[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 161 (Monday, August 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20319]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 22, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





State Justice Institute





_______________________________________________________________________




Grant Guideline; Notice
STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE

 
Grant Guideline

AGENCY: State Justice Institute.

ACTION: Proposed grant guideline.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Guideline sets forth the proposed administrative, 
programmatic, and financial requirements attendant to Fiscal Year 1995 
State Justice Institute grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The Institute invites public comment on the Guideline 
until September 21, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David I. Tevelin, Executive Director, 
or Richard Van Duizend, Deputy Director, State Justice Institute, 1650 
King St. (Suite 600), Alexandria, VA 22314, (703) 684-6100.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the State Justice Institute Act 
of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 10701, et seq., as amended, the Institute is 
authorized to award grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to 
State and local courts, nonprofit organizations, and others for the 
purpose of improving the administration of justice in the State courts 
of the United States. Approximately $11\1/2\ million is available for 
award in FY 1995.

Types of Grants Available and Funding Schedules

    The SJI grant program is designed to be responsive to the most 
pressing needs of the State courts. The Institute accordingly offers 
six different types of grants, each of which responds to an important 
need of the State judiciaries. The types of grants available in FY 1995 
and the funding cycles for each program are provided below:

Project Grants

    These grants are awarded to support education, research, 
demonstration and technical assistance projects to improve the 
administration of justice in the State courts. With limited exceptions 
(see sections II.B.2.b.i. and II.C.), project grants are intended to 
support innovative projects of national significance. As provided in 
chapter V. of the Guideline, project grants, with limited exceptions, 
may not exceed $200,000 a year. Applicants must ordinarily submit a 
concept paper (see chapter VI.) and an application (see chapter VII.) 
in order to obtain a project grant.
    As indicated in section VI.C., the Board may make an 
``accelerated'' project grant of less than $40,000 on the basis of the 
concept paper alone when the need for the project is clear and little 
additional information would be provided in an application.
    The FY 1995 mailing deadline for project grant concept papers is 
November 23, 1994. Papers must be postmarked or bear other evidence of 
submission by that date. With two exceptions noted immediately below, 
the FY 1995 funding cycle will be substantially similar to the FY 1994 
cycle: the Board will meet in early March, 1995 to invite formal 
applications based on the most promising concept papers; applications 
will be due in May; and awards will be approved by the Board in July.
    The first exception to this schedule pertains to proposals to 
follow up on the National Conference on Mass Tort Litigation to be in 
November, 1994. Applicants interested in participating in this special 
round of funding may submit concept papers proposing projects 
addressing the findings and recommendations of that conference by March 
10, 1995. The papers will be considered by the Board at its meeting in 
April, 1995. Invited applications will be reviewed at the Board's July, 
1995 meeting. See section II.B.2.l.
    The second exception is for projects to follow up on the National 
Conference on Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts to be held 
March 2-5, 1995. Concept papers for projects to implement the State 
action plans developed at the conference must be mailed by October 6, 
1995.

Package Grants

    This grant program permits applicants to submit one concept paper 
(or application) for a ``package'' of related grants rather than 
separate proposals for each related component of the package. Package 
grants of up to $750,000 per year may be awarded to support projects 
that address interrelated topics or the core elements of a multifaceted 
program, or that require the services of all or some of the same key 
staff persons. Package grants must enhance (not merely maintain) an 
applicant's services and must otherwise meet the Institute's grant 
criteria. The Board retains the discretion to support all, none, or 
selected portions of the proposed package. Package grant concept papers 
and applications will be considered on the same schedule as project 
grants. See sections III.J., V.C. and D., VI.A.2.b. and 3.b., VII.A.3., 
VII.C., and VII.D. for more information about package grants.

Technical Assistance Grants

    Under this program, a State or local court may receive a grant of 
up to $30,000 to engage outside experts to provide technical assistance 
to diagnose, develop, and implement a response to a jurisdiction's 
problems. The Guideline allocates up to $600,000 in FY 1995 funds to 
support technical assistance grants.

Curriculum Adaptation Grants

    A grant of up to $20,000 may be awarded to a State or local court 
to replicate or modify a model training program developed with SJI 
funds. The Guideline allocates up to $350,000 for these grants in FY 
1995, the same amount allocated in FY 1994. See section II.B.2.b.i.(b).
    Like Technical Assistance grant applications, letters requesting 
Curriculum Adaptation grants may be submitted at any time during the 
fiscal year. However, in order to permit the Institute sufficient time 
to evaluate these proposals, letters must be submitted no later than 90 
days before the projected date of the training program. See section 
II.B.2.b.i.(b).

Scholarships

    The Guideline allocates up to $250,000 of FY 1995 funds for 
scholarships to enable judges and court managers to attend out-of-State 
education and training programs. See section II.B.2.b.v.
    The Guideline establishes four deadlines for scholarship requests: 
November 1, 1994 for training programs beginning between February 1, 
1995 and April 30, 1995; February 1, 1995 for programs beginning 
between May 1, 1995 and July 31, 1995; May 1, 1995 for programs 
beginning between August 1, 1995 and October 31, 1995; and August 1, 
1995 for programs beginning between November 1, 1995 and January 31, 
1996.
    As in past years, the proposed Guideline provides that each 
scholarship application must be accompanied by a concurrence signed by 
the chief justice of the applicant's State. The purpose of this 
requirement has been to assure that: the applicant's participation in 
the program benefits the State; the applicant's absence to attend the 
program would not present an undue hardship to the court; and receipt 
of a scholarship would not diminish the amount of funds made available 
by the State for judicial education. Because this requirement has 
caused some confusion among applicants and there are variations among 
States in the manner in which the concurrence request is considered, 
the Institute is particularly interested in receiving comments 
regarding the benefits and drawbacks of continuing the concurrence 
requirement.

Renewal Grants

    There are two types of renewal grants available from SJI: 
Continuation grants (see sections III.H., V.C. and D., and IX.A.) and 
on-going support grants (see sections III.I., V.C. and D., and IX.B.). 
Continuation grants are intended to support limited duration projects 
that involve the same type of activities as the original project. On-
going support grants may be awarded for up to a three-year period to 
support national-scope projects that provide the State courts with 
critically needed services, programs, or products.
    The Guideline establishes a target for renewal grants of no more 
than $3 million, a little more than 25% of the total amount available 
for grants in FY 1995. See section IX. Grantees should accordingly be 
aware that the award of a grant to support a project does not 
constitute a commitment to provide either continuation funding or on-
going support.
    An applicant for a continuation or on-going support grant must 
submit a letter notifying the Institute of its intent to seek such 
funding, no later than 120 days before the end of the current grant 
period. The Institute will then notify the applicant of the deadline 
for its renewal grant application. See section IX.

Special Interest Categories

    The Guideline contains 12 Special Interest categories, i.e., those 
project areas that the Board has identified as being of particular 
importance to the State courts. Four new categories have been added 
this year: ``Children and Families in Court'' (section II.B.2.e.); 
``Resolution of Current Evidentiary Issues'' (section II.B.2.g.); 
``Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts'' (section II.B.2.i.); 
and ``Improving the Courts' Response to Gender-Related Crimes of 
Violence'' (section II.B.2.k.).
    Five of FY 1994's Special Interest categories have been eliminated: 
``Court Financing;'' ``Delay Reduction'' (although section II.B.2.b.iv. 
of the 1995 Guideline solicits applications for a National Symposium on 
Reducing Litigation Delay) (see also section II.B.2.d.); ``Intermediate 
Sanctions;'' ``Improving the Use of Juries'' (jury issues are now 
addressed in the ``Enhancing Court-Community Relations'' Special 
Interest category (section II.B.2.a.); and ``Family Violence and the 
Courts'' (although the issues addressed by that category are now 
addressed by new Special Interest categories e. and k. noted above).
    The Guideline also solicits proposals to conduct two major national 
conferences: the National Symposium on Reducing Litigation Delay noted 
above and a National Symposium on Sentencing Issues. See section 
II.B.2.b.iv.

Consultant Rates

    The Institute is strongly committed to assuring that the 
compensation paid to consultants working under SJI grants is reasonable 
in terms of both the total amount paid to an individual consultant, and 
the amount paid for individual tasks. A recent internal review of 
consultant rates found that the number of consultants charging in 
excess of $300 a day has risen significantly in recent years.
    The Board of Directors is concerned about both the level of 
compensation paid consultants, and the increase in the number of 
consultants receiving compensation under SJI-supported projects. 
Although no changes in the Grant Guideline are required, the Institute 
will be undertaking changes in procedure (including Board participation 
in the review process and more detailed reports from applicants and 
grantees) to assure that the compensation paid consultants is 
commensurate with the nature and quality of the services to be 
performed; reasonable, in terms of the tasks performed and in total; 
and consistent with the public service mission of the Institute.

Recommendations to Grant Writers

    Over the past seven years, Institute staff have reviewed 
approximately 2,700 concept papers and 1,300 applications. On the basis 
of those reviews, inquiries from applicants, and the views of the 
Board, the Institute offers the following recommendations to help 
potential applicants present workable, understandable proposals that 
can meet the funding criteria set forth in this Guideline.
    The Institute suggests that applicants make certain that they 
address the questions and issues set forth below when preparing a 
concept paper or application. Concept papers and applications should, 
however, be presented in the formats specified in sections VI. and VII. 
of the guideline, respectively.
    1. What is the subject or problem you wish to address?
    Describe the subject or problem and how it affects the courts and 
the public. Discuss how your approach will improve the situation or 
advance the state of the art or knowledge, and explain why it is the 
most appropriate approach to take. When statistics or research findings 
are cited to support a statement or position, the source of the 
citation should be referenced in a footnote or a reference list.
    2. What do you want to do? Explain the goal(s) of the project in 
simple, straightforward terms. The goals should describe the intended 
consequences or expected overall effect of the proposed project (e.g., 
to enable judges to sentence drug-abusing offenders more effectively, 
or to dispose of civil cases within 24 months), rather than the tasks 
or activities to be conducted (e.g., hold three training sessions, or 
install a new computer system).
    To the greatest extent possible, an applicant should avoid a 
specialized vocabulary that is not readily understood by the general 
public. Technical jargon does not enhance a paper.
    3. How will you do it? Describe the methodology carefully so that 
what you propose to do and how you would do it are clear. All proposed 
tasks should be set forth so that a reviewer can see a logical 
progression of tasks and relate those tasks directly to the 
accomplishment of the project's goal(s). When in doubt about whether to 
provide a more detailed explanation or to assume a particular level of 
knowledge or expertise on the part of the reviewers, err on the side of 
caution and provide the additional information. A description of 
project tasks also will help identify necessary budget items. All staff 
positions and project costs should relate directly to the tasks 
described. The Institute encourages applicants to attach letters of 
cooperation and support from the courts and related agencies that will 
be involved in or directly affected by the proposed project.
    4. How will you know it works? Include an evaluation component that 
will determine whether the proposed training, procedure, service, or 
technology accomplished the objectives it was designed to meet. Concept 
papers and applications should describe the criteria that will be used 
to evaluate the project's effectiveness and identify program elements 
which will require further modification. The description in the 
application should include how the evaluation will be conducted, when 
it will occur during the project period, who will conduct it, and what 
specific measures will be used. In most instances, the evaluation 
should be conducted by persons not connected with the implementation of 
the procedure, training, service, or technique, or the administration 
of the project.
    The Institute has also prepared a more thorough list of 
recommendations to grant writers regarding the development of project 
evaluation plans. Those recommendations are available from the 
Institute upon request.
    5. How will others find out about it? Include a plan to disseminate 
the results of the training, research, or demonstration beyond the 
jurisdictions and individuals directly affected by the project. The 
plan should identify the specific methods which will be used to inform 
the field about the project, such as the publication of law review or 
journal articles, or the distribution of key materials. A statement 
that a report or research findings ``will be made available to'' the 
field is not sufficient. The specific means of distribution or 
dissemination as well as the types of recipients should be identified. 
Reproduction and dissemination costs are allowable budget items.
    6. What are the specific costs involved? The budget in both concept 
papers and applications should be presented clearly. Major budget 
categories such as personnel, benefits, travel, supplies, equipment, 
and indirect costs should be identified separately. The components of 
``Other'' or ``Miscellaneous'' items should be specified in the 
application budget narrative, and should not include set-asides for 
undefined contingencies.
    7. What, if any, match is being offered? Courts and other units of 
State and local government (not including publicly-supported 
institutions of higher education) are required by the State Justice 
Institute Act to contribute a match (cash, non-cash, or both) of not 
less than 50 percent of the grant funds requested from the Institute. 
All other applicants also are encouraged to provide a matching 
contribution to assist in meeting the costs of a project.
    The match requirement works as follows: If, for example, the total 
cost of a project is anticipated to be $150,000, a State or local court 
or executive branch agency may request up to $100,000 from the 
Institute to implement the project. The remaining $50,000 (50% of the 
$100,000 requested from SJI) must be provided as match.
    Cash match includes funds directly contributed to the project by 
the applicant, or by other public or private sources. It does not 
include income generated from tuition fees or the sale of project 
products. Non-cash match refers to in-kind contributions by the 
applicant, or other public or private sources. This includes, for 
example, the monetary value of time contributed by existing personnel 
or members of an advisory committee (but not the time spent by 
participants in an educational program attending program sessions). 
When match is offered, the nature of the match (cash or in-kind) should 
be explained and, at the application stage, the tasks and line items 
for which costs will be covered wholly or in part by match should be 
specified.
    8. Which of the two budget forms should be used? Section VII.A.3. 
of the SJI Grant Guideline encourages use of the spreadsheet format of 
Form C1 if the funding request exceeds $100,000. Form C1 also works 
well for projects with discrete tasks, regardless of the dollar value 
of the project. Form C, the tabular format, is preferred for projects 
lacking a number of discrete tasks, or for projects requiring less than 
$100,000 of Institute funding. Generally, use the form that best lends 
itself to representing most accurately the budget estimates for the 
project.
    9. How much detail should be included in the budget narrative? The 
budget narrative of an application should provide the basis for 
computing all project-related costs, as indicated in section VII.D. of 
the SJI Grant Guideline. To avoid common shortcomings of application 
budget narratives, include the following information:
     Personnel estimates that accurately provide the amount of 
time to be spent by personnel involved with the project and the total 
associated costs, including current salaries for the designated 
personnel (e.g., Project Director, 50% for one year, annual salary of 
$50,000 = $25,000). If salary costs are computed using an hourly or 
daily rate, the annual salary and number of hours or days in a work-
year should be shown.
     Estimates for supplies and expenses supported by a 
complete description of the supplies to be used, nature and extent of 
printing to be done, anticipated telephone charges, and other common 
expenditures, with the basis for computing the estimates included 
(e.g., 100 reports x 75 pages each x .05/page = $375.00). Supply and 
expense estimates offered simply as ``based on experience'' are not 
sufficient.
    In order to expedite Institute review of the budget, make a final 
comparison of the amounts listed in the budget narrative with those 
listed on the budget form. In the rush to complete all parts of the 
application on time, there may be many last-minute changes; 
unfortunately, when there are discrepancies between the budget 
narrative and the budget form or the amount listed on the application 
cover sheet, it is not possible for the Institute to verify the amount 
of the request. A final check of the numbers on the form against those 
in the narrative will preclude such confusion. The Institute will 
provide an illustrative budget and budget form upon request.
    10. What travel regulations apply to the budget estimates? 
Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the policies 
of the applicant organization, and a copy of the applicant's travel 
policy should be submitted as an appendix to the application. If the 
applicant does not have a travel policy established in writing, then 
travel rates must be consistent with those established by the Institute 
or the Federal Government (a copy of the Institute's travel policy is 
available upon request). The budget narrative should state which 
regulations are in force for the project and should include the 
estimated fare, the number of persons traveling, the number of trips to 
be taken, and the length of stay. The estimated costs of travel, 
lodging, ground transportation, and other subsistence should be listed 
separately. When combined, the subtotals for these categories should 
equal the estimate listed on the budget form.
    11. May grant funds be used to purchase equipment? Generally, grant 
funds may be used to purchase only the equipment that is necessary to 
demonstrate a new technological application in a court, or that is 
otherwise essential to accomplishing the objectives of the project. 
Equipment purchases to support basic court operations ordinarily will 
not be approved. The budget narrative must list the equipment to be 
purchased and explain why the equipment is necessary to the success of 
the project. Written prior approval of the Institute is required when 
the amount of computer hardware to be purchased or leased exceeds 
$10,000, or the software to be purchased exceeds $3,000.
    12. To what extent may indirect costs be included in the budget 
estimates? It is the policy of the Institute that all costs should be 
budgeted directly; however, if an applicant has an indirect cost rate 
that has been approved by a Federal agency within the last two years, 
an indirect cost recovery estimate may be included in the budget. A 
copy of the approved rate agreement should be submitted as an appendix 
to the application.
    If an applicant does not have an approved rate agreement, an 
indirect cost rate proposal should be prepared in accordance with 
Section XI.H.4. of the Grant Guideline, based on the applicant's 
audited financial statements for the prior fiscal year. (Applicants 
lacking an audit must budget all project costs directly.) If an 
indirect cost rate proposal is to be submitted, the budget should 
reflect estimates based on that proposal. Obviously, this requires that 
the proposal be completed at the time of application so that the 
appropriate estimates may be included; however, grantees have until 
three months after the project start date to submit the indirect cost 
proposal to the Institute for approval. An indirect cost rate worksheet 
on computer diskette is available from the Institute upon request.
    13. Does the budget truly reflect all costs required to complete 
the project? After preparing the program narrative portion of the 
application, applicants may find it helpful to list all the major tasks 
or activities required by the proposed project, including the 
preparation of products, and note the individual expenses, including 
personnel time, related to each. This will help to ensure that, for all 
tasks described in the application (e.g., development of a videotape, 
research site visits, distribution of a final report), the related 
costs appear in the budget and are explained correctly in the budget 
narrative.

