support grant.
a. Financial status report. The final report of expenditures must
have no unliquidated obligations and must indicate the exact balance of
unobligated funds. Any unobligated/unexpended funds will be deobligated
from the award by the Institute. Final payment requests for obligations
incurred during the award period must be submitted to the Institute
prior to the end of the 90-day close-out period. Grantees on a check-
issued basis, who have drawn down funds in excess of their obligations/
expenditures, must return any unused funds as soon as it is determined
that the funds are not required. In no case should any unused funds
remain with the grantee beyond the submission date of the final
financial status report.
b. Final progress report. This report should describe the project
activities during the final calendar quarter of the project and the
close-out period, including to whom project products have been
disseminated; provide a summary of activities during the entire
project; specify whether all the objectives set forth in the approved
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.
[[Page 46318]]
3. Extension of Close-Out Period
Upon the written request of the grantee, the Institute may extend
the close-out period to assure completion of the Grantee's close-out
requirements. Requests for an extension must be submitted at least 14
days before the end of the close-out period and must explain why the
extension is necessary and what steps will be taken to assure that all
the grantee's responsibilities will be met by the end of the extension
period.
XII. Grant Adjustments
All requests for program or budget adjustments requiring Institute
approval must be submitted in a timely manner by the project director.
All requests for changes from the approved application will be
carefully reviewed for both consistency with this Guideline and the
enhancement of grant goals and objectives.
A. Grant Adjustments Requiring Prior Written Approval
There are several types of grant adjustments which require the
prior written approval of the Institute. Examples of these adjustments
include:
1. Budget revisions among direct cost categories which,
individually or in the aggregate, exceed or are expected to exceed five
percent of the approved original budget or the most recently approved
revised budget. For the purposes of this section, the Institute will
view budget revisions cumulatively.
For continuation and on-going support grants, funds from the
original award may be used during the renewal grant period and funds
awarded by a continuation or on-going support grant may be used to
cover project-related expenditures incurred during the original award
period, with the prior written approval of the Institute.
2. A change in the scope of work to be performed or the objectives
of the project (see section XII.D.).
3. A change in the project site.
4. A change in the project period, such as an extension of the
grant period and/or extension of the final financial or progress report
deadline (see section XII.E.).
5. Satisfaction of special conditions, if required.
6. A change in or temporary absence of the project director (see
sections XII.F. and G.).
7. The assignment of an employee or consultant to a key staff
position whose qualifications were not described in the application, or
a change of a person assigned to a key project staff position (see
section X.X.).
8. A change in or temporary absence of the person responsible for
the financial management and financial reporting for the grant.
9. A change in the name of the grantee organization.
10. A transfer or contracting out of grant-supported activities
(see section XII.H.).
11. A transfer of the grant to another recipient.
12. Preagreement costs, the purchase of automated data processing
equipment and software, and consultant rates, as specified in section
XI.H.2.
13. A change in the nature or number of the products to be prepared
or the manner in which a product would be distributed.
B. Request for Grant Adjustments
All grantees and subgrantees must promptly notify their SJI program
manager, in writing, of events or proposed changes which may require an
adjustment to the approved application. In requesting an adjustment,
the grantee must set forth the reasons and basis for the proposed
adjustment and any other information the program manager determines
would help the Institute's review.
C. Notification of Approval/Disapproval
If the request is approved, the grantee will be sent a Grant
Adjustment signed by the Executive Director or his designee. If the
request is denied, the grantee will be sent a written explanation of
the reasons for the denial.
D. Changes in the Scope of the Grant
A grantee/subgrantee may make minor changes in methodology,
approach, or other aspects of the grant to expedite achievement of the
grant's objectives with subsequent notification of the SJI program
manager. Major changes in scope, duration, training methodology, or
other significant areas must be approved in advance by the Institute.
E. Date Changes
A request to change or extend the grant period must be made at
least 30 days in advance of the end date of the grant. A revised task
plan should accompany requests for a no-cost extension of the grant
period, along with a revised budget if shifts among budget categories
will be needed. A request to change or extend the deadline for the
final financial report or final progress report must be made at least
14 days in advance of the report deadline (see section XI.K.3.).
F. Temporary Absence of the Project Director
Whenever absence of the project director is expected to exceed a
continuous period of one month, the plans for the conduct of the
project director's duties during such absence must be approved in
advance by the Institute. This information must be provided in a letter
signed by an authorized representative of the grantee/subgrantee at
least 30 days before the departure of the project director, or as soon
as it is known that the project director will be absent. The grant may
be terminated if arrangements are not approved in advance by the
Institute.
G. Withdrawal of/Change in Project Director
If the project director relinquishes or expects to relinquish
active direction of the project, the Institute must be notified
immediately. In such cases, if the grantee/subgrantee wishes to
terminate the project, the Institute will forward procedural
instructions upon notification of such intent. If the grantee wishes to
continue the project under the direction of another individual, a
statement of the candidate's qualifications should be sent to the
Institute for review and approval. The grant may be terminated if the
qualifications of the proposed individual are not approved in advance
by the Institute.
H. Transferring or Contracting Out of Grant-Supported Activities
A principal activity of the grant-supported project shall not be
transferred or contracted out to another organization without specific
prior approval by the Institute. All such arrangements should be
formalized in a contract or other written agreement between the parties
involved. Copies of the proposed contract or agreement must be
submitted for prior approval at the earliest possible time. The
contract or agreement must state, at a minimum, the activities to be
performed, the time schedule, the policies and procedures to be
followed, the dollar limitation of the agreement, and the cost
principles to be followed in determining what costs, both direct and
indirect, are to be allowed. The contract or other written agreement
must not affect the grantee's overall responsibility for the direction
of the project and accountability to the Institute.
State Justice Institute Board of Directors
Robert A. Miller, Chairman, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of South
Dakota, Pierre, SD
[[Page 46319]]
Joseph F. Baca, Vice-Chairman, Justice, New Mexico Supreme Court,
Santa Fe, NM
Sandra A. O'Connor, Secretary, States Attorney of Baltimore County,
Towson, MD
Terrence B. Adamson, Esq., Executive Committee Member, Senior Vice-
President, The National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C
Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Virginia, Richmond, VA
Carlos R. Garza, Esq., Administrative Judge (ret.), Vienna, VA
Sophia H. Hall, Presiding Judge, Juvenile Court, Circuit Court of
Cook County, Chicago, IL
Tommy Jewell, District Judge, Albuquerque, NM
Keith McNamara, Esq., McNamara & McNamara, Columbus, OH
Florence K. Murray, Justice (ret.), Supreme Court of Rhode Island,
Providence, RI
Janie L. Shores, Associate Justice, Alabama Supreme Court,
Birmingham, AL
David I. Tevelin, Executive Director (ex officio)
David I. Tevelin,
Executive Director.
Appendix I--List of Contacts Regarding Administration of Institute
Grants to State and Local Courts
Mr. Frank Gregory, Administrative Director, Administrative Office of
the Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36130, (205) 834-7990
Ms. Stephanie J. Cole, Administrative Director, Alaska Court System,
303 K Street, Anchorage, AK 99501, (907) 264-0547
Mr. David K. Byers, Administrative Director, Supreme Court of Arizona,
1501 West Washington Street, Suite 411, Phoenix, AZ 85007-3330, (602)
542-9301
Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts,
625 Marshall, Little Rock, AR 72201, (501) 682-9400
Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court Administrator, Administrative
Office of the Courts, 303 Second Street, South Tower, San Francisco, CA
94107, (415) 396-9115
Mr. Steven V. Berson, State Court Administrator, Colorado Judicial
Department, 1301 Pennsylvania Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80203-2416,
(303) 861-1111, ext. 585
Honorable Aaron Ment, Chief Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Connecticut, 231 Capitol Avenue, Drawer N, Station A, Hartford, CT
06106, (860) 566-4461
Mr. Lawrence P. Webster, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts,
Carvel State Office Building, 820 N. French Street, Wilmington, DE
19801, (302) 577-2480
Mr. Ulysses Hammond, Executive Officer, Courts of the District of
Columbia, 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 879-
1700
Mr. Kenneth Palmer, State Courts Administrator, Florida State Courts
System, Supreme Court Building, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900, (904) 922-
5081
Mr. Hulett Askew, Interim Director, Administrative Office of the
Georgia Courts, The Judicial Council of Georgia, 244 Washington Street,
S.W., Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30334-5900, (404) 656-5171
Daniel J. Tydingco, Administrative Director, Superior Court of Guam,
Judiciary Building, 120 West O'Brien Drive, Agana, Guam 96910, 011
(671) 475-3544
Mr. Michael F. Broderick, Administrative Director of the Courts, 417 S.
King Street, Room 206, Honolulu, HI 96813, (808) 539-4900
Ms. Patricia Tobias, Administrative Director of the Courts, Idaho
Supreme Court, 451 West State Street, Boise, ID 83720-0101, (208) 334-
2246
Honorable Joseph A. Schillaci, Administrative Director of the Courts,
222 N. LaSalle Street, 13th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, (312) 793-8191
Ms. Lilia G. Judson, Executive Director, Supreme Court of Indiana, 115
W. Washington, Suite 1080, Indianapolis, IN 46204-3417, (317) 232-2542
Mr. William J. O'Brien, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Iowa, State House, Des Moines, IA 50319, (515) 281-5241
Dr. Howard P. Schwartz, Judicial Administrator, Kansas Judicial Center,
301 West 10th Street, Topeka, KS 66612, (913) 296-4873
Mr. Paul F. Isaacs, Administrative Director, Administrative Office of
the Courts, 100 Mill Creek Park, Frankfort, KY 40601-9230, (502) 573-
2350
Dr. Hugh M. Collins, Judicial Administrator, Supreme Court of
Louisiana, 301 Loyola Avenue, Room 109, New Orleans, LA 70112, (504)
568-5747
Mr. James T. Glessner, State Court Administrator, Administrative Office
of the Courts, P.O. Box 4820, Downtown Station Portland, ME 04112-4820,
(207) 822-0792
Mr. George B. Riggin, Jr., State Court Administrator, Administrative
Office of the Courts, Courts of Appeal Bldg., 361 Rowe Boulevard,
Annapolis, MD 21401, (410) 974-2141
Honorable John J. Irwin, Jr., Chief Justice for Administration and
Management, The Trial Court, Administrative Office of the Trial Court,
Two Center Plaza, Suite 540, Boston, MA 02108, (617) 742-8575
Mr. John D. Ferry, Jr., State Court Administrator, Michigan Supreme
Court, 309 N. Washington Square, P.O. Box 30048, Lansing, MI 48909,
(517) 373-0130
Ms. Sue K. Dosal, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Minnesota, 25 Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155, (617) 296-2474
Mr. Richard Patt, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts,
Supreme Court of Mississippi, P.O. Box 117, Jackson, MS 39205, (601)
354-7408
Mr. Ron Larkin, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Missouri,
P.O. Box 104480, Jefferson City, MO 65110, (314) 751-3585
Mr. Patrick A. Chenovick, State Court Administrator, Montana Supreme
Court, Justice Building, Room 315, 215 North Sanders, Helena, MT 59620-
3001, (406) 444-2621
Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Nebraska, State Capitol Building, Room 1220, Lincoln, NE 68509, (404)
471-3730
Ms. Georgia J. Rohrs, Court Administrator, Administrative Office of the
Courts, Capitol Complex, Carson City, NV 89710, (702) 687-5076
Mr. Donald Goodnow, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of New
Hampshire, Frank Rowe Kenison Building, Concord, NH 03301, (603) 271-
2521
Mr. James J. Ciancia, Administrative Director, Administrative Office of
the Courts, CN-037, RJH Justice Complex, Trenton, NJ 08625, (609) 984-
0275
Honorable Jonathan Lippman, Chief Administrative Judge, Office of Court
Administration, 270 Broadway, New York, NY 10007, (212) 417-2007
Mr. John M. Greacen, State Court Administrator, Administrative Office
of the Courts, Supreme Court of New Mexico, Supreme Court Building,,
Room 25, Sante Fe, NM 87503, (505) 827-4800
Mr. Dallas A. Cameron, Jr., Administrative Director, Administrative
Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 2448, Raleigh, NC 27602, (919) 733-7107
Mr. Keithe E. Nelson, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of North