Recommendations To Grantees

    The Institute's staff works with grantees to help assure the smooth 
operation of the project and compliance with the SJI Guidelines. On the 
basis of monitoring more than 800 grants, the Institute staff offers 
the following suggestions to aid grantees in meeting the administrative 
and substantive requirements of their grants.
    1. After the grant has been awarded, when are the first quarterly 
reports due? Quarterly Progress Reports and Financial Status Reports 
must be submitted within 30 days after the end of every calendar 
quarter--i.e. no later than January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 
30--regardless of the project's start date. The reporting periods 
covered by each quarterly report end 30 days before the respective 
deadline for the report. When an award period begins December 1, for 
example, the first Quarterly Progress Report describing project 
activities between December 1 and December 31 will be due on January 
30. A Financial Status Report should be submitted even if funds have 
not been obligated or expended.
    By documenting what has happened over the past three months, 
Quarterly Progress Reports provide an opportunity for project staff and 
Institute staff to resolve any questions before they become problems, 
and make any necessary changes in the project time schedule, budget 
allocations, etc. Thus, the Quarterly Project Report should describe 
project activities, their relationship to the approved timeline, and 
any problems encountered and how they were resolved, and outline the 
tasks scheduled for the coming quarter. It is helpful to attach copies 
of relevant memos, draft products, or other requested information. An 
original and one copy of a Quarterly Progress Report and attachments 
should be submitted to the Institute.
    Additional Quarterly Progress Report or Financial Status Report 
forms may be obtained from the grantee's Program Manager at SJI, or 
photocopies may be made from the supply received with the award.
    2. Do reporting requirements differ for renewal grants or package 
grants? Recipients of a continuation, on-going support, or package 
grant are required to submit quarterly progress and financial status 
reports on the same schedule and with the same information as 
recipients of a grant for a single new project.
    A continuation or an on-going support grant should be considered as 
a supplement to and extension of the original award, and the reports 
numbered accordingly. For example, if the last quarterly report filed 
under the original award is report number six, the first report 
including a portion of the renewal grant should be report number seven.
    Recipients of a package grant should file a summary Financial 
Status Report covering the entire package as well as separate financial 
reports for each of the projects in the package, identified by letter 
of the alphabet (e.g., SJI-93-15R-J-001-A; SJI-93-15R-J-001-B; SJI-93-
15R-J-001-C).
    3. What information about project activities should be communicated 
to SJI? In general, grantees should provide prior notice of critical 
project events such as advisory board meetings or training sessions so 
that the Institute Program Manager can attend if possible. If 
methodological, schedule, staff, budget allocations, or other 
significant changes become necessary, the grantee should contact the 
Institute's program monitor prior to implementing any of these changes, 
so that possible questions may be addressed in advance. Questions 
concerning the financial requirements section of the Guideline, 
quarterly financial reporting or payment requests, should be addressed 
to the Chief or Deputy Chief of the Institute's Finance and Management 
Division.
    It is helpful to include the grant number assigned to the award on 
all correspondence to the Institute.
    4. Why is it important to address the special conditions that are 
attached to the award document? In some instances, a list of special 
conditions is attached to the award document. The special conditions 
are imposed to establish a schedule for reporting certain key 
information, to assure that the Institute has an opportunity to offer 
suggestions at critical stages of the project, and to provide reminders 
of some, but not all of the requirements contained in the Grant 
Guideline. Accordingly, it is important for grantees to check the 
special conditions carefully and discuss with their Program Manager any 
questions or problems they may have with the conditions. Most concerns 
about timing, response time, and the level of detail required can be 
resolved in advance through a telephone conversation. The Institute's 
primary concern is to work with grantees to assure that their projects 
accomplish their objectives, not to enforce rigid bureaucratic 
requirements. However, if a grantee fails to comply with a special 
condition or with other grant requirements, the Institute may, after 
proper notice, suspend payment of grant funds or terminate the grant.
    Sections X., XI., and XII. of the Grant Guideline contain the 
Institute's administrative and financial requirements. Institute 
Finance and Management Division staff are always available to answer 
questions and provide assistance regarding these provisions.
    5. What is a Grant Adjustment? A Grant Adjustment is the 
Institute's form for acknowledging the satisfaction of special 
conditions, or approving changes in grant activities, schedule, 
staffing, sites, or budget allocations requested by the project 
director. It also may be used to correct errors in grant documents, add 
small amounts to a grant award, or deobligate funds from the grant.
    6. What schedule should be followed in submitting requests for 
reimbursements or advance payments? Requests for reimbursements or 
advance payments may be made at any time after the project start date 
and before the end of the 90-day close-out period. However, the 
Institute follows the U.S. Treasury's policy limiting advances to the 
minimum amount required to meet immediate cash needs. Given normal 
processing time, grantees should not seek to draw down funds for 
periods greater than 30 days from the date of the request.
    7. Do procedures for submitting requests for reimbursement or 
advance payment differ for renewal grants or package grants? The basic 
procedures are the same for any grant. A continuation or an on-going 
support grant should be considered as a supplement to and extension of 
the original award, and the payment requests numbered accordingly. For 
example, if the last payment request under the original award is number 
nine, then the first request for funds from the continuation award 
should be number ten.
    Recipients of a package grant should file separate requests for 
each project in the package. For example, if there are three projects 
within a package grant, a grantee should prepare three separate payment 
requests, each identified by the letter of the alphabet designated in 
the award document (e.g., SJI-93-15R-J-001-A; SJI-93-15R-J-001-B; SJI-
93-15R-J-001-C). Subsequent payment requests should be numbered 
consecutively for each project within the package (e.g., project SJI-
93-15R-J-001-A payment number 2; SJI-93-15R-J-001-B payment number 4; 
etc.).
    8. If things change during the grant period, can funds be 
reallocated from one budget category to another? The Institute 
recognizes that some flexibility is required in implementing a project 
design and budget. Thus, grantees may shift funds among direct cost 
budget categories. When any one reallocation or the cumulative total of 
reallocations are expected to exceed five percent of the approved 
project budget, a grantee must specify the proposed changes, explain 
the reasons for the changes, and request Institute approval.
    The same standard applies to renewal grants and package grants. In 
addition, prior written Institute approval is required to shift 
leftover funds from the original award to cover activities to be 
conducted under the renewal award, or to use renewal grant monies to 
cover costs incurred during the original grant period. Prior written 
Institute approval also is needed to shift funds between projects 
included in a package grant.
    9. What is the 90-day close-out period? Following the last day of 
the grant, a 90-day period is provided to allow for all grant-related 
bills to be received and posted, and grant funds drawn down to cover 
these expenses. No obligations of grant funds may be incurred during 
this period. The last day on which an expenditure of grant funds can be 
obligated is the end date of the grant period. Similarly, the 90-day 
period is not intended as an opportunity to finish and disseminate 
grant products. This should occur before the end of the grant period.
    Starting the day after the end of the award period, and during the 
following 90 days, all monies that have been obligated should be 
expended. All payment requests must be received by the end of the 90-
day ``close-out-period.'' Any unexpended monies held by the grantee 
that remain after the 90-day follow-up period must be returned to the 
Institute. Any funds remaining in the grant that have not been drawn 
down by the grantee will be deobligated.
    10. Are funds granted by SJI ``Federal'' funds? The State Justice 
Institute Act provides that, except for purposes unrelated to this 
question, ``the Institute shall not be considered a department, agency, 
or instrumentality of the Federal Government.'' 42 U.S.C. 
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, 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. Sec. 10711(c)(1)], the Grant Guideline sets forth options for 
grantees to comply with this statutory requirement. (See Section XI.J.)
    Prior to FY 1994, the Institute did not require grantees to comply 
with the audit-related provisions of OMB circulars A-110, A-128, or A-
133, but did require that grantees, lacking an audit report prepared 
for a Federal agency, conduct an independent audit in compliance with 
generally accepted auditing standards established by the American 
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
    The current Guideline makes it clear that SJI will accept audits 
conducted in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-128, or A-133, in satisfaction 
of the annual fiscal audit requirement. Grantees who are required to 
undertake these audits in conjunction with Federal grants may include 
SJI funds as part of the audit even if the receipt of SJI funds would 
not require such audits. This approach gives grantees an option to fold 
SJI funds into the governmental audit rather than to undertake a 
separate audit to satisfy SJI's Guideline requirements.
    The Institute requires that non-profit grantees perform an A-133 
type of audit if they receive payments totalling more than $50,000. 
These audits must be conducted in accordance with the Government 
Accounting Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United 
States and must include:
    a. An opinion on whether the financial statements of the grantee 
present fairly its financial position and the results of its financial 
operations in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
    b. A report on the grantee's internal control structure over 
financial reporting; and
    c. A report on the tests of compliance with applicable laws and 
regulations that have a direct and material effect on the financial 
statement amounts.
    For grantees receiving SJI grant payments totalling $50,000 or less 
during their fiscal year, the annual fiscal audit may be conducted in 
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards established by 
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
    In sum, grantees that receive payments from the Institute of more 
than $50,000 in a fiscal year must have their annual audit conducted in 
accordance with Government Accounting Standards issued by the 
Comptroller General of the United States rather than with generally 
accepted auditing standards. Grantees that receive $50,000 or less from 
SJI in a fiscal year must also submit an annual audit to SJI, but they 
would have the option to conduct an audit of the entire grantee 
organization in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; 
include SJI funds in an audit of Federal funds conducted in accordance 
with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and OMB Circular A-128 or A-133; or 
conduct an audit of only the SJI funds in accordance with generally 
accepted auditing standards. (See Guideline Section XI.J.2.)
    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 $50,000 or more in 
assistance was received in a fiscal year. For example, if in fiscal 
year 1994 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 new SJI requirements would not be triggered. 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 Circular A-128, or A-133, and who include SJI grant funds in those 
audits, need to remember that because of its status as a private non-
profit corporation, SJI is not on routing lists of cognizant Federal 
agencies. Therefore, the grantee needs to submit a copy of the audit 
report prepared for such a cognizant Federal agency directly to SJI. 
The Institute's audit requirements may be found in Section XI.J.2. of 
the Grant Guideline.
* * * * *
    The following Grant Guideline is proposed by the State Justice 
Institute for FY 1995:

State Justice Institute Grant Guideline

Table of Contents

Summary

I. Background
 II. Scope of the Program
III. Definitions
IV. Eligibility for Award
V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of Awards
VI. Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects
VII. Application Requirements for New Projects
VIII. Application Review Procedures
IX. Renewal Funding Procedures and Requirements
X. Compliance Requirements
XI. Financial Requirements
XII. Grant Adjustments
Appendix I: List of State Contacts Regarding Administration of 
Institute Grants to State and Local Courts
Appendix II: SJI Libraries: Designated Sites and Contacts
Appendix III: Judicial Education Scholarship Application Forms
Appendix IV: Preliminary Budget Form
Appendix V: Certificate of State Approval Form
Appendix VI: Consultant Rate Questionnaire [to be included in the 
final guideline]
Appendix VII: Illustrative List of Model Curricula [to be included 
in the final guideline]
Appendix VIII: State Justice Institute--Fiscal Years 1990 Through 
1994

Summary

    This Guideline sets forth the proposed programmatic, financial, and 
administrative requirements of grants, cooperative agreements, and 
contracts awarded by the State Justice Institute. The Institute, a 
private, nonprofit corporation established by an Act of Congress, is 
authorized to award grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to 
improve the administration and quality of justice in the State courts.
    Grants may be awarded to State and local courts and their agencies; 
national nonprofit organizations controlled by, operating in 
conjunction with, and serving the judicial branch of State governments; 
and national nonprofit organizations for the education and training of 
judges and support personnel of the judicial branch of State 
governments. The Institute may also award grants to other nonprofit 
organizations with expertise in judicial administration; institutions 
of higher education; individuals, partnerships, firms, or corporations; 
and private agencies with expertise in judicial administration if the 
objectives of the funded program can be better served by such an 
entity. Funds may be awarded, as well, to Federal, State or local 
agencies and institutions other than courts for services that cannot be 
provided adequately through nongovernmental arrangements. In addition, 
the Institute may provide financial assistance in the form of 
interagency agreements with other grantors.
    The Institute will consider applications for funding support that 
address any of the areas specified in its enabling legislation as 
amended. However, the Board of Directors of the Institute has 
designated certain program categories as being of special interest.
    The Institute has established one round of competition for FY 1995 
funds. The concept paper submission deadline for all but two funding 
categories is November 23, 1994. Concept papers proposing projects that 
follow up on the November 1994 National Conference on the Management of 
Mass Tort Cases must be mailed by March 10, 1995. Concept papers to 
implement the plans developed at the March 1995 National Conference on 
Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts must be mailed by 
October 6, 1995.
    It is anticipated that between $11 million and $11.5 million will 
be available for award. This Guideline applies to all concept papers 
and applications submitted, as well as grants awarded in FY 1995.
    The awards made by the State Justice Institute are governed by the 
requirements of this Guideline and the authority conferred by Pub. L. 
98-620, Title II, 42 U.S.C. 10701, et seq., as amended.

I. Background

    The State Justice Institute (``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 organiza-tions, including 
universities.
    To accomplish these broad objectives, the Institute is authorized 
to provide funds to State courts, national organiza-tions which support 
and are supported by State courts, national judicial education 
organizations, and other organizations that can assist in improving the 
quality of justice in the State courts.
    The Institute is supervised by an eleven-member Board of Directors 
appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate. The 
Board is statutorily composed of six judges, a State court 
administrator, and four members of the public, no more than two of whom 
can be of the same political party.
    Through the award of grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements, 
the Institute is authorized to perform the following activities:
    A. Support research, demonstrations, special projects, technical 
assistance, and training to improve the adminis-tration of justice in 
the State courts;
    B. Provide for the preparation, publication, and dissemination of 
information regarding State judicial systems;
    C. Participate in joint projects with Federal agencies and other 
private grantors;
    D. Evaluate or provide for the evaluation of programs and projects 
funded by the Institute to determine their impact upon the quality of 
criminal, civil, and juvenile justice and the extent to which they have 
contributed to improving the quality of justice in the State courts;
    E. Encourage and assist in furthering judicial education;
    F. Encourage, assist, and serve in a consulting capacity to State 
and local justice system agencies in the develop-ment, maintenance, and 
coordination of criminal, civil, and juvenile justice programs and 
services; and
    G. Be responsible for the certification of national programs that 
are intended to aid and improve State judicial systems.

II. Scope of the Program

    During FY 1995, the Institute will consider applications for 
funding support that address any of the areas specified in its enabling 
legislation. The Board, however, has designated certain program 
categories as being of ``special interest.'' See section II.B.