Dakota, State Capitol Building, Bismarck, ND 58505, (701) 328-4216
Mr. Stephan W. Stover, Administrative Director of the Courts, Supreme
Court of Ohio, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH
43266-0419, (614) 466-2653
[[Page 46320]]
Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Administrative Director, Administrative Office
of the Courts, 1925 N. Stiles, Suite 305, Oklahoma City, OK 73105,
(405) 521-2450
Ms. Kingsley Click, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Oregon,
Supreme Court Building, Salem, OR 97310, (503) 986-5900
Ms. Nancy M. Sobolevitch, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania, 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414, Philadelphia, PA 19102,
(215) 560-6337
Dr. Robert C. Harrall, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, RI 02903, (401) 277-3263
Ms. Mary Schroeder, Interim Director, South Carolina Court,
Administration, P.O. Box 50447, Columbia, SC 29250, (803) 734-1800
Mr. Michael L. Buenger, State Court Administrator, Unified Judicial
System, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501, (605) 773-3474
Mr. Charles E. Ferrell, Administrative Director of the Courts,
Nashville City Center, Suite 600, 511 Union Street, Nashville, TN
37243-0607, (615) 741-2687
Mr. Jerry L. Benedict, Administrative Director, Office of Court
Administration of the Texas Judicial System, 205 West 14th Street,
Suite 600 Austin, TX 78701, (512) 463-1625
Mr. Daniel Becker, State Court Administrator, Administrative Office of
the Courts, 230 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84102, (801) 578-
3800
Mr. Lee Suskin, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Vermont, 109
State Street, Montpelier, VT 05602, (802) 828-3278
Ms. Viola E. Smith, Clerk of the Court/ Administrator, Territorial
Court of the Virgin Islands, P.O. Box 70, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas,
Virgin Islands 00801, (809) 774-6680, ext. 248
Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of Virginia,
100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786-6455
Ms. Mary C. McQueen, Administrator for the Courts, Supreme Court of
Washington, P.O. Box 41174, Olympia, WA 98504, (360) 357-2121
Mr. Ted J. Philyaw, Administrative Director of the Courts, E-400, State
Capitol Bldg., 1900 Kanawha Blvd., East, Charleston, WV 25305, (304)
558-0145
Mr. J. Denis Moran, Director of State Courts, P.O. Box 1688, Madison,
WI 53701-1688, (608) 266-6828
Ms. Nancy E. Rutledge, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Wyoming,
Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, WY 82002, (307) 777-7480
Appendix II--SJI Libraries Designated Sites and Contacts
Alabama
Supreme Court Library
Mr. Timothy A. Lewis, State Law Librarian, Alabama Supreme Court Bldg.,
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36104, (334) 242-4347
Alaska
Anchorage Law Library
Ms. Cynthia S. Fellows, State Law Librarian, Alaska State Court Law
Library, 820 W. Fourth Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501, (907) 264-0583
Arizona
State Law Library
Ms. Gladys Ann Wells, Collection Development, Research Division,
Arizona Dept. of Library, Archives and Public Records, State Law
Library, 1501 W. Washington, Phoenix, AZ 85007, (602) 542-4035
Arkansas
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, Supreme Court of Arkansas,
Administrative Office of the Courts, Justice Building, 625 Marshall,
Little Rock, AR 72201-1078, (501) 682-9400
California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court Administrator, Administrative
Office of the Courts, 303 Second Street, South Tower, San Francisco, CA
94107, (415) 396-9100
Colorado
Supreme Court Library
Ms. Lois Calvert, Supreme Court Law Librarian, Colorado State Judicial
Building, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, (303) 837-3720
Connecticut
State Library
Ms. Denise D. Jernigan, Head, Law/Legislative, Reference Unit,
Connecticut State Library, Hartford, CT 06106, (860) 566-2516
Delaware
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. Michael E. McLaughlin, Deputy Director, Administrative Office of
the Courts, Carvel State Office Building, 820 North French Street, 11th
Floor, P.O. Box 8911, Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 577-8481
District of Columbia
Executive Office, District of Columbia Courts
Mr. Ulysses Hammond, Executive Officer, District of Columbia Courts,
500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 879-1700
Florida
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. Kenneth Palmer, State Court Administrator, Florida State Courts
System, Supreme Court Building, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900, (904) 488-
8621
Georgia
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. Hulett H. Askew, Interim Director, AOC, The Judicial Council of
Georgia, 244 Washington St., S.W., Suite 550, Atlanta, GA 30334-5900,
(404) 656-5171
Hawaii
Supreme Court Library
Ms. Ann Koto, State Law Librarian, The Supreme Court Law Library 417
South King St., Room 119, Honolulu, HI 96813, (808) 539-4965
Idaho
AOC Judicial Education Library /
State Law Library
Ms. Beth Peterson, State Law Librarian, Idaho State Law Library,
Supreme Court Building, 451 West State St., Boise, ID 83720, (208) 334-
3316
Illinois
Supreme Court Library
Ms. Brenda Larison, Supreme Court of Illinois Library, 200 East Capitol
Avenue, Springfield, IL 62701-1791, (217) 782-2425
Indiana
Supreme Court Library
Dennis Lager, Supreme Court Librarian, Supreme Court Library, State
House, Room 316, Indianapolis, IN 46204, (317) 232-2557
Iowa
Administrative Office of the Court
Dr. Jerry K. Beatty, Executive Director, Judicial, Education &
Planning, Administrative Office of the Courts, State Capital Building,
Des Moines, IA 50319, (515) 281-8279
[[Page 46321]]
Kansas
Supreme Court Library
Mr. Fred Knecht, Law Librarian, Kansas Supreme Court Library, 301 West
10th Street, Topeka, KS 66612, (913) 296-3257
Kentucky
State Law Library
Ms. Sallie Howard, State Law Librarian, State Law Library, State
Capital, Room 200, Frankfort, KY 40601, (502) 564-4848
Louisiana
State Law Library
Ms. Carol Billings, Director, Louisiana Law Library, 301 Loyola Avenue,
New Orleans, LA 70112, (504) 568-5705
Maine
State Law and Legislative Reference Library
Ms. Lynn E. Randall, State Law Librarian, 43 State House Station,
Augusta, ME 04333, (207) 287-1600
Maryland
State Law Library
Mr. Michael S. Miller, Director, Maryland State Law Library, Court of
Appeal Building, 361 Rowe Boulevard, Annapolis, MD 21401, (410) 260-
1430
Massachusetts
Middlesex Law Library
Ms. Sandra Lindheimer, Librarian, Middlesex Law Library, Superior Court
House, 40 Thorndike Street, Cambridge, MA 02141, (617) 494-4148
Michigan
Michigan Judicial Institute
Mr. Kevin Bowling, Director, Michigan Judicial Institute, 222
Washington Square North, P.O. Box 30205, Lansing, MI 48909, (517) 334-
7804
Minnesota
State Law Library (Minnesota Judicial Center)
Mr. Marvin R. Anderson, State Law Librarian, Supreme Court of
Minnesota, 25 Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155, (612) 297-2084
Mississippi
Mississippi Judicial College
Mr. Leslie Johnson, Director, University of Mississippi, P.O. Box 8850,
University, MS 38677, (601) 232-5955
Montana
State Law Library
Ms. Judith Meadows, State Law Librarian, State Law Library of Montana,
215 North Sanders, Helena, MT 59620, (406) 444-3660
Nebraska
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Nebraska, Administrative Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 98910, Lincoln,
NE 68509-8910, (402) 471-3730
Nevada
National Judicial College
Honorable V. Robert Payant, President, National Judicial College,
Judicial College Building, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89550, (702)
784-6747
New Jersey
New Jersey State Library
Marjorie Garwig, Supervising Law Librarian, New Jersey State Law
Library, 185 West State Street, P.O. Box 520, Trenton, NJ 08625-0250,
(609) 292-6230
New Mexico
Supreme Court Library
Mr. Thaddeus Bejnar, Librarian, Supreme Court Library, Post Office
Drawer L, Santa Fe, NM 87504, (505) 827-4850
New York
Supreme Court Library
Ms. Colleen Stella, Principal Law Librarian, New York State Supreme
Court Law Library, Onondaga County Court House, 401 Montgomery Street,
Syracuse, NY 13202, (315) 435-2063
North Carolina
Supreme Court Library
Ms. Louise Stafford, Librarian, North Carolina Supreme Court Library,
P.O. Box 28006, 2 East Morgan Street, Raleigh, NC 27601, (919) 733-3425
North Dakota
Supreme Court Library
Ms. Marcella Kramer, Assistant Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law
Library, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Dept. 182, 2nd Floor, Judicial
Wing, Bismarck, ND 58505-0540, (701) 328-2229
Northern Mariana Islands
Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands
Honorable Marty W.K. Taylor, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the
Northern Mariana Islands, P.O. Box 2165, Saipan, MP 96950, (670) 234-
5275
Ohio
Supreme Court Library
Mr. Paul S. Fu, Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law Library, Supreme Court
of Ohio, 30 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43266-0419, (614) 466-2044
Oklahoma
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts,
1915 North Stiles, Suite 305, Oklahoma City, OK 73105, (405) 521-2450
Oregon
Administrative Office of the Courts
Ms. Kingsley Click, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Oregon,
Supreme Court Building, 1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97310, (503) 378-
6046
Pennsylvania
State Library of Pennsylvania
Ms. Sharon Anderson, Collection Management Section, State Library of
Pennsylvania, P.O. Box 1601, G48 Forum Building, Harrisburg, PA 17105-
1601, (717) 787-5718
Puerto Rico
Office of Court Administration
Alfredo Rivera-Mendoza, Esq., Director, Area of Planning and
Management, Office of Court Administration, P.O. Box 917, Hato Rey, R
00919
Rhode Island
Roger Williams Law School Library
Mr. Kendall Svengalis, Law Librarian, Licht Judicial Complex, 250
Benefit Street, Providence, RI, (401) 254-4546
South Carolina
Coleman Karesh Law Library (University of South Carolina School of Law)
Mr. Bruce S. Johnson, Law Librarian, Associate Professor of Law,
Coleman Karesh Law Library, U. S. C. Law Center, University of South
Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, (803) 777-5944
[[Page 46322]]
Tennessee
Tennessee State Law Library
Administrative Office of the Courts, State of Tennessee, 511 Union,
Nashville, TN 37243-0607, (615) 741-2687
Texas
State Law Library
Ms. Kay Schleuter, Director, State Law Library, P.O. Box 12367, Austin,
TX 78711, (512) 463-1722
U.S. Virgin Islands
Library of the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands (St. Thomas)
Librarian, The Library, Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands, Post
Office Box 70, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00804
Utah
Utah State Judicial Administration Library
Ms. Debbie Christiansen, Utah State Judicial Administration Library,
AOC, 450 South State, P.O. Box 140241, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0241,
(801) 533-6371
Vermont
Supreme Court of Vermont
Mr. Lee Suskin, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Vermont, 109
State Street, c/o Pavilion Office Building, Montpelier, VT 05609, (802)
828-3278
Virginia
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of Virginia,
Administrative Offices, 100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor, Richmond, VA
23219, (804) 786-6455
Washington
Washington State Law Library
Ms. Deborah Norwood, State Law Librarian, Washington State Law Library,
Temple of Justice, P.O. Box 40751, Olympia, WA 98504-0751, (206) 357-
2136
West Virginia
Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. Richard H. Rosswurm, Chief Deputy, West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals, State Capitol, 1900 Kanawha, Charleston, WV 25305, (304) 348-
0145
Wisconsin
State Law Library
Ms. Marcia Koslov, State Law Librarian, State Law Library, 310E State
Capitol, P.O. Box 7881, Madison, WI 53707, (608) 266-1424
Wyoming
Wyoming State Law Library
Ms. Kathy Carlson, Law Librarian, Wyoming State Law Library, Supreme
Court Building, 2301 Capitol Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82002, (307) 777-7509
National
American Judicature Society
Ms. Clara Wells, Assistant for Information and Library, Services, 25
East Washington Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60602, (312) 558-6900
National Center for State Courts
Ms. Peggy Rogers, Acquisitions/Serials Librarian, 300 Newport Avenue,
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798, (804) 253-2000
JERITT
Ms. Jennae Rozeboom, Project Director, Judicial Education Reference,
Information and Technical Transfer Project (JERITT), Michigan State
University, 560 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, (517) 353-8603
Appendix III--Illustrative List of Model Curricula
The following list includes examples of curricula that have been
developed with support from SJI, that might be--or in some cases have
been--successfully adapted for State-based education programs for
judges and other court personnel. Please refer to Section II.B.2.b.ii.