A. Authorized Program Areas

    The Institute is authorized to fund projects addressing one or more 
of the following program areas listed in the State Justice Institute 
Act, the Battered Women's Testimony Act of 1992, the Judicial Training 
and Research for Child Custody Litigation Act of 1992, the 
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993, and the pending 
Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
    1. Assistance to State and local court systems in establishing 
appropriate procedures for the selection and removal of judges and 
other court personnel and in determining appropriate levels of 
compensation;
    2. Education and training programs for judges and other court 
personnel for the performance of their general duties and for 
specialized functions, and national and regional conferences and 
seminars for the dissemination of information on new developments and 
innovative techniques;
    3. Research on alternative means for using judicial and nonjudicial 
personnel in court decisionmaking activities, implementation of 
demonstration programs to test such innovative approaches, and 
evaluations of their effectiveness;
    4. Studies of the appropriateness and efficacy of court 
organizations and financing structures in particular States, and 
support to States to implement plans for improved court organization 
and financing;
    5. Support for State court planning and budgeting staffs and the 
provision of technical assistance in resource allocation and service 
forecasting techniques;
    6. Studies of the adequacy of court management systems in State and 
local courts, and implementation and evalua-tion of innovative 
responses to records management, data processing, court personnel 
management, reporting and transcription of court proceedings, and juror 
utilization and management;
    7. Collection and compilation of statistical data and other 
information on the work of the courts and on the work of other agencies 
which relate to and affect the work of courts;
    8. Studies of the causes of trial and appellate court delay in 
resolving cases, and establishing and evaluating experimental programs 
for reducing case processing time;
    9. Development and testing of methods for measuring the performance 
of judges and courts and experiments in the use of such measures to 
improve the functioning of judges and the courts;
    10. Studies of court rules and procedures, discovery devices, and 
evidentiary standards to identify problems with the operation of such 
rules, procedures, devices, and standards; and the development of 
alternative approaches to better reconcile the requirements of due 
process with the need for swift and certain justice, and testing of the 
utility of those alternative approaches;
    11. Studies of the outcomes of cases in selected areas to identify 
instances in which the substance of justice meted out by the courts 
diverges from public expectations of fairness, consistency, or equity; 
and the development, testing and evaluation of alternative approaches 
to resolving cases in such problem areas;
    12. Support for programs to increase court responsiveness to the 
needs of citizens through citizen education, improvement of court 
treatment of witnesses, victims, and jurors, and development of 
procedures for obtaining and using measures of public satisfaction with 
court processes to improve court performance;
    13. Testing and evaluating experimental approaches to provide 
increased citizen access to justice, including processes which reduce 
the cost of litigating common grievances and alternative techniques and 
mechanisms for resolving disputes between citizens; and
    14. Collection and analysis of information regarding the 
admissibility and quality of expert testimony on the experiences of 
battered women offered as part of the defense in criminal cases under 
State law, as well as sources of and methods to obtain funds to pay 
costs incurred to provide such testimony, particularly in cases 
involving indigent women defendants;
    15. Development of training materials to assist battered women, 
operators of domestic violence shelters, battered women's advocates, 
and attorneys to use expert testimony on the experiences of battered 
women in appropriate cases, and individuals with expertise in the 
experiences of battered women to develop skills appropriate to 
providing such testimony;
    16. Research regarding State judicial decisions relating to child 
custody litigation involving domestic violence;
    17. Development of training curricula to assist State courts to 
develop an understanding of, and appropriate responses to child custody 
litigation involving domestic violence;
    18. Dissemination of information and training materials and 
provision of technical assistance regarding the issues listed in 
paragraphs 14-17 above;
    19. Development of national, regional, and in-State training and 
educational programs dealing with criminal and civil aspects of 
interstate and international parental child abduction;
    20. Development, testing, presentation, and dissemination of model 
programs directed at the role of State courts in effectively addressing 
violent crime against women, including training for State judges and 
court personnel in the laws of the States regarding rape, sexual 
assault, domestic violence, and other crimes of violence motivated by 
the gender of the victim, which may include information on: the nature 
and incidence of such offenses, their impact on the victim and on 
society, the psychology of persons who commit these offenses and its 
implications for sentencing, the use of expert witnesses in trials of 
these offenses, the imposition of limits on the testimony or cross-
examination of victims, the reasons why such offenses may be 
underreported and why victims may decline to testify, the use of 
protective orders, and related topics; and
    21. Other programs, consistent with the purposes of the State 
Justice Institute Act, as may be deemed appropriate by the Institute, 
including projects dealing with the relationship between Federal and 
State court systems in areas where there is concurrent State-Federal 
jurisdiction and where Federal courts, directly or indirectly, review 
State court proceedings.
    Funds 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 1995, the Institute is especially interested 
in funding those projects that:
    a. Formulate new procedures and techniques, or creatively enhance 
existing arrangements to improve the courts;
    b. Address aspects of the State judicial systems that are in 
special need of serious attention;
    c. Have national significance in terms of their impact or 
replicability in that they develop products, services and techniques 
that may be used in other States; and
    d. Create and disseminate products that effectively transfer the 
information and ideas developed to relevant audiences in State and 
local judicial systems or provide technical assistance to facilitate 
the adaptation of effective programs and procedures in other State and 
local jurisdictions.
    A project will be identified as a ``Special Interest'' project if 
it meets the four criteria set forth above and (1) it falls within the 
scope of the ``special interest'' program areas designated below, or 
(2) information coming to the attention of the Institute from the State 
courts, their affiliated organizations, the research literature, or 
other sources demonstrates that the project responds to another special 
need or interest of the State courts.
    Concept papers and applications which address a ``Special 
Interest'' category will be accorded a preference in the rating 
process. (See the selection criteria listed in sections VI.B., 
``Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects,'' and 
VIII.B., ``Application Review Procedures.'')
2. Specific Categories.
    The Board has designated the areas set forth below as ``Special 
Interest'' program categories. The order of listing does not imply any 
ordering of priorities among the categories.
    a. Improving Public Confidence in the Courts. This category 
includes research, demonstration, evaluation and education projects 
designed to improve the public's confidence in the State courts' 
ability to administer justice fairly, and to test innovative methods 
for eliminating economic, racial, ethnic, cultural or gender-based 
barriers to justice.
    Applicants should be aware that the Institute is supporting two 
national conferences addressing issues on the relationship between the 
courts and the communities they serve. The National Conference on 
Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts will be held March 2-5, 
1995 in Albuquerque, New Mexico; the National Videoconference Town Hall 
Meeting on Enhancing Public Confidence in the Courts is scheduled for 
June, 1995 at sites to be selected. (See also, section II.B.2.i, 
infra.)
    The Institute is particularly interested in supporting innovative 
projects that examine, develop, and test methods that trial or 
appellate courts may use to:
     respond to the needs of the culturally, demographically, 
economically and physically diverse public the courts serve;
     address court-community problems resulting from the influx 
of legal and illegal immigrants, including projects to define the 
impact of immigration on State courts; design and assess procedures for 
use in custody, visitation, and other domestic relations cases when key 
family members or property are outside the United States; facilitate 
communication with Federal authorities when illegal aliens are involved 
in State court proceedings; and develop protocols to facilitate service 
of process, the enforcement of orders of judgment, and the disposition 
of criminal and juvenile cases when a non-U.S. citizen or corporation 
is involved;
     handle cases involving pro se litigants fairly and 
effectively; and
     increase public understanding of jury decisions and the 
juror selection and service process; foster positive attitudes toward 
jury service; and enhance the attractiveness of juror service through, 
e.g., incentives to participate, modifications of terms of service, 
and/or juror orientation and education programs.
    Institute funds may not be used to directly or indirectly support 
legal representation of individuals in specific cases. In addition, it 
is unlikely that the Institute will support development or testing of 
additional automated kiosks such as those being used by the courts in 
Arizona, California, and Florida.
    Previous SJI-supported projects that address these issues include: 
evaluation of an experimental community court in New York City; 
development of a manual for management of court interpretation services 
and materials for training and assisting court interpreters; 
development of touchscreen computer systems, videotapes and written 
materials to assist pro se litigants; a demonstration of the use of 
volunteers to monitor guardianships; studies of effective and efficient 
methods of providing legal representation to indigent parties in 
criminal and family cases and the applicability of various dispute 
resolution procedures to different cultural groups; guidelines for 
court-annexed day care systems; and development of a manual for 
implementing innovations in jury selection, use, and management; 
technical assistance and training to facilitate implementation of the 
Standards on Jury Management; development of a guide for making juries 
accessible to persons with disabilities.
    b. Education and Training for Judges and Other Key Court Personnel. 
The Institute continues to be interested in supporting an array of 
projects to strengthen and broaden the availability of court education 
programs at the State, regional, and national levels. Accordingly, this 
category is divided into five subsections: (i) State Initiatives; (ii) 
National and Regional Education Programs; (iii) Judicial Education 
Technical Assistance; (iv) Conferences; and (v) Scholarships. All 
Institute-supported conferences and education and training seminars 
should be accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with 
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
    i. State Initiatives. This category includes support for training 
projects developed or endorsed by a State's courts for the benefit of 
judges and other court personnel in that State. Funding of these 
initiatives does not include support for training programs conducted by 
national providers of judicial education unless such a program is 
designed specifically for a particular State and has the express 
support of the State Chief Justice, State Court Administrator, or State 
Judicial Educator. The types of programs to be supported within this 
category should be defined by individual State need but may include:
    (a) Development of State Court Education Programs. Projects to 
assist development of State court education programs include, but are 
not limited to:
     Seed money for the creation of an ongoing State-based 
entity for planning, developing, and administering judicial education 
programs;
     Seed money for innovative interdisciplinary and, as 
appropriate, interbranch educational programs, such as those 
addressing: (1) The development of better working relationships across 
court divisions and between courts and criminal justice, social 
service, and treatment agencies; (2) organizational and leadership 
development, including team-building; and (3) the specific educational 
needs of nonsupervisory staff as well as those filling more direct 
managerial roles; and (4) the development and implementation of 
strategies for coping with the gap between resources and the demand for 
services; and
     The development of the expertise, information, and 
commitment required for the preparation and implementation of State 
court education plans, including model plans for career-long education 
of the judiciary (e.g., new judge training and orientation followed by 
continuing education and career development) and for the career-long 
education of court managers, clerks, and other court personnel.
    (b) Curriculum Adaptation Projects.
    (1) Description of the Program. The Board is reserving up to 
$350,000 to provide support for adaptation and implementation of model 
curricula and/or model training programs previously developed with SJI 
support. The exact amount to be awarded for curriculum adaptation 
grants will depend on the number and quality of the applications 
submitted in this category and other categories of the Guideline. The 
program is designed to provide State and local courts with sufficient 
support to prepare and conduct a State-specific or regional 
modification of a model curriculum, course module, national or regional 
conference program, or other model education program developed with SJI 
funds by any other State or national organization. An illustrative list 
of the curricula that may be appropriate for the adaptation is 
contained in Appendix VII.
    Only State or local courts may apply for Curriculum Adaptation 
funding. Grants to support adaptation of educational programs 
previously developed with SJI funds are limited to no more than $20,000 
each. As with other awards to State or local courts, cash or in-kind 
match must be provided equal to at least 50% of the grant amount 
requested.
    (2) Review Criteria. Curriculum Adaptation grants will be awarded 
on the basis of criteria including: the need for the educational 
program; the need for outside funding to support the program; the 
likelihood of effective implementation; and expressions of interest by 
the judges and/or court personnel who would be directly involved in or 
affected by the project. In making implementation awards, the Institute 
will also consider factors such as the reasonableness of the amount 
requested, compliance with the statutory match requirements, diversity 
of subject matter, geographic diversity, the level of appropriations 
available in the current year, and the amount expected to be available 
in succeeding fiscal years.
    (3) Application Procedures. In lieu of concept papers and formal 
applications, applicants for grants may submit, at any time, a detailed 
letter, and three photocopies. Although there is no prescribed form for 
the letter nor a minimum or maximum page limit, letters of application 
should include the following information to assure that each of the 
criteria for evaluating applications is addressed:
     Project Description. Why is this education program needed 
at the present time? What is the model curriculum or training program 
to be tested? How will it be adapted for State use, and who will be 
responsible for adapting the model curriculum? Who will the 
participants be, how will they be recruited, and from where will they 
come (e.g., from across the State, from a single local jurisdiction, 
from a multi-State region)? How many participants are anticipated?
     Need for funding. Why cannot State or local resources 
fully support the modification and presentation of the model 
curriculum? What is the potential for replicating or integrating the 
program in the future using State or local funds, once it has been 
successfully adapted and tested?
     Likelihood. What is the proposed date for presenting the 
program? What types of modifications in the length, format, and content 
of the model curriculum are anticipated? How will the presentation of 
the program be evaluated and by whom? (Ordinarily, an outside 
evaluation is not necessary.) What measures will be taken to facilitate 
subsequent presentations of the adapted program?
     Expressions of Interest By Judges and/or Court Personnel. 
Does the proposed program have the support of the court system 
leadership, and of judges, court managers, and judicial education 
personnel who are expected to attend? (This may be demonstrated by 
attaching letters of support.)
     Budget and matching State contribution. A copy of budget 
Form E (see Appendix IV) and a budget narrative (see Section VII.B) 
that describes the basis for the proposed costs and the source of the 
match offered.
     Local courts should attach a concurrence signed by the 
Chief Justice of the State or his or her designee. (See Form B, 
Appendix V.)
    Letters of application may be submitted at any time. However, 
applicants should allow at least 90 days between the date of submission 
and the date of the proposed program to allow sufficient time for 
needed planning. The Board of Directors has delegated its authority to 
approve Curriculum Adaptation grants to its Judicial Education 
Committee. The committee anticipates acting upon applications within 45 
days after receipt. Formal grant awards will be made only after 
committee approval and negotiation of the final terms of the grant.
    (4) Grantee Responsibilities. A recipient of a Curriculum 
Adaptation grant must:
    (a) Comply with the same quarterly reporting requirements as other 
Institute grantees (see Section X.L., infra);
    (b) Include in each grant product a prominent acknowledgement that 
support was received from the Institute, along with the ``SJI'' logo, 
and a disclaimer paragraph based on the example provided in section 
X.Q. of the Guideline; and
    (c) Submit two copies of the manuals, handbooks, or conference 
packets developed under the grant at the conclusion of the grant 
period, along with a final report that explains how it intends to 
replicate the program in the future.
    Applicants seeking other types of funding for developing and 
testing educational programs must comply with the requirements for 
concept papers and applications set forth in Sections VI and VII or the 
requirements for renewal applications set forth in Section IX.
    ii. National and Regional Education Programs. This category 
includes support for national or regional training programs developed 
by any provider, e.g., national organizations, State courts, 
universities, or public interest groups. Within this category, priority 
will be given to training projects which address issues of major 
concern to the State judiciary and other court personnel. Ordinarily, 
national and regional education projects are expected to develop 
curricula (as defined in Section III.K.) that may be adapted by State 
and local courts. Programs to be supported may include:
     Training programs or seminars on topics of interest and 
concern that transcend State lines including the factors that should be 
considered in deciding child custody and termination of parental 
rights;
     Multi-State or regional training programs sponsored by 
national organizations, non-profit groups, State courts or 
universities;
     Interdisciplinary and, as appropriate, interbranch 
educational programs for State trial and appellate court judges, State 
and local court managers including clerks of court, and non-supervisory 
staff or other court personnel, including seminars based on Institute-
supported research, and programs designed to develop better working 
relationships across court divisions and between courts and criminal 
justice, social service, and treatment agencies; and
     Innovative independent study models that would enhance the 
availability of judicial education, especially for judges and court 
personnel who do not have ready access to training programs, and 
possible models for the credentialing of this type of continuing 
judicial education.
    iii. Judicial Education Technical Assistance. Unlike the preceding 
categories which support direct training, ``Technical Assistance'' 
refers to services necessary for the development of effective 
educational projects for judges and other court personnel. Projects in 
this category should focus on the needs of the States, and applicants 
should demonstrate their ability to work effectively with State 
judicial educators.
    The Institute is currently funding the following judicial education 
technical assistance projects: the Judicial Education Reference 
Information and Technology Transfer Project (JERITT), which collects 
and disseminates information (as well as providing technical 
assistance) on continuing education programs for judges and court 
personnel; the Judicial Education/Adult Education Project (JEAEP), 
which provides expert assistance on the application of adult and 
continuing education theory and practices to court education programs; 
the Leadership Institute in Judicial Education, which offers an annual 
training program and follow-up assistance to State judicial education 
leadership teams to help them develop improved approaches to court 
education; and NASJE NEWS, a newsletter of the National Association of 
State Judicial Educators.
    iv. Conferences. This category includes support for regional or 
national conferences on topics of major concern to the State judiciary 
and court personnel. Applicants are encouraged to consider the use of 
videoconference and other technologies to increase participation and 
limit travel expenses in planning and presenting conferences. 
Applicants also are reminded that conference sites should be accessible 
to persons with disabilities in accordance with the Americans With 
Disabilities Act. In planning a conference, applicants should provide 
for a written, video, or other product that would widely disseminate 
the information, findings, and any recommendations resulting from the 
conference.
    The Institute is particularly interested in supporting:
    (a) National Symposium on Sentencing: The Judicial Response to 
Crime, to enable State and Federal judges, legislators, prosecutors, 
defense counsel, corrections officials, legal academics, social science 
researchers, media representatives, and members of the public to:
     Evaluate what is known about the impact of current 
sentencing practices on adult offenders, juvenile offenders tried as 
adults, and juvenile offenders, the criminal and juvenile justice 
systems, and the public's perception of justice;
     Explore how changes in sentencing legislation and judicial 
practices might better accomplish the goals of sentencing;
     Identify changes in procedure, new sources of information 
or education, and other innovations that might better assure that a 
sentence serves the judge's intended sentencing goal(s) in a particular 
case; and
     Recommend specific changes in law, policy, and procedure 
that would help courts better accomplish the goals of sentencing and 
improve the public's confidence in the justice system.
    Among the topics which could be addressed at the Symposium would 
be: the impact that Federal and State sentencing guidelines, mandatory 
minimums, and other determinate sentencing approaches have had on the 
courts and other components of the criminal justice system, the public, 
and offenders; whether these approaches have fulfilled their envisioned 
purposes; whether sentencing innovations (e.g., giving judges greater 
access to information about the offender, the victim, and available 
sentencing options; changed plea bargaining practices; and greater use 
of intermediate sanctions) might better assure just and effective 
sentencing; and whether current sentencing legislation, processes, and 
decisions adequately reflect the public's expectations of justice.
    (b) National Symposium on Reducing Litigation Delay. The Institute 
has supported over 20 projects examining methods for improving caseflow 
in various types and levels of courts, or training judges and court 
managers on pretrial and trial management. The Institute is interested 
in supporting a symposium that would bring together litigation delay 
researchers, technical assistance providers, trial and appellate court 
judges and managers both from courts that have not successfully 
implemented programs for improving caseflow and reducing the time to 
disposition as well as those that have, State court administrators, 
attorneys, scholars, and others to synthesize and share the information 
resulting from the projects funded by the Institute and others; 
determine the approaches to pretrial, trial, and individual docket 
management that appear to be most effective and the best methods for 
implementing them; identify the programs that may be needed to assist 
courts in further reducing litigation delay; define and prioritize the 
topics for further research on improving caseflow management; and 
encourage and assist courts that are experiencing litigation delay to 
undertake measures to ensure the prompt and fair disposition of cases.
    v. Scholarships for Judges and Court Personnel. The Institute is 
reserving up to $250,000 (in addition to any scholarship funds 
remaining from Fiscal Year 1994) to support a scholarship program for 
State court judges and court managers.
    (a) Program Description/Scholarship Amounts. The purposes of the 
Institute scholarship program are to: enhance the knowledge, skills, 
and abilities of judges and court managers; enable State court judges 
and court managers to attend out-of-State educational programs 
sponsored by national and State providers that they could not otherwise 
attend because of limited State, local and personal budgets; and 
provide States, judicial educators, and the Institute with evaluative 
information on a range of judicial and court-related education 
programs.
    Scholarships will be granted to individuals only for the purpose of 
attending an out-of-State educational program within the United States. 
The annual or midyear meeting of a State or national organization of 
which the applicant is a member does not qualify as an out-of-State 
educational program for scholarship purposes, even though it may 
include workshops or other training sessions.
    A scholarship may cover the cost of tuition and travel up to a 
maximum total of $1,500 per scholarship. (Transportation expenses 
include roundtrip coach airfare or train fare, or up to $.25/mile if 
the recipient drives to the site of the program.) Funds to pay tuition 
and transportation expenses in excess of $1,500, and other costs of 
attending the program such as lodging, meals, materials, and local 
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 recipients are encouraged to check with their tax 
advisor to determine whether the scholarship constitutes taxable income 
under Federal and State law.
    (b) Eligibility Requirements. Because of the limited amount of 
funds available, scholarships are limited to full-time judges of State 
or local trial and appellate courts, to full-time professional, State 
or local court personnel with management responsibilities, and to 
supervisory and management probation personnel in judicial branch 
probation offices. Senior judges, part-time judges, quasi-judicial 
hearing officers, State administrative law judges, staff attorneys, law 
clerks, line staff, law enforcement officers and other executive branch 
personnel will not be eligible to receive a scholarship.
    (c) Application Procedures. Judges and court managers interested in 
receiving a scholarship must submit the Institute's Judicial Education 
Scholarship Application Form (Form S1, see Appendix III). Applications 
must be submitted by:

November 1, 1994, for programs beginning between February 1, 1995 and 
April 30, 1995;
February 1, 1995, for programs beginning between May 1 and July 31, 
1995;
May 1, 1995, for programs beginning between August 1, and October 31, 
1995; and
August 1, 1995, for programs beginning between November 1, 1995 and 
January 31, 1996.

No exceptions or extensions will be granted.
    (d) Concurrence Requirement. All scholarship applicants must obtain 
the written concurrence of the Chief Justice of his or her State's 
Supreme Court (or the Chief Justice's designee) on the Institute's 
Judicial Education Scholarship Concurrence (Form S2, see Appendix III). 
Court managers, other than elected clerks of court, also should submit 
a letter of support from their supervisor. The Concurrence (Form S2) 
may accompany the application or be sent separately. However, the 
original signed Concurrence form must be received by the Institute 
within one week after the appropriate application mailing deadline 
(i.e. by November 8, 1994, or February 8, May 8, or August 8, 1995). No 
application will be reviewed if a signed Concurrence has not been 
received by the required date.
    (e) Review Procedures/Selection Criteria. The Board of Directors 
has delegated the authority to approve or deny scholarships to its 
Judicial Education Committee. The Institute intends to notify each 
applicant whose scholarship has been approved within 60 days after the 
relevant application deadline. In order to assure the availability of 
scholarship funds throughout the year, the Committee will limit the 
amount of the scholarship support awarded in any quarter to no more 
than $62,500 (in addition to scholarship funds that may not have been 
awarded in previous quarters).
    The factors that the Institute will consider in selecting 
scholarship recipients are:
     The applicant's need for training in the particular course 
subject and how the applicant would apply the information/skills 
gained;
     The benefits to the applicant's court or the State's court 
system that would be derived from the applicant's participation in the 
specific educational program, including a description of current legal, 
procedural, administrative or other problems affecting the State's 
courts, related to topics to be addressed at the educational program 
(in addition to submission of a signed Form S2);
     The absence of educational programs in the applicant's 
State addressing the particular topic;
     How the applicant will disseminate the knowledge gained 
(e.g., by developing/teaching a course or providing in-service training 
for judges or court personnel at the State or local level);
     The length of time that the applicant intends to serve as 
a judge or court manager, assuming reelection or reappointment, where 
applicable;
     The likelihood that the applicant would be able to attend 
the program without a scholarship;
     The unavailability of State or local funds to cover the 
costs of attending the program;
     The quality of the educational program to be attended as 
demonstrated by the sponsoring organization's experience in judicial 
education, evaluations by participants or other professionals in the 
field, or prior SJI support for this or other programs sponsored by the 
organization;
     Geographic balance;
     The balance of scholarships among types of applicants and 
courts;
     The balance of scholarships among educational programs; 
and
     The level of appropriations available to the Institute in 
the current year and the amount expected to be available in succeeding 
fiscal years.
    (f) Responsibilities of Scholarship Recipients. In order to receive 
the funds authorized by a scholarship award, recipients must submit 
Scholarship Payment Voucher (Form S3) together with a tuition statement 
from the program sponsor, and a transportation fare receipt (or 
statement of the driving mileage to and from the recipient's home to 
the site of the educational program). Recipients also must submit to 
the Institute a certificate of attendance at the program and an 
evaluation of the educational program they attended. A copy of the 
evaluation also must be sent to the Chief Justice of their State.
    A State or a local jurisdiction may impose additional requirements 
on scholarship recipients that are consistent with SJI's criteria and 
requirements, e.g., a requirement to serve as faculty on the subject at 
a State- or locally-sponsored judicial education program.
    c. Dispute Resolution and the Courts. This category includes 
research, evaluation, and demonstration projects addressing the 
findings and recommendations developed at the National Symposium on 
Court-Connected Dispute Resolution Research, conducted in Orlando in 
October 1993. The Institute is interested in projects that enhance the 
courts' ability to compare findings among research studies; address the 
nature and operation of ADR programs within the context of the court 
system as a whole; compare dispute resolution processes to attorney 
settlement as well as trial; and promote the ability of the courts to 
move toward on-going self-evaluation of court-connected dispute 
resolution programs. Among the topics of greatest interest are:
    i. The Structure of Court-Connected Dispute Resolution Programs 
including such issues as the appropriate timing for referrals to 
dispute resolution services and the effects implementing such referrals 
at various stages during litigation; the effect of different referral 
methods including any differences in outcome between voluntary and 
mandatory referrals; cultural issues, including the nature of cultural 
conflict and its effect on outcomes; and approaches that provide rural 
courts and other under-served areas with adequate court-connected 
dispute resolution services.
    ii. The Selection, Qualifications and Training of Court-Connected 
Neutrals including what selection procedures are most effective; what 
standards should be used to qualify a neutral; what constitutes 
effective dispute resolution training; on what basis and when people 
should be eliminated from the training process; how courts can maintain 
and improve neutrals' skills; and how ineffective neutrals should be 
removed from the pool.
    iii. Innovative uses of court-connected dispute resolution for 
resolving complex cases including land-use litigation.
    In previous funding cycles, grants have been awarded to support 
evaluation of the use of mediation in civil, domestic relations, 
juvenile, medical malpractice, appellate, and minor criminal cases. SJI 
grants also have supported assessments of the impact of early neutral 
evaluation of motor vehicle cases, the impact of private judging on 
State courts, multi-door courthouse programs, arbitration of civil 
cases, and civil settlement programs. In addition, SJI has supported 
the creation of a consumer guide to choosing a mediator; the 
development of training programs for judges; and technical assistance 
on implementation of multi-door courthouse programs, developing 
standards for court-annexed mediation programs, examination of the 
applicability of various dispute resolution procedures to different 
cultural groups, and creation of a national database of court-connected 
dispute resolution programs.
    Applicants should be aware that the Institute will not provide 
operational support for on-going ADR programs. Courts also should be 
advised that it is preferable for the applicant to support operational 
costs of a new program, with Institute funds targeted to support 
related technical assistance, training, and evaluation needs.
    d. Planning and Managing the Future of the Courts. The Institute is 
interested in supporting activities that would enable courts to 
implement and evaluate long-range strategic planning processes and 
complementary innovative management approaches in their own 
jurisdictions.
    The types of projects that fall within this category are:
     Development, implementation, institutionalization, and 
evaluation of long-range planning approaches in individual States and 
local jurisdictions, e.g., the development or inclusion of strategic 
planning techniques, environmental scanning, trends analysis, 
benchmarking, and other comprehensive long-range, strategic planning 
methods as components of courts' current planning processes or as part 
of the initiation of such a process;
     Adaptation, implementation and evaluation of innovative 
management approaches, such as total quality management, designed to 
complement, enhance or support use of a long-range strategic planning 
process. This includes the development and testing of performance 
standards and other techniques to enable trial and appellate court 
officials to conduct user evaluations of the quality of court services 
and to measure public, internal, and supplier satisfaction as a means 
to improve court performance. Also included is the planning, 
implementation, and evaluation of innovative delay and cost reduction 
programs including assessments of the advantages and disadvantages of 
privatizing court activities;
     Development, implementation, and evaluation of mechanisms 
for linking assessments of effectiveness such as the Trial Court 
Performance Standards to fiscal planning and budgeting, including 
service efforts and accomplishments approaches (SEA), performance 
audits, and performance budgeting;
     Development, presentation and evaluation of training 
necessary to enable judges and court staff to participate productively 
in the implementation or institutionalization of the planning process 
and/or related innovative management approaches, including training to 
enhance the ability of courts to develop effective plans for coping 
with natural other disasters.
    The Institute has supported futures commissions in seven States. 
Because the Board of Directors believes that a sufficient variety of 
commission models now exists, the Institute will not support the 
development or implementation of any State futures commissions in FY 
1995.
    The Institute also has supported planning, futures, and innovative 
management projects including: national and Statewide ``future and the 
courts'' conferences and training; development of curricula, guidebooks 
and a video on visioning, and a long-range planning guide for trial 
courts; the provision of technical assistance to courts conducting 
futures and long-range planning activities, including development of a 
court futures network on Internet; a test of the feasibility of 
implementing the Trial Court Performance Standards in four States; the 
development of Appellate Court Performance Standards; the application 
of total quality management principles to court operations, and the 
development of TQM guidebook for trial courts; and the development of 
service efforts and accomplishments (SEA) measures for municipal 
courts.
    e. Children and Families in Court. This category includes 
education, evaluation, technical assistance, and research projects to 
identify and inform judges of appropriate and effective approaches for:
     Adjudicating child custody litigation in which family 
violence may be involved;
     Determining and addressing the service needs of children 
exposed to family violence including the short- and long-term effects 
on children of exposure to family violence and the methods for 
mitigating those effects when issuing protection, custody, visitation, 
or other orders;
     Adjudicating and monitoring child abuse and neglect 
litigation and reconciling the need to protect the child with the 
requirement to make reasonable efforts to maintain or reunite the 
family;
     Adjudicating and developing dispositions for cases 
involving elder abuse;
     Determining when it may be appropriate to refer a case 
involving family violence for mediation, and what procedures and 
safeguards should be employed;
     Coordinating multiple cases involving members of the same 
family, and obtaining and appropriately using social and psychological 
information gathered in one case involving a family member in a case 
involving another family member; and
     Handling the criminal and civil aspects of interstate and 
international parental child abductions.
    In previous funding cycles, the Institute supported a national and 
a State symposium on courts, children, and the family; a national 
symposium on enhancing coordination of cases involving the same family 
that are being heard in different courts; development and evaluation of 
a curriculum addressing the adjudication of allegations of child sexual 
abuse when custody is in dispute; and the development and testing of 
curricula to enhance judges' understanding of the dynamics of family 
violence and guide them in adjudication family violence cases and 
custody cases in which spousal abuse is involved. In addition, the 
Institute has supported studies of the appropriate use of mediation in 
child abuse cases and in divorce, custody, and visitation cases 
involving family violence; development of a video and other materials 
for parties and children awaiting a court hearing in domestic relations 
cases involving family violence; a benchbook for judges on child abuse 
and neglect caws stemming from parental substance abuse; curricula to 
fairly adjudicate child abuse and neglect cases; an examination of the 
effectiveness of probation as a sanction for child sexual abuse 
offenders; and the development of guidelines for courts in handling 
elder abuse cases.
    f. Application of Technology. This category includes the testing of 
innovative applications of technology to improve the operation of court 
management systems and judicial practices at both the trial and 
appellate court levels.
    The Institute seeks to support local experiments with promising but 
untested applications of technology in the courts that include a 
structured evaluation of the impact of the technology in terms of 
costs, benefits, and staff workload. In this context, ``untested'' 
refers to novel applications of technology developed for the private 
sector and other fields that have not previously been applied to the 
courts.
    The Institute is particularly interested in supporting efforts to 
determine what benefits and problems may occur as a result of courts 
entering the ``information superhighway,'' including projects to 
establish standards for judicial electronic data interchange (EDI); 
local, Statewide, and/or interstate demonstrations of the courts' use 
of EDI (i.e., the exchange of documents or data in a computerized 
format that enables courts to process or perform work electronically on 
the documents received) beyond simple image transfer (facsimile or 
computer-imaging); and demonstrations and evaluations of innovative 
judicial/court uses of electronic communications networks including 
those required to meet the reporting mandates contained in recent 
Federal legislation such as the Brady Act and the National Child 
Protection Act. In addition, the Institute is interested in 
demonstrations and evaluation of the effective use of management 
information systems to monitor, assess, and predict evolving court 
needs; and evaluations of innovative technologies highlighted at the 
Fourth National Conference on Court Technology held in Nashville in 
October 1994.
    Ordinarily, the Institute will not provide support for the purchase 
of equipment or software in order to implement a technology that has 
been thoroughly tested in other jurisdictions such as the establishment 
of videolinks between courts and jails, the use of optical imaging for 
recordkeeping, and the creation of an automated management information 
system. (See section XI.H.2.b. regarding other limits on the use of 
grant funds to purchase equipment and software.)
    In previous funding cycles, grants have been awarded to support:
    Demonstration and evaluation of communications technology, e.g.: 
interactive computerized information systems to assist pro se 
litigants; the use of FAX technology by courts; a multi-user ``system 
for judicial interchange'' designed to link disparate automated 
information systems and share court information among judicial system 
offices throughout a State without replacement of the various hardware 
and software environments which support individual courts; a compu-
terized voice information system permitting parties to access by 
telephone information pertaining to their cases; an automated public 
information directory of courthouse facilities and services; an 
automated appellate court bulletin board; and a computer-integrated 
courtroom that provides full access to the judicial system for hearing-
impaired jurors, witnesses, crime victims, litigants, attorneys, and 
judges.
    Demonstration and evaluation of records techno-logy, including: the 
development of a court management information display system; the 
integration of bar-coding technology with an existing automated case 
management system; an on-bench automated system for generating and 
processing court orders; an automated judicial education management 
system; testing of a document management system for small courts that 
uses imaging technology, and of automated telephone docketing for 
circuit-riding judges; and evaluation of the use of automated teller 
machines for paying jurors; and
    Court technology assistance services, e.g., circulation of a court 
technology bulletin designed to inform judges and court managers about 
the latest developments in court-related technologies; creation of a 
court technology laboratory to provide judges and court managers with 
the opportunity to test automated court-related systems; enhancement of 
a data base documenting automated systems currently in use in courts 
across the country; establishment of a technical information service to 
respond to specific inquiries concerning court-related technologies; 
development of court automation performance standards; and an 
assessment of programs that allow public access to electronically 
stored court information.
    Grants also provided support for national court technology 
conferences; preparation of guidelines on privacy and public access to 
electronic court information; the testing of a computerized citizen 
intake and referral service; development of an ``analytic judicial 
desktop system'' to assist judges in making sentencing decisions; 
implementation and evaluation of a Statewide automated integrated case 
docketing and record-keeping system; a prototype computerized benchbook 
using hypertext technology; and computer simulation models to assist 
State courts in evaluating potential strategies for improving civil 
caseflow.
    g. Resolution of Current Evidentiary Issues. This category includes 
educational programs and other projects to assist judges in deciding 
questions regarding:
     The admissibility of new forms of demonstrative evidence, 
including computer simulations;
     The application of the standards set forth in Daubert v. 
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. governing the admissibility of 
scientific and technical evidence;
     The admissibility of testimony based on recovered memory, 
and the admissibility of expert testimony about memory recovery;
     The competence of children to testify in criminal, civil, 
and family cases;
     The appropriate use of expert testimony regarding the 
impact of gender-related offenses on victims and their willingness and 
ability to testify, and the application of rape shield laws and other 
limits on the introduction of evidence or the cross-examination of 
witnesses;
     Determining what constitutes clear and convincing evidence 
of a person's wish not to initiate or continue life-sustaining 
treatment, including the implications of the Federal Patient Self-
Determination Act; and
     Other complex evidentiary issues.
    In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported the 
development of a computer-assisted training program on evidentiary 
problems for juvenile and family court judges; training on medical/
legal and scientific evidence issues; regional seminars on evidentiary 
questions; and development of protocols for handling child victim 
cases.
    h. Substance Abuse. This category includes the development and 
evaluation of innovative techniques for courts to handle the increasing 
volume of substance abuse-related criminal, civil, juvenile and 
domestic relations cases fairly and expeditiously; and the planning and 
presentation of seminars or other educational forums for judges, 
probation officers, caseworkers, and other court personnel to examine 
court-related issues concerning alcohol and other drug abuse and 
develop specific plans for how individual courts can respond 
effectively to the impact of substance abuse-related cases on their 
ability to manage their overall caseloads fairly and efficiently.
    The Institute is particularly interested in funding innovative 
projects which evaluate the applicability of court-enforced treatment 
programs to substance abuse-related cases involving juveniles and cases 
requiring treatment services in addition to substance abuse treatment 
(e.g., spousal abuse, child abuse, or mental health cases); establish 
coordinated efforts between local courts and treatment providers for 
the effective disposition of cases involving substance abuse; or 
evaluate the effectiveness of various court responses to treating 
substance abuse. Proposals should demonstrate a direct impact on the 
ability of State courts to handle cases involving substance abuse 
fairly and effectively.
    The Institute will not fund projects focused on developing 
additional assessment tools, establishing court-enforced treatment 
programs for adult substance abusers, or providing support for basic 
court or treatment services.
    The Institute is currently supporting the presentation of a 
National Symposium on the Implementation and Operation of Court-
Enforced Drug Treatment Programs. In previous funding cycles, the 
Institute has sponsored a National Conference on Substance Abuse and 
the Courts, and State efforts to implement the plans developed at that 
Conference. It has also supported projects to evaluate court-enforced 
treatment programs initiated by the Dade County, Florida, Pulaski 
County, Arkansas, and New York City courts, and the effectiveness of 
other court-based alcohol and drug assessment programs; replicate the 
Dade County program in non-urban sites; assess the impact of 
legislation and court decisions dealing with drug-affected infants, and 
strategies for coping with increasing caseload pressures; develop a 
benchbook to assist judges in child abuse and neglect cases involving 
parental substance abuse; test the use of a dual diagnostic treatment 
model for domestic violence cases in which substance abuse was a 
factor; and present local and regional educational programs for judges 
and other court personnel on substance abuse and its treatment.
    The Institute and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) also are 
supporting two technical assistance projects: one by the National 
Center for State Courts to assist courts in implementing the plans 
developed at the National Conference; and the other by the American 
University Court Technical Assistance Project to identify successful 
drug case management strategies, conduct seminars on drug case 
management, and develop a guidebook for implementing drug case 
processing initiatives. In addition, the Institute and the Department 
of Health and Human Services' Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 
(CSAT) have entered into inter-agency agreement to conduct regional 
training programs for State judges and legislators on substance abuse 
treatment.
    i. Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts. This category 
includes State and local court projects to implement the action plans 
and strategies developed by the teams that participated in the 
Institute-supported National Conference on Eliminating Race and Ethnic 
Bias in the Courts, to be held in Albuquerque, New Mexico in March, 
1995, and projects designed to assist teams in implementing their 
plans.
    A special accelerated cycle has been established for considering 
such projects. In order to be considered during the special cycle, 
concept papers proposing implementation projects must be mailed by 
October 6, 1995. They will be considered by the Institute's Board of 
Directors at its meeting in November, 1995. Applications based on those 
concept papers will be considered by the Board at its meeting in March, 
1996.
    j. Assessing the Impact of Health Care-Related Issues on the State 
Courts. This category includes projects to develop educational 
curricula and other materials to assist judges in:
     Determining and preparing approaches for dealing with the 
impact on the State Courts of proposed or enacted changes in the State 
and Federal health care systems, including the anticipated increase in 
the number of disputes regarding the scope and nature of insurance 
coverage;
     Understanding and responding to the scientific, legal and 
ethical issues raised by the continuing advances in the application of 
biotechnology to health care, including the use of gene therapy and 
genetic testing; and
     Using effective innovative remedies in long-term 
environmental and toxic substance exposure cases such as medical 
surveillance orders.
    In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported projects 
to: develop guidelines for judges in cases regarding the withdrawal of 
life-sustaining treatment; prepare benchbooks, handbooks, videotapes, 
and training materials on guardianship, the Americans with Disabilities 
Act, and AIDS; conduct a series of health science-law workshops for 
judges and judicial educators; and develop a deskbook for judges on 
medical-legal issues arising in juvenile and family cases.
    k. Improving the Courts' Response to Gender-Related Crimes of 
Violence. This category includes the development, testing, 
presentation, and dissemination of education programs for judges and 
court personnel on:
     The nature and incidence of stalking and gender-related 
crimes of violence (e.g., rape, sexual assault, partner abuse), and 
their impact on the victim and society;
     Sentencing decision-making in cases involving gender-
related crimes of violence;
     The use of self-defense and provocation defenses by 
alleged victims of gender-related violence accused of assaulting or 
killing their alleged abusers; and
     The effective use and enforcement of protective orders and 
the implications of mutual orders of protection.
    In previous funding cycles, the Institute supported a national 
conference on family violence and the courts, and follow-up conferences 
in several States; development of a comprehensive curriculum on 
handling stranger and non-stranger rape and sexual assault cases; 
evaluation of the effectiveness of court-ordered treatment for family 
violence offenders; a demonstration of ways to improve court processing 
of injunctions for protection and a study of ways to improve the 
effectiveness of civil protection orders for family violence victims; 
an examination of state-of-the-art court practices for handling family 
violence cases and of ways to improve access to rural courts for 
victims of family violence; and a manual for judges on the use of 
expert testimony regarding the battered woman syndrome.
    l. The Relationship Between State and Federal Courts. This category 
includes education, research, demonstration, and evaluation projects 
designed to facilitate appropriate and effective communication, 
cooperation, and coordination between State and Federal courts. The 
Institute is particularly interested in innovative education, 
evaluation, demonstration, technical assistance and research projects 
that:
    i. Build upon the findings and recommendations gained at the 
Institute-supported National Conference on the Management of Mass Tort 
Cases to be held in Cincinnati on November 10-13, 1994. Concept papers 
proposing projects addressing these issues must be mailed by March 10, 
1995. Concept papers following up on the Mass Tort Conference will be 
reviewed by the Board of Directors at its April 1995 meeting. (A 
summary of the recommendations and findings from the conference will be 
published in SJI NEWS in December, 1994.)
    ii. Develop and test curricula and other educational materials to:
     Enhance the operation of State-Federal Judicial Councils;
     Illustrate effective methods being used at the trial 
court, State and Circuit levels to coordinate cases and administrative 
activities; and
     Conduct regional conferences replicating the October, 1992 
National Conference on State/Federal Judicial Relationships.
    iii. Develop and test new approaches to:
     Improve the fairness and pace of capital litigation by 
assigning special capital litigation law clerks to assist trial judges 
hearing cases involving crimes punishable by death;
     Otherwise handle capital habeas corpus cases fairly and 
efficiently;
     Coordinate related State and Federal criminal cases;
     Coordinate cases that may be brought under the pending 
Violence Against Women Act;
     Exchange information and coordinating calendars among 
State and Federal courts; and
     Share jury pools, alternative dispute resolution programs, 
and court services.
    In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported national 
and regional conferences on State-Federal judicial relationships and 
the Chief Justices' Special Committee of State Judges on Asbestos 
Litigation. In addition, the Institute has supported projects 
developing judicial impact statement procedures for national 
legislation affecting State courts, and projects examining methods of 
State and Federal court cooperation; procedures for facilitating 
certification of questions of law; the impact on the State courts of 
diversity cases and cases brought under section 1983; the procedures 
used in Federal habeas corpus review of State court criminal cases; the 
factors that motivate litigants to select Federal or State courts; and 
the mechanisms for transferring cases between Federal and State courts, 
as well as the methods for effectively consolidating, deciding, and 
managing complex litigation. The Institute has also supported a 
clearinghouse of information on State constitutional law decisions, 
educational programs for State judges on coordination of Federal 
bankruptcy cases with State litigation, and a seminar examining the 
implications of the ``Federalization'' of crime.