for information on submitting a letter application for a Curriculum
Adaptation Grant. A list of all SJI-supported education projects is
available from the Institute, and on the SJI website--www.clark.net/
pub/sji. Please also check with the JERITT project (517/353-8603) and
with your State SJI-designated library (see Appendix II) for
information on other SJI-supported curricula that may be appropriate
for your State's needs.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Judicial Settlement Manual (National Judicial College: SJI-89-089)
Improving the Quality of Dispute Resolution (Ohio State University
College of Law: SJI-93-277)
Comprehensive ADR Curriculum for Judges (American Bar Association: SJI-
95-002)
Domestic Violence and Custody Mediation (American Bar Association: SJI-
96-038)
Court Coordination
Adjudication of Farm Credit Issues (Rural Justice Center: SJI-87-059)
Bankruptcy Issues for State Trial Court Judges (American Bankruptcy
Institute: SJI-91-027)
Intermediate Sanctions Handbook: Experiences and Tools for Policymakers
(Center for Effective Public Policy: IAA-88-NIC-001)
Regional Conference Cookbook: A Practical Guide to Planning and
Presenting a Regional Conference on State-Federal Judicial
Relationships (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit: SJI-92-087)
Bankruptcy Issues and Domestic Relations Cases (American Bankruptcy
Institute: SJI-96-175)
Court Management
Managing Trials Effectively: A Program for State Trial Judges (National
Center for State Courts/National Judicial College: SJI-87-066/067, SJI-
89-054/055, SJI-91-025/026)
Caseflow Management Principles and Practices (Institute for Court
Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI-87-056)
Judicial Education Curriculum: Teaching Guides on Court Security, and
Jury Management and Impanelment (Institute for Court Management/
National Center for State Courts: SJI-88-053)
A Manual for Workshops on Processing Felony Dispositions in Limited
Jurisdiction Courts (National Center for State Courts: SJI-90-052)
Managerial Budgeting in the Courts; Performance Appraisal in the
Courts; Managing Change in the Courts; Court Automation Design; Case
Management for Trial Judges; Trial Court Performance Standards
(Institute for Court Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI-
91-043)
Implementing the Court-Related Needs of Older Persons and Persons with
Disabilities (National Judicial College: SJI-91-054)
Strengthening Rural Courts of Limited Jurisdiction and Team Training
for Judges and Clerks (Rural Justice Center: SJI-90-014, SJI-91-082)
Interbranch Relations Workshop (Ohio Judicial Conference: SJI-92-079)
Integrating Trial Management and Caseflow Management (Justice
Management Institute: SJI-93-214)
Leading Organizational Change (California Administrative Office of the
Courts: SJI-94-068)
[[Page 46323]]
Privacy Issues in Computerized Court Record Keeping: An Instructional
Guide for Judges and Judicial Educators (National Judicial College:
SJI-94-015)
Managing Mass Tort Cases (National Judicial College: SJI-94-141)
Employment Responsibilities of State Court Judges (National Judicial
College: SJI-95-025)
Dealing with the Common Law Courts: A Model Curriculum for Judges and
Court Staff (Institute for Court Management/National Center for State
Courts: SJI-96-159)
Courts and Communities
A National Program for Reporting on the Courts and the Law (American
Judicature Society: SJI-88-014)
Victim Rights and the Judiciary: A Training and Implementation Project
(National ``Organization for Victim Assistance: SJI-89-083)
National Guardianship Monitoring Project: Trainer and Trainee's Manual
(American Association of Retired Persons: SJI-91-013)
Access to Justice: The Impartial Jury and the Justice System and When
Implementing the Court-Related Needs of Older People and Persons with
Disabilities: An Instructional Guide (National Judicial College: SJI-
91-054)
You Are the Court System: A Focus on Customer Service (Alaska Court
System: SJI-94-048)
Serving the Public: A Curriculum for Court Employees (American
Judicature Society: SJI-96-040)
Courts and Their Communities: Local Planning and the Renewal of Public
Trust and Confidence: A California Statewide Conference (California
Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI-98-008)
Criminal Process
Search Warrants: A Curriculum Guide for Magistrates (American Bar
Association Criminal Justice Section: SJI-88-035)
Diversity, Values, and Attitudes
Troubled Families, Troubled Judges (Brandeis University: SJI-89-071)
The Crucial Nature of Attitudes and Values in Judicial Education
(National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-90-058)
Enhancing Diversity in the Court and Community (Institute for Court
Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI-91-043)
Cultural Diversity Awareness in Nebraska Courts from Native American
Alternatives to Incarceration Project (Nebraska Urban Indian Health
Coalition: SJI-93-028)
A Videotape Training Program in Ethics and Professional Conduct for
Nonjudicial Court Personnel and The Ethics Fieldbook: Tool For Trainers
(American Judicature Society: SJI-93-068)
Court Interpreter Training Course for Spanish Interpreters
(International Institute of Buffalo: SJI-93-075)
Doing Justice: Improving Equality Before the Law Through Literature-
Based Seminars for Judges and Court Personnel (Brandeis University:
SJI-94-019)
Race Fairness and Cultural Awareness Faculty Development Workshop
(National Judicial College: SJI-93-063)
Indian Welfare Act; Defendants, Victims, and Witnesses with Mental
Retardation (National Judicial College: SJI-94-142)
Multi-Cultural Training for Judges and Court Personnel (St. Petersburg
Junior College: SJI-95-006)
Ethical Standards for Judicial Settlement: Developing a Judicial
Education Module (American Judicature Society: SJI-95-082)
Code of Ethics for the Court Employees of California (California
Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI 95-245)
Workplace Sexual Harassment Awareness and Prevention (California
Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI 96-089)
Just Us On Justice: A Dialogue on Diversity Issues Facing Virginia
Courts (Virginia Supreme Court: SJI-96-150)
When Bias Compounds: Insuring Equal Treatment for Women of Color in the
Courts (National Judicial Education Program: SJI 96-161)
When Judges Speak Up: Ethics, the Public, and the Media (American
Judicature Society: SJI-96-152)
Family Violence and Gender-Related Violence Crime
National Judicial Response to Domestic Violence: Civil and Criminal
Curricula (Family Violence Prevention Fund: SJI-87-061, SJI-89-070,
SJI-91-055).