C. Single Jurisdiction Projects

    The Board will consider supporting a limited number of projects 
submitted by State or local courts that address the needs of only the 
applicant State or local jurisdiction. It has established two 
categories of Single Jurisdiction Projects:
1. Programs Addressing a Critical Need of a Single State or Local 
Jurisdiction
    a. Description of the Program. The Board will set aside up to 
$600,000 to support projects submitted by State or local courts that 
address the needs of only the applicant State or local jurisdiction. A 
project under this section may address any of the topics included in 
the Special Interest Categories or Statutory Program Areas, and may, 
but need not, seek to implement the findings and recommendations of 
Institute supported research, evaluation, or demonstration programs. 
Concept papers for single jurisdiction projects may be submitted by a 
State court system, an appellate court, or a limited or general 
jurisdiction trial court. All awards under this category are subject to 
the matching requirements set forth in section X.B.1.
    b. Application Procedures. Concept papers and applications 
requesting funds for projects under this section must meet the 
requirements of sections VI. (``Concept Paper Submission Requirements 
for New Projects'') and VII. (``Application Requirements''), 
respectively, and must demonstrate that:
    i. The proposed project is essential to meeting a critical need of 
the jurisdiction; and
    ii. The need cannot be met solely with State and local resources 
within the foreseeable future.
2. Technical Assistance Grants
    a. Description of the Program. The Board will set aside up to 
$600,000 of Fiscal Year 1995 funds (in addition to any technical 
assistance funds remaining from Fiscal Year 1994) to support the 
provision of technical assistance to State and local courts. The exact 
amount to be awarded for these grants will depend on the number and 
quality of the applications submitted in this category and other 
categories of the Guideline. It is anticipated, however, that at least 
$150,000 will be available each quarter to support Technical Assistance 
grants. The program is designed to provide State and local courts with 
sufficient support to obtain technical assistance to diagnose a 
problem, develop a response to that problem, and initiate 
implementation of any needed changes.
    Technical Assistance grants are limited to no more than $30,000 
each, and may cover the cost of obtaining the services of expert 
consultants, travel by a team of officials from one court to examine a 
practice, program or facility in another jurisdiction that the 
applicant court is interested in replicating, or both.
    The technical assistance must be completed within 12 months after 
the start-date of the grant. Only State or local courts may apply for 
Technical Assistance grants. As with other awards to State or local 
courts, cash or in-kind match must be provided equal to at least 50% of 
the grant amount.Technical Assistance grant recipients also are subject 
to the same quarterly reporting requirements as other Institute 
grantees.
    At the conclusion of the grant period, a Technical Assistance grant 
recipient must complete a Technical Assistance Evaluation Form. The 
grantee also must submit to the Institute two copies of a final report 
that explains how it intends to act on the consultant's recommendations 
as well as two copies of the consultant's written report.
    b. Review Criteria. Technical Assistance grants will be awarded on 
the basis of criteria including: whether the assistance would address a 
critical need of the court; the soundness of the technical assistance 
approach to the problem; the qualifications of the consultant(s) to be 
hired, or the specific criteria that will be used to select the 
consultant(s); commitment on the part of the court to act on the 
consultant's recommendations; and the reasonableness of the proposed 
budget. The Institute will also consider factors such as the level and 
nature of the match that would be provided, diversity of subject 
matter, geographic diversity, and the level of appropriations available 
to the Institute in the current year and the amount expected to be 
available in succeeding fiscal years.
    c. Application Procedures. In lieu of concept papers and formal 
applications, applicants for Technical Assistance grants may submit, at 
any time, an original and three copies of a detailed letter describing 
the proposed project and addressing the criteria listed above. Letters 
from an individual trial or appellate court must be signed by the 
presiding judge or manager of that court. Letters from the State court 
system must be signed by the Chief Justice or State Court 
Administrator.
    Although there is no prescribed form for the letter nor a minimum 
or maximum page limit, letters of application should include the 
following information to assure that each of the criteria is addressed:
    i. Need for Funding. What is the critical need facing the court? 
How will the proposed technical assistance help the court to meet this 
critical need? Why cannot State or local resources fully support the 
costs of the required consultant services?
    ii. Project Description. What tasks would the consultant be 
expected to perform? Who (organization or individual) would be hired to 
provide the assistance and how was this consultant selected? If a 
consultant has not yet been identified, what procedures and criteria 
would be used to select the consultant? (Applicants are expected to 
follow their jurisdiction's normal procedures for procuring consultant 
services.) What is the time frame for completion of the technical 
assistance? How would the court oversee the project and provide 
guidance to the consultant?
    If the consultant has been identified, a letter from that 
individual or organization documenting interest in and availability for 
the project, as well as the consultant's ability to complete the 
assignment within the proposed time period and for the proposed cost, 
should accompany the applicant's letter. The consultant must agree to 
submit a detailed written report to the court and the Institute upon 
completion of the technical assistance.
    If the support or cooperation of agencies, funding bodies, 
organizations, or courts other than the applicant, would be needed in 
order for the consultant to perform the required tasks, written 
assurances of such support or cooperation must accompany the 
application letter. Support letters also may be submitted under 
separate cover; however, to ensure that there is sufficient time to 
bring them to the attention of the Board's Technical Assistance 
Committee, letters sent under separate cover must be received not less 
than two weeks prior to the Board meeting at which the technical 
assistance requests will be considered (i.e., by November 4, 1994; 
February 17, 1995; April 28, 1995; and July 14, 1995).
    iii. Likelihood of implementation. What steps have been/will be 
taken to facilitate implementation of the consultant's recommendations 
upon completion of the technical assistance? For example, if the 
support or cooperation of other agencies, funding bodies, 
organizations, or a court other than the applicant will be needed to 
adopt the changes recommended by the consultant and approved by the 
court, how will they be involved in the review of the recommendations 
and development of the implementation plan?
    iv. Budget and matching State contribution. A completed Form E, 
``Preliminary Budget'' (see Appendix IV to the Grant Guideline), must 
be included with the applicant's letter requesting technical 
assistance. Please note that the estimated cost of the technical 
assistance services should be broken down into the categories listed on 
the budget form rather than aggregated under the Consultant/Contractual 
category. In addition, the budget should provide for submission of 
three copies of the consultant's final report to the Institute.
    v. Support for the project from the State supreme court or its 
designated agency or council. Written concurrence on the need for the 
technical assistance must be submitted. This concurrence may be a copy 
of SJI Form B (see Appendix V.) signed by the Chief Justice of the 
State Supreme Court or the Chief Justice's designee, or a letter from 
the State Chief Justice or designee. The concurrence may be submitted 
with the applicant's letter or under separate cover prior to 
consideration of the application. The concurrence also must specify 
whether the State Supreme Court would receive, administer, and account 
for the grant funds, if awarded, or would designate the local court or 
a specified agency or council to receive the funds directly.
    Letters of application may be submitted at any time; however, all 
of the letters received during a calendar quarter will be considered at 
one time. Applicants submitting letters between October 1, 1994, and 
January 15, 1995, will be notified of the Board's decision by March 31, 
1995; those submitting letters between January 16, and March 15, 1995, 
will be notified by May 31, 1995. Notification of the Board's decisions 
concerning letters received between March 16 and June 15, 1995, will be 
made by August 31, 1995; and applicants submitting letters between June 
16 and September 29, 1995, will be notified by November 30, 1995. The 
Board has delegated its authority to approve these grants to its 
Technical Assistance Committee.
    The Technical Assistance grant program described in this section 
should not be confused with the Judicial Education Technical Assistance 
projects described in Section II.B.2.b.iii.

III. Definitions

    The following definitions apply for the purposes of this guideline:

A. Institute

    The State Justice Institute.

B. State Supreme Court

    The highest appellate court in a State, unless, for the purposes of 
the Institute program, a constitutionally or legislatively established 
judicial council that acts in place of that court. In States having 
more than one court with final appellate authority, State Supreme Court 
shall mean that court which also has administrative responsibility for 
the State's judicial system. State Supreme Court also includes the 
office of the court or council, if any, it designates to perform the 
functions described in this guideline.

C. Designated Agency or Council

    The office or judicial body which is authorized under State law or 
by delegation from the State Supreme Court to approve applications for 
funds and to receive, administer, and be accountable for those funds.

D. Grantee

    The organization, entity, or individual to which an award of 
Institute funds is made. For a grant based on an application from a 
State or local court, grantee refers to the State Supreme Court or its 
designee.

E. Subgrantee

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

F. Match

    The portion of project costs not borne by the Institute. Match 
includes both in-kind and cash contributions. Cash match is the direct 
outlay of funds by the grantee to support the project. In-kind match 
consists of contributions of time, services, space, supplies, etc., 
made to the project by the grantee or others (e.g., advisory board 
members) working directly on the project. Under normal circumstances, 
allowable match may be incurred only during the project period. When 
appropriate, and with the prior written permission of the Institute, 
match may be incurred from the date of the Institute Board of 
Directors' approval of an award. Match does not include project-related 
income such as tuition or revenue from the sale of grant products, or 
the time of participants attending an education program. Amounts 
contributed as cash or in-kind match may not be recovered through the 
sale of grant products during or following the grant period.

G. Continuation Grant

    A grant of no more than 24 months to permit completion of 
activities initiated under an existing Institute grant or enhancement 
of the programs or services produced or established during the prior 
grant period.

H. On-going Support Grant

    A grant of up to 36 months to support a project that is national in 
scope and that provides the State courts with services, programs or 
products for which there is a continuing important need.

I. Package Grant

    A single grant that supports two or more closely-related projects 
which logically should be viewed as a whole or would require 
substantial duplication of effort if administered separately. Closely-
related projects may include those addressing interrelated topics, or 
those requiring the services of all or some of the same key staff 
persons, or the core elements of a multifaceted program. Each of the 
components of a package grant must operate within the same project 
period.

J. Human Subjects

    Individuals who are participants in an experimental procedure or 
who are asked to provide information about themselves, their attitudes, 
feelings, opinions and/or experiences through an interview, 
questionnaire, or other data collection technique(s).

K. Curriculum

    The materials needed to replicate an education or training program 
developed with grant funds including, but not limited to: the learning 
objectives; the presentation methods; a sample agenda or schedule; an 
outline of presentations and other instructors' notes; copies of 
overhead transparencies or other visual aids; exercises, case studies, 
hypotheticals, quizzes and other materials for involving the 
participants; background materials for participants; evaluation forms; 
and suggestions for replicating the program including possible faculty 
or the preferred qualifications or experience of those selected as 
faculty.

L. Products

    Tangible materials resulting from funded projects including, but 
not limited to: curricula; monographs; reports; books; articles; 
manuals; handbooks; benchbooks; guidelines; videotapes; audiotapes; and 
computer software.

IV. Eligibility for Award

    In awarding funds to accomplish these objectives and purposes, the 
Institute has been authorized by Congress to award grants, cooperative 
agreements, and contracts to State and local courts and their agencies 
(42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(1)(A)); national nonprofit organizations controlled 
by, operating in conjunction with, and serving the judicial branches of 
State governments (42 U.S.C. 10705 (b)(1)(B)); and national nonprofit 
organizations for the education and training of judges and support 
personnel of the judicial branch of State governments (42 U.S.C. 
10705(b)(1)(C)).
    An applicant will be considered a national education and training 
applicant under section 10705(b)(1)(C) if: (1) The principal purpose or 
activity of the applicant is to provide education and training to State 
and local judges and court personnel; and (2) the applicant 
demonstrates a record of substantial experience in the field of 
judicial education and training.
    The Institute also is authorized to make awards to other nonprofit 
organizations with expertise in judicial administration, institutions 
of higher education, individuals, partnerships, firms, corporations, 
and private agencies with expertise in judicial administration, 
provided that the objectives of the relevant program area(s) can be 
served better. In making this judgment, the Institute will consider the 
likely replicability of the projects' methodology and results in other 
jurisdictions. For-profit organizations are also eligible for grants 
and cooperative agreements; however, they must waive their fees.
    The Institute may also make awards to Federal, State or local 
agencies and institutions other than courts for services that cannot be 
adequately provided through nongovernmental arrangements.
    Finally, the Institute may enter into inter-agency agreements with 
other public or private funders to support projects consistent with the 
purpose of the State Justice Institute Act.
    Each application for funding from a State or local court must be 
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court or 
its designated agency or council. The latter shall receive all 
Institute funds awarded to such courts and be responsible for assuring 
proper administration of Institute funds, in accordance with section 
XI.B.2. of this Guideline. A list of persons to contact in each State 
regarding approval of applications from State and local courts and 
administration of Institute grants to those courts is contained in 
Appendix I.

V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of Awards

A. Types of Projects

    Except as expressly provided in section II.B.2.b. and II.C. above, 
the Institute has placed no limitation on the overall number of awards 
or the number of awards in each special interest category. The general 
types of projects are:
    1. Education and training;
    2. Research and evaluation;
    3. Demonstration; and
    4. Technical assistance.