``Domestic Violence: A Curriculum for Rural Courts'' from A Project to
Improve Access to Rural Courts for Victims of Domestic Violence (Rural
Justice Center: SJI-88-081)
``Judicial Training Materials on Spousal Support''; ``Judicial Training
Materials on Child Custody and Visitation'' from Enhancing Gender
Fairness in the State Courts (Women Judges' Fund for Justice: SJI-89-
062)
Judicial Response to Stranger and Nonstranger Rape and Sexual Assault
(National Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality for Women and
Men: SJI-92-003)
Domestic Violence & Children: Resolving Custody and Visitation Disputes
(Family Violence Prevention Fund: SJI-93-255)
Adjudicating Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse When Custody Is In
Dispute (National Judicial Education Program: SJI 95-019)
Handling Cases of Elder Abuse: Interdisciplinary Curricula for Judges
and Court Staff (American Bar Association: SJI-93-274)
Health and Science
Medicine, Ethics, and the Law: Preconception to Birth (Women Judges
Fund for Justice: SJI-89-062, SJI-91-019)
``Judicial Educator's Workshop Curriculum Guide: Implementing Medical
Legal Training'' from Medical Legal Issues in Juvenile and Family
Courts (National Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-91-
091)
Environmental Law Resource Handbook (University of New Mexico Institute
for Public Law: SJI-92-162)
Judicial Education For Appellate Court Judges
Career Writing Program for Appellate Judges (American Academy of
Judicial Education: SJI-88-086-P92-1)
Civil and Criminal Procedural Innovations for Appellate Courts
(National Center for State Courts: SJI-94-002)
Judicial Education Faculty, and Program Development
The Leadership Institute in Judicial Education and The Advanced
Leadership Institute in Judicial Education (University of Memphis: SJI-
91-021)
``Faculty Development Instructional Program'' from Curriculum Review
(National Judicial College: SJI-91-039)
Resource Manual and Training for Judicial Education Mentors (National
Association of State Judicial Educators: SJI-95-233)
Institute for Faculty Excellence in Judicial Education, (National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-96-042)
Orientation and Mentoring of Judges and Court Personnel
Manual for Judicial Writing Workshop for Trial Judges (University of
Georgia/Colorado Judicial Department: SJI-87-018/019)
[[Page 46324]]
Legal Institute for Special and Limited Jurisdiction Judges (National
Judicial College: SJI-89-043, SJI-91-040)
Pre-Bench Training for New Judges (American Judicature Society: SJI-90-
028)
A Unified Orientation and Mentoring Program for New Judges of All
Arizona Trial Courts (Arizona Supreme Court: SJI-90-078)
Court Organization and Structure (Institute for Court Management/
National Center for State Courts: SJI-91-043)
Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Decisions (National Judicial
College: SJI-91-080)
New Employee Orientation Facilitators Guide (Minnesota Supreme Court:
SJI-92-155)
Magistrates Correspondence Course (Alaska Court System: SJI-92-156)
Computer-Assisted Instruction for Court Employees (Utah Administrative
Office of the Courts: SJI-94-012)
Bench Trial Skills and Demeanor: An Interactive Manual (National
Judicial College: SJI 94-058)
Ethical Issues in the Election of Judges (National Judicial College:
SJI-94-142)
Juveniles and Families in Court
Innovative Juvenile and Family Court Training (Youth Law Center: SJI-
87-060, SJI-89-039)
Fundamental Skills Training Curriculum for Juvenile Probation Officers
(National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-90-017)
Child Support Across State Lines: The Uniform Interstate Family Support
Act from Uniform Interstate Family Support Act: Development and
Delivery of a Judicial Training Curriculum (ABA Center on Children and
the Law: SJI 94-321)
Strategic and Futures Planning
Minding the Courts into the Twentieth Century (Michigan Judicial
Institute: SJI-89-029)
An Approach to Long-Range Strategic Planning in the Courts (Center for
Public Policy Studies: SJI-91-045)
Substance Abuse
Effective Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders: A Review & Synthesis
for Judges and Court Personnel (Education Development Center, Inc.:
SJI-90-051)
Good Times, Bad Times: Drugs, Youth, and the Judiciary (Professional
Development and Training Center, Inc.: SJI-91-095)
Gaining Momentum: A Model Curriculum for Drug Courts (Florida Office of
the State Courts Administrator: SJI-94-291)
Judicial Response to Substance Abuse: Children, Adolescents, and
Families (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-95-
030)
Appendix IV--Illustrative List of Replicable Projects
The following list includes examples of projects undertaken with
support from SJI that might be--or in some cases have been--
successfully adapted and replicated in other jurisdictions. Please see
Section II.C.1. for information on submitting a concept paper
requesting a grant to replicate one of these or another SJI-supported
project. A list of all SJI-supported projects is available from the
Institute and on the Institute's website--www.clark.net/pub/sji.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Computerized Citizen Intake and Referral Service, Grantee: District of
Columbia Courts, Contact: Charles Bethell, 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20001, (202) 879-1479, Grant No: SJI-93-211
Application of Technology
File Transfer Technology Application in Use of Court Information,
Grantee: South Carolina Bar, Contact: Yvonne Visser, 950 Taylor Street,
P.O. Box 608, Columbia, SC 29202-0608, (803) 799-6653, Grant Nos: SJI-
91-088; SJI-91-088-P93-1; SJI-91-088-P94-1
Managing Documents with Imaging Technology, Grantee: Alaska Judicial
Council, Contact: William T. Cotton, 1029 W. Third Avenue, Suite 201,
Anchorage, AK 99501-1917, (907) 279-2526, Grant No: SJI-92-083
Automated Teller Machines for Juror Payment, Grantee: District of
Columbia Courts, Contact: Philip Braxton, 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20001, (202) 879-1700, Grant No: SJI-92-139
Analytical Judicial Desktop, Grantee: Fund for the City of New York,
Contact: Michele Sviridoff, Mid-Town Community Court, 314 W. 54th
Street, New York, New York 10019, (212) 484-2721, Grant No: SJI-94-323
Children and Families in Court
A Day in Court: A Child's Perspective, Grantee: Massachusetts Trial