B. Types of Grants

    The Institute has established the following types of grants:
    1. New grants (See sections VI. and VII.).
    2. Continuation grants (See sections III.H. and IX.A).
    3. On-going Support grants (See sections III.I. and IX.B.).
    4. Package Grants (See sections III.J., VI.A.2.b., VI.A.3.b., and 
VII.).
    5. Technical Assistance grants (See section II.C.2.).
    6. Curriculum Adaptation grants (See section II.B.2.b.i.(b)).
    7. Scholarships (See section II.B.2.b.v.).

C. Maximum Size of Awards

    1. Except as specified below, concept papers and applications for 
new projects other than national conferences, and applications for 
continuation grants may request funding in amounts up to $300,000, 
although new and continuation awards in excess of $200,000 are likely 
to be rare and to be made, if at all, only for highly promising 
proposals that will have a significant impact nationally.
    2. Applications for on-going support grants may request funding in 
amounts up to $600,000, except as provided in paragraph V.C.3. At the 
discretion of the Board, the funds to support on-going support grants 
may be awarded either entirely from the Institute's appropria-tions for 
the fiscal year of the award or from the Institute's appropriations for 
successive fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year of the award. 
When funds to support the full amount of an on-going support grant are 
not awarded from the appropriations for the fiscal year of award, funds 
to support any subsequent years of the grant will be made available 
upon (1) the satisfactory performance of the project as reflected in 
the quarterly Progress Reports required to be filed and grant 
monitoring, and (2) the availability of appropriations for that fiscal 
year.
    3. An application for a package grant may request funding in an 
amount up to a total of $750,000 per year.
    4. Applications for technical assistance grants may request funding 
in amounts up to $30,000.
    5. Applications for curriculum adaptation grants may request 
funding in amounts up to $20,000.
    6. Applications for scholarships may request funding in amounts up 
to $1,500.

D. Length of Grant Periods

    1. Grant periods for all new and continuation projects ordinarily 
will not exceed 24 months.
    2. Grant periods for on-going support grants ordinarily will not 
exceed 36 months.
    3. Grant periods for technical assistance grants and curriculum 
adaptation grants ordinarily will not exceed 12 months.

VI. Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects

    Concept papers are an extremely important part of the application 
process because they enable the Institute to learn the program areas of 
primary interest to the courts and to explore innovative ideas, without 
imposing heavy burdens on prospective applicants. The use of concept 
papers also permits the Institute to better project the nature and 
amount of grant awards. This requirement and the submission deadlines 
for concept papers and applications may be waived for good cause (e.g., 
the proposed project would provide a significant benefit to the State 
courts or the opportunity to conduct the project did not arise until 
after the deadline).

A. Format and Content

    All concept papers must include a cover sheet, a program narrative, 
and a preliminary budget, regardless of whether the applicant is 
proposing a single project or a ``package of projects,'' or whether the 
applicant is requesting accelerated award of a grant of less than 
$40,000.
1. The Cover Sheet
    The cover sheet for all concept papers must contain:
    a. A title describing the proposed project;
    b. The name and address of the court, organization or individual 
submitting the paper;
    c. The name, title, address (if different from that in b.), and 
telephone number of a contact person(s) who can provide further 
information about the paper;
    d. The letter of the Special Interest Category (see section 
II.B.2.) or the number of the statutory Program Area (see section 
II.B.1.) that the proposed project addresses most directly; and
    e. The estimated length of the proposed project.
    Applicants requesting the Board to waive the application 
requirement and approve a grant of less than $40,000 based on the 
concept paper, should add APPLICATION WAIVER REQUESTED to the 
information on the cover page.
2. The Program Narrative
    a. Concept Papers Proposing a Single Project. The program narrative 
of a concept paper describing a single project should be no longer than 
necessary, but in no case should exceed eight (8) double-spaced pages 
on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper. Margins must not be less than 1 inch and 
type no smaller than 12 point and 12 cpi must be used. The narrative 
should describe:
    i. Why this project is needed and how it will benefit State courts? 
If the project is to be conducted in a specific location(s), applicants 
should discuss the particular needs of the project site(s) to be 
addressed by the project, why those needs are not being met through the 
use of existing materials, programs, procedures, services or other 
resources, and the benefits that would be realized by the proposed 
sites(s).
    If the project is not site specific, applicants should discuss the 
problems that the proposed project will address, why existing 
materials, programs, procedures, services or other resources do not 
adequately resolve those problems, and the benefits that would be 
realized from the project by State courts generally.
    ii. What will be done if a grant is awarded? A summary description 
of the project to be conducted and the approach to be taken, including 
the anticipated length of the grant period. Applicants requesting a 
waiver of the application requirement for a grant of less than $40,000 
should explain the proposed methods for conducting the project as fully 
as space allows.
    iii. How the effects and quality of the project will be determined? 
A summary description of how the project will be evaluated, including 
the evaluation criteria.
    iv. How others will find out about the project and be able to use 
the results? A description of the products that will result, the degree 
to which they will be applicable to courts across the nation, and the 
manner in which the products and results of the project will be 
disseminated.
    b. Concept Papers Requesting a Package Grant Covering More Than One 
Project. The program narrative of a concept paper requesting a package 
grant (see definition in section III.I.) should be no longer than 
necessary, but in no case should exceed 15 double-spaced pages on 8\1/
2\ by 11 inch paper. Margins must not be less than 1 inch, and type no 
smaller than 12-point and 12 cpi must be used.
    In addition to addressing the issues listed in paragraph VI.A.2.a., 
the program narrative of a package grant concept paper must describe 
briefly each component project, as well as how its inclusion enhances 
the entire package; and explain:
    i. How are the proposed projects related?
    ii. How would their operation and administration be enhanced if 
they were funded as a package rather than as individual projects; and
    iii. What disadvantages, if any, would accrue by considering or 
funding them separately.
3. The Budget
    a. Concept Papers Proposing a Single Project. A preliminary budget 
must be attached to the narrative that includes the estimates and 
information specified on Form E included in Appendix IV of this 
Guideline.
    b. Concept Papers Requesting a Package Grant Covering More Than One 
Project. A separate preliminary budget for each component project of 
the package, as well as a combined budget that reflects the costs of 
the entire package, must be attached to the narrative. Each project 
budget must be identified by the title that corresponds to the 
narrative description of the project in the program narrative and a 
letter of the alphabet (i.e. A, B, C). Each of these budgets must 
include the estimates and information specified on Form E included in 
Appendix IV of this Guideline.
    c. Concept Papers Requesting Accelerated Award of a Grant of Less 
than $40,000. Applicants requesting a waiver of the application 
requirement and approval of a grant based on a concept paper under 
section VI.C., must attach to Form E (see Appendix IV) a budget 
narrative explaining the basis for each of the items listed, and 
whether the costs would be paid from grant funds or through a matching 
contribution or other sources. The budget narrative is not counted 
against the eight-page limit for the program narrative.
    4. The Institute encourages concept paper applicants to attach 
letters of cooperation and support from the courts and related agencies 
that will be involved in or directly affected by the proposed project. 
Letters of support also may be sent under separate cover. 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 13, 1995.
    5. The Institute will not accept concept papers with program 
narratives exceeding the limits set in sections VI.A.2.a. and b. The 
page limit does not include the cover page, budget form, the budget 
narrative if required under section VI.A.3.c., and any letters of 
cooperation or endorsements. Additional material should not be attached 
unless it is essential to impart a clear understanding of the project.
    6. Applicants submitting more than one concept paper may include 
material that would be identical in each concept paper in a cover 
letter, and incorporate that material by reference in each paper. The 
incorporated material will be counted against the eight-page limit for 
each paper. A copy of the cover letter should be attached to each copy 
of each concept paper.
    7. Sample concept papers from previous funding cycles are available 
from the Institute upon request.

B. Selection Criteria

    1. All concept papers will be evaluated by the staff on the basis 
of the following criteria:
    a. The demonstration of need for the project;
    b. The soundness and innovativeness of the approach described;
    c. The benefits to be derived from the project;
    d. The reasonableness of the proposed budget;
    e. The proposed project's relationship to one of the ``Special 
Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B; and
    f. The degree to which the findings, procedures, training, 
technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other 
jurisdictions.
    2. ``Single jurisdiction'' concept papers submitted pursuant to 
section II.C. will be rated on the proposed project's relation to one 
of the ``Special Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B., and 
on the special requirements listed in section II.C.1.
    3. In determining which concept papers will be selected for 
development into full applications, the Institute will also consider 
the availability of financial assistance from other sources for the 
project; the amount and nature (cash or in-kind) of the applicant's 
anticipated match; whether the applicant is a State court, a national 
court support or education 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 their 
review. Committees of the Board will review concept paper summaries 
within assigned program areas and prepare recommendations for the full 
Board. The full Board of Directors will then decide which concept paper 
applicants should be invited to submit formal applications for funding.
    The decision to invite an application is solely that of the Board 
of Directors. With regard to concept papers requesting a package grant, 
the Board retains discretion to invite an application including all, 
none, or selected portions of the package for possible funding.
    The Board may waive the application requirement and approve a grant 
based on a concept paper for a project requiring less than $40,000, 
when the need for and benefits of the project are clear, and the 
methodology and budget require little additional explanation.

D. Submission Requirements

    An original and three copies of all concept papers submitted for 
consideration in Fiscal Year 1995 must be sent by first class or 
overnight mail or by courier no later than November 23, 1994, except 
for concept papers proposing projects that follow-up on the National 
Conference on the Managment of Mass Tort Cases which must be sent by 
March 10, 1995 (see section II.B.2.l.), and concept papers proposing to 
implement an action plan developed during the National Conference on 
Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts which must be sent by 
October 6, 1995 (see section II.B.2.i.). A postmark or courier receipt 
will constitute evidence of the submission date. All envelopes 
containing concept papers should be marked CONCEPT PAPER and should be 
sent to: State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
    It is preferable for letters of cooperation and support to be 
appended to the concept paper when it is submitted. If support letters 
are sent under separate cover, they must be received no later than 
January 13, 1995 in order to ensure that there is sufficient time to 
bring them to the Board's attention.
    The Institute will send written notice to all persons submitting 
concept papers of the Board's decisions regarding their papers and of 
the key issues and questions that arose during the review process. A 
decision by the Board not to invite an application may not be appealed, 
but does not prohibit resubmission of the concept paper or a revision 
thereof in a subsequent round of funding. The Institute will also 
notify the designated State contact listed in the Appendix when the 
Board invites applications that are based on concept papers which are 
submitted by courts within their State or which specify a participating 
site within their State.
    Receipt of each concept paper will be acknowledged in writing. 
Extensions of the deadline for submission of concept papers will not be 
granted.

VII. Application Requirements for New Projects

    Except as specified in section VI., a formal application for a new 
project is to be submitted only upon invitation of the Board following 
review of a concept paper. An application for Institute funding support 
must include an application form; budget forms (with appropriate 
documentation); a project abstract and program narrative; a disclosure 
of lobbying form, when applicable; and certain certifications and 
assurances. These documents are described below.

A. Forms

1. Application Form (Form A)
    The application form requests basic information regarding the 
proposed project, the applicant, and the total amount of funding 
support requested from the Institute. It also requires the signature of 
an individual authorized to certify on behalf of the applicant that the 
information contained in the application is true and complete, that 
submission of the application has been authorized by the applicant, and 
that if funding for the proposed project is approved, the applicant 
will comply with the requirements and conditions of the award, 
including the assurances set forth in Form D.
2. Certificate of State Approval (Form B)
    An application from a State or local court must include a copy of 
Form B signed by the State's Chief Justice or Chief Judge, the director 
of the designated agency, or the head of the designated council. The 
signature denotes that the proposed project has been approved by the 
State's highest court or the agency or council it has designated. It 
denotes further that if funding for the project is approved by the 
Institute, the court or the specified designee will receive, 
administer, and be accountable for the awarded funds.
3. Budget Forms (Form C or C1)
    Applicants may submit the proposed project budget either in the 
tabular format of Form C or in the spreadsheet format of Form C1. 
Applicants requesting more than $100,000 are strongly encouraged to use 
the spread-sheet format. If the proposed project period is for more 
than a year, a separate form should be submitted for each year or 
portion of a year for which grant support is requested.
    In addition to Form C or C1, applicants must provide a detailed 
budget narrative providing an explanation of the basis for the 
estimates in each budget category. (See section VII.D.)
    Applications for a package grant must include a separate budget and 
budget narrative for each project included in the proposed package, as 
well as a combined budget that reflects the total costs of the entire 
package.
    If funds from other sources are required to conduct the project, 
either as match or to support other aspects of the project, the source, 
current status of the request, and anticipated decision date must be 
provided.
4. Assurances (Form D)
    This form lists the statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements 
and conditions with which recipients of Institute funds must comply.
5. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
    This form requires applicants other than units of State or local 
government to disclose whether they, or another entity that is part of 
the same organization as the applicant, have advocated a position 
before Congress on any issue, and to identify the specific subjects of 
their lobbying efforts. (See section X.D.)

B. Project Abstract

    The abstract should highlight the purposes, goals, methods and 
anticipated benefits of the proposed project. It should not exceed one 
single-spaced page on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper.

C. Program Narrative

    The program narrative for an application proposing a single project 
should not exceed 25 double-spaced pages on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper. 
The program narrative for an application requesting a package grant for 
more than one project should not exceed 40 double-spaced pages on 8\1/
2\ by 11 inch paper. Margins must not be less than 1 inch, and type no 
smaller than 12-point and 12 cpi must be used. The page limit does not 
include the forms, the abstract, the budget narrative, and any 
appendices containing resumes and letters of cooperation or 
endorsement. Additional background material should be attached only if 
it is essential to obtaining a clear understanding of the proposed 
project. Numerous and lengthy appendices are strongly discouraged.
    The program narrative should address the following topics:
1. Project Objectives
    A clear, concise statement of what the proposed project is intended 
to accomplish. In stating the objectives of the project, applicants 
should focus on the overall programmatic objective (e.g., to enhance 
understanding and skills regarding a specific subject, or to determine 
how a certain procedure affects the court and litigants) rather than on 
operational objectives (e.g., provide training for 32 judges and court 
managers, or review data from 300 cases).
2. Program Areas To Be Covered
    A statement which lists the program areas set forth in the State 
Justice Institute Act, and, if appropriate, the Institute's Special 
Interest program categories that are addressed by the proposed 
projects.
3. Need for the Project
    If the project is to be conducted in a specific location(s), a 
discussion of the particular needs of the project site(s) to be 
addressed by the project and why those needs are not being met through 
the use of existing materials, programs, procedures, services or other 
resources.
    If the project is not site specific, a discussion of the problems 
that the proposed project will address, and why existing materials, 
programs, procedures, services or other resources do not adequately 
resolve those problems. The discussion should include specific 
references to the relevant literature and to the experience in the 
field.
    An application requesting a package grant to support more than one 
project also must describe how the proposed projects in the package are 
related; how their operation and administration would be enhanced if 
they were funded as a package rather than as individual projects; and 
what disadvantages, if any, would accrue by considering or funding them 
separately.
4. Tasks, Methods and Evaluation
    a. Tasks and Methods. A delineation of the tasks to be performed in 
achieving the project objectives and the methods to be used for 
accomplishing each task. For example:
    i. For research and evaluation projects, the data sources, data 
collection strategies, variables to be examined, and analytic 
procedures to be used for conducting the research or evaluation and 
ensuring the validity and general applicability of the results. For 
projects involving human subjects, the discussion of methods should 
address the procedures for obtaining respondents' informed consent, 
ensuring the respondents' privacy and freedom from risk or harm, and 
the protection of others who are not the subjects of research but would 
be affected by the research. If the potential exists for risk or harm 
to the human subjects, a discussion should be included of the value of 
the proposed research and the methods to be used to minimize or 
eliminate such risk.
    ii. For education and training projects, the adult education 
techniques to be used in designing and presenting the program, 
including the teaching/ learning objectives of the educational design, 
the teaching methods to be used, and the opportunities for structured 
interaction among the participants; how faculty will be recruited, 
selected, and trained; the proposed number and length of the 
conferences, courses, seminars or workshops to be conducted; the 
materials to be provided and how they will be developed; and the cost 
to participants.
    iii. For demonstration projects, the demonstration sites and the 
reasons they were selected, or if the sites have not been chosen, how 
they will be identified and their cooperation obtained; how the program 
or procedures will be implemented and monitored.
    iv. For technical assistance projects, the types of assistance that 
will be provided; the particular issues and problems for which 
assistance will be provided; how requests will be obtained and the type 
of assistance determined; how suitable providers will be selected and 
briefed; how reports will be reviewed; and the cost to recipients.
    An application requesting a package grant for more than one project 
must describe separately the tasks associated with each project in the 
proposed package. Each project must be identified by a separate letter 
of the alphabet (i.e., A, B, C) and a descriptive title.
    b. Evaluation. Every project design must include an evaluation plan 
to determine whether the project met its objectives. The evaluation 
should be designed to provide an objective and independent assessment 
of the effectiveness or usefulness of the training or services 
provided; the impact of the procedures, technology or services tested; 
or the validity and applicability of the research conducted. In 
addition, where appropriate, the evaluation process should be designed 
to provide ongoing or periodic feedback on the effectiveness or utility 
of particular programs, educational offerings, or achievements which 
can then be further refined as a result of the evaluation process. The 
plan should present the qualifications of the evaluator(s); describe 
the criteria, related to the project's programmatic objectives, that 
will be used to evaluate the project's effectiveness; explain how the 
evaluation will be conducted, including the specific data collection 
and analysis techniques to be used; discuss why this approach is 
appropriate; and present a schedule for completion of the evaluation 
within the proposed project period.
    The evaluation plan should be appropriate to the type of project 
proposed. For example:
    i. An evaluation approach suited to many research projects is a 
review by an advisory panel of the research methodology, data 
collection instruments, preliminary analyses, and products as they are 
drafted. The panel should be comprised of independent researchers and 
practitioners representing the perspectives affected by the proposed 
project.
    ii. The most valuable approaches to evaluating educational or 
training programs will serve to reinforce the participants' learning 
experience while providing useful feedback on the impact of the program 
and possible areas for improvement. One appropriate evaluation approach 
is to assess the acquisition of new knowledge, skills, attitudes or 
understanding through participant feedback on the seminar or training 
event. Such feedback might include a self-assessment on what was 
learned along with the participant's response to the quality and 
effectiveness of faculty presentations, the format of sessions, the 
value or usefulness of the material presented and other relevant 
factors. Another appropriate approach would be to use an independent 
observer who might request verbal as well as written responses from 
participants in the program. When an education project involves the 
development of curricular materials an advisory panel of relevant 
experts can be coupled with a test of the curriculum to obtain the 
reactions of participants and faculty as indicated above.
    iii. The evaluation plan for a demonstration project should 
encompass an assessment of program effectiveness (e.g., how well did it 
work?); user satisfaction, if appropriate; the cost-effectiveness of 
the program; a process analysis of the program (e.g., was the program 
implemented as designed? did it provide the services intended to the 
targeted population?); the impact of the program (e.g., what effect did 
the program have on the court? what benefits resulted from the 
program?); and the replicability of the program or components of the 
program.
    iv. For technical assistance projects, applicants should explain 
how the quality, timeliness, and impact of the assistance provided will 
be determined, and should develop a mechanism for feedback from both 
the users and providers of the technical assistance.
    v. Evaluation plans involving human subjects should include a 
discussion of the procedures for obtaining respondents' informed 
consent, ensuring the respondents' privacy and freedom from risk or 
harm, and the protection of others who are not the subjects of 
evaluation but would be affected by it. Other than the provision of 
confidentiality to respondents, human subjects protection issues 
ordinarily are not applicable to participants evaluating an education 
program.
    vi. The evaluation plan in a package grant application should 
address the issues listed above for the particular types of projects 
included in the package, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the 
individual components as well as the benefits and limitations of the 
projects as a package.
5. Project Management
    A detailed management plan including the starting and completion 
date for each task; the time commitments to the project of key staff 
and their responsibilities regarding each project task; and the 
procedures that will be used to ensure that all tasks are performed on 
time, within budget, and at the highest level of quality. In preparing 
the project time line, Gantt Chart, or schedule, applicants should make 
certain that all project activities, including publication or 
reproduction of project products and their initial dissemination will 
occur within the proposed project period. The management plan must also 
provide for the submission of Quarterly Progress and Financial Reports 
within 30 days after the close of each calendar quarter (i.e., no later 
than January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30).
    Package grant applications must include a management plan for each 
project included in the package with the same project title and 
alphabetic identifier describing the project in the program narrative, 
as well as a plan embracing the package as a whole.
6. Products
    A description of the products to be developed by the project (e.g., 
training curricula and materials, videotapes, articles, manuals, or 
handbooks), including when they will be submitted to the Institute. The 
application must explain how and to whom the products will be 
disseminated; describe how they will benefit the State courts including 
how they can be used by judges and court personnel; identify 
development, production, and dissemination costs covered by the project 
budget; and present the basis on which products and services developed 
or provided under the grant will be offered to the courts community and 
the public at large (i.e. whether products will be distributed at no 
cost to recipients, or if costs are involved, the reason for charging 
recipients and the estimated price of the product). Ordinarily, 
applicants should schedule all product preparation and distribution 
activities within the project period. Applicants also should provide 
for the preparation of a one-page abstract summarizing products 
resulting from a project for inclusion on the Institute's electronic 
bulletin board.
    Package grant applications must discuss these issues with regard to 
the products that would result from each of the projects included in 
the package.
    The type of products to be prepared depend on the nature of the 
project. For example, in most instances, the products of a research, 
evaluation, or demonstration project should include an article 
summarizing the project findings that is publishable in a journal 
serving the courts community nationally, an executive summary that will 
be disseminated to the project's primary audience, or both. Applicants 
proposing to conduct empirical research or evaluation projects with 
national import should describe how they will make their data available 
for secondary analysis after the grant period. (See section X.W.)
    The curricula and other products developed by education and 
training projects should be designed for use outside the classroom so 
that they may be used again by original participants and others in the 
course of their duties.
    Applicants must provide for submitting a final draft of the final 
grant product(s) to the Institute for review and approval at least 30 
days before the product(s) are submitted for publication or 
reproduction. No grant funds may be obligated for publication or 
reproduction of a final grant product without the written approval of 
the Institute.
    Applicants must also provide for including in all project products 
a prominent acknowledgment that support was received from the Institute 
and a disclaimer paragraph based on the example provided in section 
X.Q. of the Guideline. The ``SJI'' logo must appear on the front cover 
of a written product, or in the opening frames of a video product, 
unless the Institute approves another placement.
    Twenty copies of all project products, including videotapes, must 
be submitted to the Institute. In addition, a copy of each product must 
be sent to the library established in each State to collect the 
materials developed with Institute support. (A list of these libraries 
is contained in Appendix II.) To facilitate their use, all videotaped 
products should be distributed in VHS format. For all wordprocessed 
products, grantees must submit a diskette of the text in ASCII. For 
non-text products, a copy of the summary or a brief abstract in ASCII 
must be submitted.
7. Applicant Status
    An applicant that is not a State or local court and has not 
received a grant from the Institute within the past two years should 
include a statement indicating whether it is either a national non-
profit organization controlled by, operating in conjunction with, and 
serving the judicial branches of State governments; or a national non-
profit organization for the education and training of State court 
judges and support personnel. See section IV. If the applicant is a 
non-judicial unit of Federal, State, or local government, it must 
explain whether the proposed services could be adequately provided by 
non-governmental entities.
8. Staff Capability
    A summary of the training and experience of the key staff members 
and consultants that qualify them for conducting and managing the 
proposed project. Resumes of identified staff should be attached to the 
application. If one or more key staff members and consultants are not 
known at the time of the application, a description of the criteria 
that will be used to select persons for these positions should be 
included.
9. Organizational Capacity
    Applicants that have not received a grant from the Institute within 
the past two years should include a statement describing the capacity 
of the applicant to administer grant funds including the financial 
systems used to monitor project expenditures (and income, if any), and 
a summary of the applicant's past experience in administering grants, 
as well as any resources or capabilities that the applicant has that 
will particularly assist in the successful completion of the project.
    If the applicant is a non-profit organization (other than a 
university), it must also provide documentation of its 501(c) tax 
exempt status as determined by the Internal Revenue Service and a copy 
of a current certified audit report. For purposes of this requirement, 
``current'' means no earlier than two years prior to the current 
calendar year. If a current audit report is not available, the 
Institute will require the organization to complete a financial 
capability questionnaire which must be signed by a Certified Public 
Accountant. Other applicants may be required to provide a current audit 
report, a financial capability questionnaire, or both, if specifically 
requested to do so by the Institute.
    Unless requested otherwise, an applicant that has received a grant 
from the Institute within the past two years should describe only the 
changes in its organizational capacity, tax status, or financial 
capability that may affect its capacity to administer a grant.
10. Statement of Lobbying Activities
    Non-governmental applicants must submit the Institute's Disclosure 
of Lobbying Activities Form that requires them to state whether they, 
or another entity that is a part of the same organization as the 
applicant, have advocated a position before Congress on any issue, and 
identifies the specific subjects of their lobbying efforts.
11. Letters of Support for the Project
    If the cooperation of courts, organizations, agencies, or 
individuals other than the applicant is required to conduct the 
project, written assurances of cooperation and availability should be 
attached as an appendix to the application, or they may be sent under 
separate cover. In order to ensure that there is sufficient time to 
bring them to the Board's attention, letters of support sent under 
separate cover must be received at least four weeks before the meeting 
of the Board of Directors at which the application will be considered 
(i.e., no later than October 17, 1994, February 1, 1995, March 31, 
1995, June 23, 1995, or August 18, 1995, respectively).

D. Budget Narrative

    The budget narrative should provide the basis for the computation 
of all project-related costs. An application for a package grant for 
more than one project must include a separate budget narrative for each 
project component, with the same alphabetic identifier and project 
title used to describe each component project in the program narrative. 
Additional background or schedules may be attached if they are 
essential to obtaining a clear understanding of the proposed budget. 
Numerous and lengthy appendices are strongly discouraged.
    The budget narrative should cover the costs of all components of 
the project and clearly identify costs attributable to the project 
evaluation. Under OMB grant guidelines incorporated by reference in 
this Guideline, grant funds may not be used to pay for coffee breaks 
during seminars or meetings, or to purchase alcoholic beverages.
1. Justification of Personnel Compensation
    The applicant should set forth the percentages of time to be 
devoted by the individuals who will serve as the staff of the proposed 
project, the annual salary of each of those persons, and the number of 
work days per year used for calculating the percentages of time or 
daily rate of those individuals. The applicant should explain any 
deviations from current rates or established written organization 
policies. If grant funds are requested to pay the salary and related 
costs for a current employee of a court or other unit of government, 
the applicant should explain why this would not constitute a 
supplantation of State or local funds in violation of 42 U.S.C. 10706 
(d)(1). An acceptable explanation may be that the position to be filled 
is a new one established in conjunction with the project or that the 
grant funds will be supporting only the portion of the employee's time 
that will be dedicated to new or additional duties related to the 
project.
2. Fringe Benefit Computation
    The applicant should provide a description of the fringe benefits 
provided to employees. If percentages are used, the authority for such 
use should be presented as well as a description of the elements 
included in the determination of the percentage rate.
3. Consultant/Contractual Services and Honoraria
    The applicant should describe the tasks each consultant will 
perform, the estimated total amount to be paid to each consultant, the 
basis for compensation rates (e.g., number of days  x  the daily 
consultant rates), and the method for selection. Rates for consultant 
services must be set in accordance with section XI.H.2.c. Honorarium 
payments must be justified in the same manner as other consultant 
payments.
4. Travel
    Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the 
policies of the applicant organization. If the applicant does not have 
an established travel policy, then travel rates shall be consistent 
with those established by the Institute or the Federal Government. (A 
copy of the Institute's travel policy is available upon request.) The 
budget narrative should include an explanation of the rate used, 
including the components of the per diem rate and the basis for the 
estimated transportation expenses. The purpose for travel should also 
be included in the narrative.
5. Equipment
    Grant funds may be used to purchase only the equipment that is 
necessary to demonstrate a new technological application in a court, or 
that is otherwise essential to accomplishing the objectives of the 
project. Equipment purchases to support basic court operations 
ordinarily will not be approved. The applicant should describe the 
equipment to be purchased or leased and explain why the acquisition of 
that equipment is essential to accomplish the project's goals and 
objectives. The narrative should clearly identify which equipment is to 
be leased and which is to be purchased. The method of procurement 
should also be described. Purchases for automatic data processing 
equipment must comply with section XI.H.2.b.
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. (Samples of 
forms used by current grantees to track in-kind match are available 
from the Institute upon request.)
    Applicants that do not contemplate making matching contributions 
continuously throughout the course of the project or on a task-by-task 
basis must provide a schedule within 30 days after the beginning of the 
project period indicating at what points during the project period the 
matching contributions will be made. (See sections III.F., VIII.B., 
X.B. and XI.D.1.)

E. Submission Requirements

    1. An application package containing the application, an original 
signature on FORM A (and on FORM B, if the application is from a State 
or local court, or on the Disclosure of Lobbying Form if the applicant 
is not a unit of State or local government), and four photo-copies of 
the application package must be sent by first class or overnight mail, 
or by courier no later than May 10, 1995. A postmark or courier receipt 
will constitute evidence of the submission date. Please mark 
application on all application package envelopes and send to: State 
Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, Virginia 
22314.
    Receipt of each proposal will be acknowledged in writing. 
Extensions of the deadline for receipt of applications will not be 
granted.
    2. Applicants invited to submit more than one application may 
include material that would be identical in each application in a cover 
letter, and incorporate that material by reference in each application. 
The incorporated material will be counted against the 25-page (or in 
the case of package grant applications, the 40-page) limit for the 
program narrative. A copy of the cover letter should be attached to 
each copy of each application.
    3. It is preferable for letters of cooperation or support to be 
appended to the application when it is submitted. If support letters 
are sent under separate cover, they must be received no later than four 
weeks before the meeting of the Board of Directors at which the 
application will be considered (i.e. no later than October 17, 1994, 
February 1, 1995, March 31, 1995, June 23, 1995, or August 18, 1995, 
respectively) in order to ensure that there is sufficient time to bring 
them to the Board's attention.

VIII. Application Review Procedures

A. Preliminary Inquiries

    The Institute staff will answer inquiries concerning application 
procedures. The staff contact will be named in the Institute's letter 
inviting submission of a formal application.

B. Selection Criteria

    1. All applications will be rated on the basis of the criteria set 
forth below. The Institute will accord the greatest weight to the 
following criteria:
    a. The soundness of the methodology;
    b. The appropriateness of the proposed evaluation design;
    c. The qualifications of the project's staff;
    d. The applicant's management plan and organizational capabilities;
    e. The reasonableness of the proposed budget;
    f. The demonstration of need for the project;
    g. The products and benefits resulting from the project;
    h. The demonstration of cooperation and support of other agencies 
that may be affected by the project;
    i. The proposed project's relationship to one of the ``Special 
Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B.; and
    j. The degree to which the findings, procedures, training, 
technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other 
jurisdictions.
    2. ``Single jurisdiction'' applications submitted pursuant to 
section II.C.1. will also be rated on the proposed project's relation 
to one of the ``Special Interest'' categories set forth in section 
II.B. and on the special requirements listed in section II.C.1.b.
    3. In determining which applicants to fund, the Institute will also 
consider whether the applicant is a State court, a national court 
support or education organization, a non-court unit of government, or 
other type of entity eligible to receive grants under the Institute's 
enabling legislation (see 42 U.S.C. 10705(6) (as amended) and Section 
IV above); the availability of financial assistance from other sources 
for the project; the amount and nature (cash or in-kind) of the 
applicant's match; the extent to which the proposed project would also 
benefit the Federal courts or help the State courts enforce Federal 
constitutional and legislative requirements; and the level of 
appropriations available to the Institute in the current year and the 
amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.

C. Review and Approval Process

    Applications will be reviewed competitively by the Board of 
Directors. The Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary of each 
application, and a rating sheet assigning points for each relevant 
selection criterion. When necessary, applications may also be reviewed 
by outside experts. Committees of the Board will review applications 
within assigned program categories and prepare 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 or deny their respective applications and 
the key issues and questions that arose during the review process. A 
decision by the Board to deny an application may not be appealed, but 
does not prohibit resubmission of a concept paper based on that 
application in a subsequent round of funding. The Institute will also 
notify the designated State contact listed in Appendix I when grants 
are approved by the Board to support projects that will be conducted by 
or involve courts in their State.

F. Response to Notification of Approval

    Applicants have 30 days from the date of the letter notifying them 
that the Board has approved their application to respond to any 
revisions requested by the Board. If the requested revisions (or a 
reasonable schedule for submitting such revisions) have not been 
submitted to the Institute within 30 days after notification, the 
approval will be automatically rescinded and the application presented 
to the Board for reconsideration.

IX. Renewal Funding Procedures and Requirements

    The Institute recognizes two types of renewal funding as described 
below--``continuation grants'' and ``on-going support grants.'' The 
award of an initial grant to support a project does not constitute a 
commitment by the Institute to renew funding. The Board of Directors 
anticipates allocating no more than $3 million of available FY 1995 
grant funds for renewal grants.

A. Continuation Grants

1. Purpose and Scope
    Continuation grants are intended to support projects with a limited 
duration that involve the same type of activities as the previous 
project. They are intended to enhance the specific program or service 
produced or established during the prior grant period. They may be 
used, for example, when a project is divided into two or more 
sequential phases, for secondary analysis of data obtained in an 
Institute-supported research project, or for more extensive testing of 
an innovative technology, procedure, or program developed with SJI 
grant support.
    In order for a project to be considered for continuation funding, 
the grantee must have completed the project tasks and met all grant 
requirements and conditions in a timely manner, absent extenuating 
circumstances or prior Institute approval of changes to the project 
design. Continuation grants are not intended to provide support for a 
project for which the grantee has underestimated the amount of time or 
funds needed to accomplish the project tasks.
    A continuation grant may be awarded for either a single project or 
for more than one project as a package grant (see sections III.J., 
V.C.1 and 3, and V.D.1 and 3).
2. Application Procedures--Letters of Intent
    In lieu of a concept paper, a grantee seeking a continuation grant 
must inform the Institute, by letter, of its intent to submit an 
application for such funding as soon as the need for renewal funding 
becomes apparent but no less than 120 days before the end of the 
current grant period.
    a. A letter of intent must be no more than 3 single-spaced pages on 
8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper and must contain a concise but thorough 
explanation of the need for continuation; an estimate of the funds to 
be requested; and a brief description of anticipated changes in scope, 
focus or audience of the project.
    b. Letters of intent will not be reviewed competitively. Institute 
staff will review the proposed activities for the next project period 
and, within 30 days of receiving a letter of intent, inform the grantee 
of specific issues to be addressed in the continuation application and 
the date by which the application for a continuation grant must be 
submitted.
3. Application Format
    An application for a continuation grant must include an application 
form, budget forms (with appropriate documentation), a project abstract 
conforming to the format set forth in section VII.B., a program 
narrative, a budget narrative, a disclosure of lobbying form from 
(applicants other than units of State or local government), and certain 
certifications and assurances.
    The program narrative should conform to the length and format 
requirements set forth in section VII.C. However, rather than the 
topics listed in section VII.C., the program narrative of an 
application for a continuation grant should include:
    a. Project Objectives. A clear, concise statement of what the 
continuation project is intended to accomplish.
    b. Need for Continuation. An explanation of why continuation of the 
project is necessary to achieve the goals of the project, and how the 
continuation will benefit the participating courts or the courts 
community generally. That is, to what extent will the original goals 
and objectives of the project be unful-filled if the project is not 
continued, and conversely, how will the findings or results of the 
project be enhanced by continuing the project?
    A continuation application requesting a package grant to support 
more than one project should explain, in addition, how the proposed 
projects are related; how their operation and administration would be 
enhanced by the grant; the advantages of funding the projects as a 
package rather than individually; and the disadvantages, if any, that 
would accrue by considering or funding them separately.
    c. Report of Current Project Activities. A discussion of the status 
of all activities conducted during the previous project period. 
Applicants should identify any activities that were not completed, and 
explain why. A continuation application requesting a package grant must 
describe separately the activities undertaken in each of the projects 
included within the proposed package.
    d. Evaluation Findings. The key findings, impact, or 
recommendations resulting from the evaluation of the project, if they 
are available, and how they will be addressed during the proposed 
continuation. If the findings are not yet available, applicants should 
provide the date by which they will be submitted to the Institute. 
Ordinarily, the Board will not consider an application for continuation 
funding until the Institute has received the evaluator's report.
    e. Tasks, Methods, Staff and Grantee Capability. A full description 
of any changes in the tasks to be performed, the methods to be used, 
the products of the project, how and to whom those products will be 
disseminated, the assigned staff, or the grantee's organizational 
capacity. Applicants should include, in addition, the criteria and 
methods by which the proposed continuation project would be evaluated.
    A continuation application for a package grant must address these 
issues separately for each project included in the proposed package, 
using the same alphabetic identifiers and project titles as in the 
original application.
    f. Task Schedule. A detailed task schedule and time line for the 
next project period. A continuation application for a package grant 
should include a separate task schedule and timeline for each project 
included in the proposed package, as well as a schedule and time line 
that covers the package of projects as a whole. The same alphabetic 
identifiers and project titles used in the original application should 
be used to identify the component projects in the renewal application.
    g. Other Sources of Support. An indication of why other sources of 
support are inadequate, inappropriate or unavailable.
4. Budget and Budget Narrative
    Provide a complete budget and budget narrative conforming to the 
requirements set forth in paragraph VII.D. Changes in the funding level 
requested should be discussed in terms of corresponding increases or 
decreases in the scope of activities or services to be rendered.
    A continuation application for a package grant must include a 
separate budget narrative identified alphabetically (i.e. A, B, C) and 
by project title for each project component.
5. References to Previously Submitted Material
    An application for a continuation grant should not repeat 
information contained in a previously approved application or other 
previously submitted materials, but should provide specific references 
to such materials where appropriate.
6. Submission Requirements, Review and Approval Process, and 
Notification of Decision
    The submission requirements set forth in section VII.E., other than 
the deadline for mailing, apply to applications for a continuation 
grant. Such applications will be rated on the selection criteria set 
forth in section VIII.B. The key findings and recommendations resulting 
from an evaluation of the project and the proposed response to those 
findings and recommendations will also be considered. The review and 
approval process, return policy, and notification procedures are the 
same as those for new projects set forth in sections VIII.C.-VIII.E.