Court, Contact: Hon. John Irwin, 2 Center Plaza, Boston, MA 02108,
(617) 742-8575, Grant No: SJI-91-079
Parent Education and Custody Effectiveness (PEACE) Program, Grantee:
Hofstra University, Contact: Andrew Shephard, 1000 Fulton Avenue,
Hampstead, NY 11550-1090, (516) 463-5890, Grant No: SJI-93-265
A Judge's Guide to Culturally Competent Responses to Latino Family
Violence, Grantee: Center for Public Policy Studies, Contacts: Stephen
Weller, John Martin, 999 18th Street, Suite 900, Denver, Colorado
80202, Grant No: SJI-96-230
Court Management, Coordination and Planning
Tribal Court-State Court Forums: A How To-Do-It Guide to Prevent and
Resolve Jurisdictional Disputes and Improve Cooperation Between Tribal
and State Courts, Grantee: National Center for State Courts, Contact:
Frederick Miller, 1331 17th Street, Suite 402, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1554, (303) 293-3063, Grant No: SJI-91-011
Measurement of Trial Court Performance, Grantee: Washington
Administrative Office for the Courts, Contact: Yvonne Pettus, 1206 S.
Quince Street, Olympia, WA 98504, (360) 357-2121, Grant No: SJI-91-017;
SJI-91-017-P92-1
Measurement of Trial Court Performance, Grantee: New Jersey
Administrative Office of the Courts, Contact: Theodore J. Fetter, CN-
037, RJH Justice Complex, Trenton, NJ 08625, (609) 984-0275, Grant No:
SJI-91-023; SJI-91-023-P93-1
Measurement of Trial Court Performance, Grantee: Ohio Supreme Court,
Contact: Stephan W. Stover, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street,
Columbus, OH 43266-0419, (614) 466-2653, Grant No: SJI-91-024; SJI-91-
024-P93-1
Measurement of Trial Court Performance, Grantee: Supreme Court of
Virginia, Contact: Beatrice Monahan, 100 North Ninth Street, Third
Floor, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786-6455, Grant No: SJI-91-042; SJI-
91-042-P93-1
Probate Caseflow Management Project, Grantee: Ohio Supreme Court/
Trumball County Probate Court, Contact: Susan Lightbody, 160 High
Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44481, (216) 675-2566, Grant No: SJI-92-081;
SJI-92-081-P94-1; SJI-92-081-P95-1
Implementing Quality Methods in Court Operations, Grantee: Oregon
Supreme Court, Contact: Scott Crampton, Supreme Court Building, Salem,
OR 97310, (503) 378-5845, Grant No: SJI-92-170
Applying TQM Concepts to Systemwide Problems of the Maine Judicial
Branch, Grantee: Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Contact: James T.
Glessner, P.O. Box 4820, Portland, Maine 04101, (207) 822-0792, Grant
No: SJI-93-072
Arizona-Sonora Judicial Relations Project, Grantee: Arizona Supreme
Court, Contact: Dennis Metrick, 1501 W. Washington Street, Phoenix,
[[Page 46325]]
Arizona 85007-3327, (602) 542-4532, Grant No: SJI-93-202
Implementing Strategic Planning in the Trial Courts, Grantee: Center
for Public Policy Studies, Contact: David Price, 999 18th Street, Suite
900, Denver, CO 80202, (303) 863-0900, Grant No: SJI-94-021
Interstate Compacts and Cooperation in Guardianship Cases, Grantee:
National College of Probate Judges, Contact: Paula Hannaford, P.O. Box
8978, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8798, (757) 253-2000, Grant No: SJI-
97-241
Courts and Communities
AARP Volunteers: A Resource for Strengthening Guardianship Services,
Grantee: American Association of Retired Persons, Contact: Wayne Moore,
601 E Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20049, (202) 434-2165, Grant Nos:
SJI-88-033/SJI-91-013
Establishing a Consumer Research and Service Development Process Within
the Judicial System, Grantee: Supreme Court of Virginia, Contact:
Beatrice Monahan, Administrative Offices, Third Floor, 100 North Ninth
Street, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786-6455, Grant No: SJI-89-068
Housing Court Video Project, Grantee: Association of the Bar of the
City of New York, Contact: Marilyn Kneeland, 42 West 44th Street, New
York, NY 10036-6690, (212) 382-6620, Grant No: SJI-90-041
Tele-Court: A Michigan Judicial System Public Information Program,
Grantee: Michigan Supreme Court, Contact: Judy Bartell, State Court
Administrative Office, 611 West Ottawa Street, P.O. Box 30048, Lansing,
MI 48909, (517) 373-0130, Grant No: SJI-91-015
Arizona Pro Per Information System (QuickCourt), Grantee: Arizona
Supreme Court, Contact: Jeannie Lynch, Administrative Office of the
Court, 1501 West Washington Street, Suite 411, Phoenix, AZ 85007-3330,
(602) 542-9554, Grant No: SJI-91-084
Automated Public Information System, Grantee: California Administrative
Office of the Courts, Contact: Mark Greenia, Sacramento Superior and
Municipal Court, 303 Second Street, South Tower, San Francisco, CA
94107, (916) 440-7590, Grant No: SJI-91-093
Using Judges and Court Personnel to Facilitate Access to Courts by
Limited English Speakers, Grantee: Washington Office of the
Administrator for the Courts, Contact: Joanne Moore, 1206 South Quince
Street, P.O. Box 41170, Olympia, WA 98504-1170, (206) 753-3365, Grant
No: SJI-92-147
Pro se Forms and Instructions Packets, Grantee: Michigan Supreme Court,
Contact: Pamela Creighton, 611 W. Ottawa Street, Lansing, MI 48909,
Grant No: SJI-94-003
Understanding the Judicial Process: A Curriculum and Community Service
Program, Grantee: Drake University, Contact: Timothy Buzzell, Opperman
Hall, Des Moines, IA 50311, (515) 271-3205, Grant No: SJI-94-022
Court Self-Service Center, Grantee: Maricopa County Superior Court,
Contact: Bob James, 201 W. Jefferson, 4th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003,
(602) 506-6314, Grant No: SJI-94-324
Computer-Based Interpreter Test Delivery System, Grantee: Maryland
Administrative Office of the Courts, Contact: Elizabeth Veronis, 361
Rowe Boulevard, Annapolis, Maryland 21401, (410) 974-2141, Grant No:
SJI-96-164
Public Opinion and the Courts, Grantee: New Mexico Administrative
Office of the Courts, Contact: John M. Greacen, 237 Don Gaspar, Room
25, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-2178, (505) 827-4800, Grant No: SJI-97-
026
Sentencing
Court Probation Enhancement Through Community Involvement, Grantee:
Volunteers in Prevention, Probation and Prisons, Inc., Contact: Gerald
Dash, 163 Madison, Suite 120, Detroit, MI 48226, (313) 964-1110, Grant
No: SJI-91-073
Facilitating the Appropriate Use of Intermediate Sanctions, Grantee:
Center for Effective Public Policy, Contact: Peggy McGarry, 8403
Colesville Road, Suite 720, (301) 589-9383, Grant No: SJI-95-078
Substance Abuse
Alabama Alcohol and Drug Abuse Court Referral Officer Program, Grantee:
Alabama Administrative Office of the Courts, Contact: Angelo Trimble,
817 South Court Street, Montgomery, AL 36130-0101, (334) 834-7990,
Grant Nos: SJI-88-030/SJI-89-080/SJI-90-005
Substance Abuse Assessment and Intervention to Reduce Driving Under the
Influence of Alcohol Recidivism, Grantee: California Administrative
Office of the Courts c/o El Cajon Municipal Court, Contact: Fred Lear,
250 E. Main Street, El Cajon, CA 92020, (619) 441-4336, Grant No: SJI-
88-029/SJI-90-008
Court Referral Officer Program, Grantee: New Hampshire Supreme Court,
Contact: Jim Kelley, Supreme Court Building, Concord, NH 03301, (603)
271-2521, Grant No: SJI-92-142
Appendix V-- State Justice Institute
(Form S1)
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, train fare, or if you plan to drive)
Amount Requested: $----------------------------------------------------
Are you seeking/have you received a scholarship for this course
from another source?
__ Yes __ No. If so, please specify the source(s) and amounts(s)
______.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Please attach a current resume or
professional summary, and provide the information requested below.
(You may attach additional pages if necessary.)
1. Please describe your need to acquire the skills and knowledge
taught in this course.
2. Please describe how will taking this course benefit you, your
court, and the State's courts generally.
3. Is there an educational program currently available through
your State on this topic?
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?
{time} 0-1 year {time} 2-4 years {time} 5-7 years {time}
8-10 years {time} 11+ years
7. What continuing professional education programs have you
attended in the past year? Please indicate which were mandatory (M)
and which were non-mandatory (V).
Statement of Applicant's Commitment
If a scholarship is awarded, I will share the skills and
knowledge I have gained with my
[[Page 46326]]
court colleagues locally, and if possible, Statewide, and 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: Scholarship
Coordinator, State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600,
Alexandria Virginia 22314
(Form S2)
STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE
SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION
CONCURRENCE
I,---------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Chief Justice (or Chief Justice's Designee)
have reviewed the application for a scholarship to attend the
program entitled ____________,
prepared by------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Applicant
and concur in its submission to the State Justice Institute. The
applicant's participation in the program would benefit the State;
the applicant's absence to attend the program would not present an
undue hardship to the court; public funds are not available to
enable the applicant to attend this course; and receipt of a
scholarship would not diminish the amount of funds made available by
the State for judicial branch education.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Appendix VI.--Line-Item Budget Form
[For Concept Papers, Curriculum Adaptation & Technical Assistance Grant Requests]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category SJI funds Cash match In-kind match
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel....................................................... $____________ $____________ $____________
Fringe Benefits................................................. $____________ $____________ $____________
Consultant/Contractual.......................................... $____________ $____________ $____________
Travel.......................................................... $____________ $____________ $____________
Equipment....................................................... $____________ $____________ $____________
Supplies........................................................ $____________ $____________ $____________
Telephone....................................................... $____________ $____________ $____________
Postage......................................................... $____________ $____________ $____________
Printing/Photocopying........................................... $____________ $____________ $____________
Audit........................................................... $____________ $____________ $____________
Other........................................................... $____________ $____________ $____________
Indirect Costs (%).............................................. $____________ $____________ $____________
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... $____________ $____________ $____________
-----------------------------------------------
Project Total...............................................
(2)$____________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial assistance has been or will be sought for this project from the following other sources:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Concept papers requesting an acccelerated award, Curriculum Adaptation grant requests, and Technical
Assistance grant requests should be accompanied by a budget narrative explaining the basis for each line-item
listed in the proposed budget.
Form B (Instructions on Reverse Side)
Appendix VII--State Justice Institute
Certificate of State Approval
The __________ (Name of State Supreme Court or Designated Agency or
Council) has reviewed the application entitled ________________
prepared by ________________ (Name of Applicant), approves its
submission to the State Justice Institute, and-------------------------
[ ] agrees to receive and administer and be accountable for all
funds awarded by the Institute pursuant to the application.
[ ] designates ________________ (Name of Trial or Appellate Court or
Agency) as the entity to receive, administer, and be accountable for
all funds awarded by the Institute pursuant to the application.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature
Name
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
[FR Doc. 98-23092 Filed 8-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-P