B. On-Going Support Grants

1. Purpose and Scope
    On-going support grants are intended to support projects that are 
national in scope and that provide the State courts with services, 
programs or products for which there is a continuing important need. An 
on-going support grant may also be used to fund longitudinal research 
that directly benefits the State courts. On-going support grants are 
subject to the limits on size and duration set forth in V.C.2 and 
V.D.2. A project is eligible for consideration for an on-going support 
grant if:
    a. The project is supported by and has been evaluated under a grant 
from the Institute;
    b. The project is national in scope and provides a significant 
benefit to the State courts;
    c. There is a continuing important need for the services, programs 
or products provided by the project as indicated by the level of use 
and support by members of the court community;
    d. The project is accomplishing its objectives in an effective and 
efficient manner; and
    e. It is likely that the service or program provided by the project 
would be curtailed or significantly reduced without Institute support.
    Each project supported by an on-going support grant must include an 
evaluation component assessing its effectiveness and operation 
throughout the grant period. The evaluation should be independent, but 
may be designed collaboratively by the evaluator and the grantee. The 
design should call for regular feedback from the evaluator to the 
grantee throughout the project period concerning recommendations for 
midcourse corrections or improvement of the project, as well as 
periodic reports to the Institute at relevant points in the project.
    An interim evaluation report must be submitted 18 months into the 
grant period. The decision to obligate Institute funds to support the 
third year of the project will be based on the interim evaluation 
findings and the applicant's response to any deficiencies noted in the 
report.
    A final evaluation assessing the effectiveness, operation of, and 
continuing need for the project must be submitted 90 days before the 
end of the three-year project period.
    In addition, a detailed annual task schedule must be submitted not 
later than 45 days before the end of the first and second years of the 
grant period, along with an explanation of any necessary revisions in 
the projected costs for the remainder of the project period. (See also 
section IX.B.3.h.)
2. Application Procedures--Letters of Intent
    The Board will consider awarding an on-going support grant for a 
period of up to 36 months. The total amount of the grant will be fixed 
at the time of the initial award. Funds ordinarily will be made 
available in annual increments as specified in section V.C.2.
    In lieu of a concept paper, a grantee seeking an on-going support 
grant must inform the Institute, by letter, of its intent to submit an 
application for such funding as soon as the need for renewal funding 
becomes apparent but no less than 120 days before the end of the 
current grant period. The letter of intent should be in the same format 
as that prescribed for continuation grants in section IX.A.2.a.
3. Application Procedures and Format
    An application for an on-going support grant must include an 
application form, budget forms (with appropriate documentation), a 
project abstract conforming to the format set forth in section VII.B., 
a program narrative, a budget narrative, and certain certifications and 
assurances.
    The program narrative should conform to the length and format 
requirements set forth in section VII.C. However, rather than the 
topics listed in section VII.C., the program narrative of applications 
for on-going support grants should address:
    a. Description of Need for and Benefits of the Project. Provide a 
detailed discussion of the benefits provided by the project to the 
State courts around the country, including the degree to which State 
courts, State court judges, or State court managers and personnel are 
using the services or programs provided by the project.
    An application for on-going support of a package grant should 
explain, in addition, how the proposed projects are related; how their 
operation and administration would be enhanced by the grant; the 
advantages of funding the projects as a package rather than 
individually; and the disadvantages, if any, that would accrue by 
considering or funding them separately.
    b. Demonstration of Court Support. Demonstrate support for the 
continuation of the project from the courts community.
    c. Report on Current Project Activities. Discuss the extent to 
which the project has met its goals and objectives, identify any 
activities that have not been completed, and explain why. An 
application for on-going support of a package grant must describe 
separately the activities undertaken in each of the projects included 
within the proposed package.
    d. Evaluation Findings. Attach a copy of the final evaluation 
report regarding the effectiveness, impact, and operation of the 
project, specify the key findings or recommendations resulting from the 
evaluation, and explain how they will be addressed during the proposed 
renewal period. Ordinarily, the Board will not consider an application 
for on-going support until the Institute has received the evaluator's 
report.
    e. Objectives, Tasks, Methods, Staff and Grantee Capability. 
Describe fully any changes in the objectives; tasks to be performed; 
the methods to be used; the products of the project; how and to whom 
those products will be disseminated; the assigned staff; and the 
grantee's organizational capacity.
    An application for on-going support of a package grant must address 
these issues separately for each project included in the proposed 
package, using the same alphabetic identifiers and project titles as in 
the original application.
    f. Task Schedule. Present a general schedule for the full proposed 
project period and a detailed task schedule for the first year of the 
proposed new project period. An application for on-going support of a 
package grant should include a separate task schedule and timeline for 
each project included in the proposed package, as well as a schedule 
and time line that covers the package of projects as a whole. The same 
alphabetic identifiers and project titles used in the original 
application should be used to identify the component projects in the 
renewal application.
    g. Other Sources of Support. Indicate why other sources of support 
are inadequate, inappropriate or unavailable.
4. Budget and Budget Narrative
    Provide a complete three-year budget and budget narrative 
conforming to the requirements set forth in paragraph VII.D. Changes in 
the funding level requested should be discussed in terms of 
corresponding increases or decreases in the scope of activities or 
services to be rendered. A complete budget narrative should be provided 
for each year, or portion of a year, for which grant support is 
requested. Changes in the funding level requested should be discussed 
in terms of corresponding increases or decreases in the scope of 
activities or services to be rendered. The budget should provide for 
realistic cost-of-living and staff salary increases over the course of 
the requested project period. Applicants should be aware that the 
Institute is unlikely to approve a supplemental budget increase for an 
on-going support grant in the absence of well-documented, unanticipated 
factors that clearly justify the requested increase.
    A continuation application for a package grant must include a 
separate budget narrative identified alphabetically (i.e. A, B, C) and 
by project title for each project component.
5. References to Previously Submitted Material
    An application for an on-going support grant should not repeat 
information contained in a previously approved application or other 
previously submitted materials, but should provide specific references 
to such materials where appropriate.
6. Submission Requirements, Review and Approval Process, and 
Notification of Decision
    The submission requirements set forth in section VII.E., other than 
the deadline for mailing, apply to applications for an on-going support 
grant. Such applications will be rated on the selection criteria set 
forth in section VIII.B. The key findings and recommendations resulting 
from an evaluation of the project and the proposed response to those 
findings and recommendations will also be considered. The review and 
approval process, return policy, and notification procedures are the 
same as those for new projects set forth in sections VIII.C.-VIII.E.

X. Compliance Requirements

    The State Justice Institute Act contains limitations and conditions 
on grants, contracts and cooperative agreements of which applicants and 
recipients should be aware. In addition to eligibility requirements 
which must be met to be considered for an award from the Institute, all 
applicants should be aware of and all recipients will be responsible 
for ensuring compliance with the following:

A. State and Local Court Systems

    Each application for funding from a State or local court must be 
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court, or 
its designated agency or council. The latter shall receive, administer, 
and be accountable for all funds awarded to such courts. 42 U.S.C. 
10705(b)(4). Appendix I to this Guideline lists the agencies, councils 
and contact persons designated to administer Institute awards to the 
State and local courts.

B. Matching Requirements

    1. All awards to courts or other units of State or local government 
(not including publicly supported institu-tions of higher education) 
require a match from private or public sources of not less than 50% of 
the total amount of the Institute's award. For example, if the total 
cost of a project is anticipated to be $150,000, a State court or 
executive branch agency may request up to $100,000 from the Institute 
to implement the project. The remaining $50,000 (50% of the $100,000 
requested from SJI) must be provided as a match. A cash match, non-cash 
match, or both may be provided, but the Institute will give preference 
to those applicants who provide a cash match to the Institute's award. 
(For a further definition of match, see section III.F.)
    The requirement to provide match may be waived in exceptionally 
rare circumstances upon approval of the Chief Justice of the highest 
court in the State and a majority of the Board of Directors. 42 U.S.C. 
10705(d).
    2. Other eligible recipients of Institute funds are not required to 
provide a match, but are encouraged to contribute to meeting the costs 
of the project. In instances where match is proposed, the grantee is 
responsible for ensuring that the total amount proposed is actually 
contributed. If a proposed contribution is not fully met, the Institute 
may reduce the award amount accordingly, in order to maintain the ratio 
originally provided for in the award agreement (see sections VIII.B. 
above and XI.D.).

C. Conflict of Interest

    Personnel and other officials connected with Institute-funded 
programs shall adhere to the following requirements:
    1. No official or employee of a recipient court or organization 
shall participate personally through decision, approval, disapproval, 
recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise in 
any proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other 
determination, contract, grant, cooperative agreement, claim, 
controversy, or other particular matter in which Institute funds are 
used, where to his/her knowledge he/she or his/her immediate family, 
partners, organi-zation other than a public agency in which he/she is 
serving as officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee or any 
person or organization with whom he/she is negotiating or has any 
arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial 
interest.
    2. In the use of Institute project funds, an official or employee 
of a recipient court or organization shall avoid any action which might 
result in or create the appearance of:
    a. Using an official position for private gain; or
    b. Affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the 
integrity of the Institute program.
    3. Requests for proposals or invitations for bids issued by a 
recipient of Institute funds or a subgrantee or subcontractor will 
provide notice to prospective bidders that the contractors who develop 
or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work and/or 
requests for proposals for a proposed procurement will be excluded from 
bidding on or submitting a proposal to compete for the award of such 
procurement.

D. Lobbying

    Funds awarded to recipients by the Institute shall not be used, 
indirectly or directly, to influence Executive orders or similar 
promulgations by Federal, State or local agencies, or to influence the 
passage or defeat of any legislation by Federal, State or local 
legislative bodies. 42 U.S.C. 10706(a).
    It is the policy of the Board of Directors to award funds only to 
support applications submitted by organizations that would carry out 
the objectives of their applications in an unbiased manner. Consistent 
with this policy and the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 10706, the Institute 
will not knowingly award a grant to an applicant that has, directly or 
through an entity that is part of the same organization as the 
applicant, advocated a position before Congress on the specific subject 
matter of the application.

E. Political Activities

    No recipient shall contribute or make available Institute funds, 
program personnel, or equipment to any political party or association, 
or the campaign of any candidate for public or party office. Recipients 
are also prohibited from using funds in advocating or opposing any 
ballot measure, initiative, or referendum. Finally, officers and 
employees of recipients shall not intentionally identify the Institute 
or recipients with any partisan or nonpartisan political activity 
associated with a political party or association, or the campaign of 
any candidate for public or party office. 42 U.S.C. 10706(a).

F. Advocacy

    No funds made available by the Institute may be used to support or 
conduct training programs for the purpose of advocating particular 
nonjudicial public policies or encouraging nonjudicial political 
activities. 42 U.S.C. 10706(b).

G. Prohibition Against Litigation Support

    No funds made available by the Institute may be used directly or 
indirectly to support legal assistance to parties in litigation, 
including cases involving capital punishment.

H. Supplantation and Construction

    To ensure that funds are used to supplement and improve the 
operation of State courts, rather than to support basic court services, 
funds shall not be used for the following purposes:
    1. To supplant State or local funds supporting a program or 
activity (such as paying the salary of court employees who would be 
performing their normal duties as part of the project, or paying rent 
for space which is part of the court's normal operations);
    2. To construct court facilities or structures, except to remodel 
existing facilities or to demonstrate new architectural or 
technological techniques, or to provide temporary facilities for new 
personnel or for personnel involved in a demonstration or experimental 
program; or
    3. Solely to purchase equipment.

I. Confidentiality of Information

    Except as provided by Federal law other than the State Justice 
Institute Act, no recipient of financial assistance from SJI may use or 
reveal any research or statistical information furnished under the Act 
by any person and identifiable to any specific private person for any 
purpose other than the purpose for which the information was obtained. 
Such information and copies thereof shall be immune from legal process, 
and shall not, without the consent of the person furnishing such 
information, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any 
action, suit, or other judicial, legislative, or administrative 
proceedings.

J. Human Research Protection

    All research involving human subjects shall be conducted with the 
informed consent of those subjects and in a manner that will ensure 
their privacy and freedom from risk or harm and the protection of 
persons who are not subjects of the research but would be affected by 
it, unless such procedures and safeguards would make the research 
impractical. In such instances, the Institute must approve procedures 
designed by the grantee to provide human subjects with relevant 
information about the research after their involvement and to minimize 
or eliminate risk or harm to those subjects due to their participation.

K. Nondiscrimination

    No person may, on the basis of race, sex, national origin, 
disability, color, or creed be excluded from participation in, denied 
the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under any 
program or activity supported by Institute funds. Recipients of 
Institute funds must immediately take any measures necessary to 
effectuate this provision.

L. Reporting Requirements

    Recipients of Institute funds, other than scholarships awarded 
under section II.B.2.b.v., shall submit Quarterly Progress and 
Financial Reports within 30 days of the close of each calendar quarter 
(that is, no later than January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30). 
Two copies of each report must be sent. The Quarterly Progress Reports 
shall include a narrative description of project activities during the 
calendar quarter, the relationship between those activities and the 
task schedule and objectives set forth in the approved application or 
an approved adjustment thereto, any significant problem areas that have 
developed and how they will be resolved, and the activities scheduled 
during the next reporting period.
    The quarterly financial status report shall be submitted in 
accordance with section XI.G.2. of this guideline. A final project 
progress report and financial status report shall be submitted within 
90 days after the end of the grant period in accordance with section 
XI.K.2. of this Guideline.

M. Audit

    Each recipient must provide for an annual fiscal audit which shall 
include an opinion on whether the financial statements of the grantee 
present fairly its financial position and financial operations are in 
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. For grantees 
receiving more than $50,000 in Institute grant payments during their 
fiscal year, the audit shall also include reports on the grantee's 
internal control structure and compliance with applicable regulations. 
(See section XI.J. of the Guideline for the requirements of such 
audits.)

N. Suspension of Funding

    After providing a recipient reasonable notice and opportunity to 
submit written documentation demonstrating why fund termination or 
suspension should not occur, the Institute may terminate or suspend 
funding of a project that fails to comply substantially with the Act, 
Institute guidelines, or the terms and conditions of the award. 42 
U.S.C. 10708(a).

O. Title to Property

    At the conclusion of the project, title to all expendable and 
nonexpendable personal property purchased with Institute funds shall 
vest in the recipient court, organization, or individual that purchased 
the property if certification is made to the Institute that the 
property will continue to be used for the authorized purposes of the 
Institute-funded project or other purposes consistent with the State 
Justice Institute Act, as approved by the Institute. 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. A camera-ready logo 
sheet is available from the Institute upon request.
    Recipients also shall display the following disclaimer on all grant 
products:

    This [document, film, videotape, etc.] was developed under 
[grant/cooperative agreement, number SJI-(insert number)] from the 
State Justice Institute. The points of view expressed are those of 
the [author(s), filmmaker(s), etc.] and do not necessarily represent 
the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.

R. Institute Approval of Grant Products

    No grant funds may be obligated for publication or reproduction of 
a final product developed with grant funds without the written approval 
of the Institute. Grantees shall submit a final draft of each such 
product to the Institute for review and approval. These drafts shall be 
submitted sufficiently before the product is scheduled to be sent for 
publication or reproduction to permit Institute review and 
incorporation of any appropriate changes agreed upon by the grantee and 
the Institute.

S. Distribution of Grant Products to State Libraries

    Grantees shall send 20 copies of each final product developed with 
grant funds to the Institute, unless the product was developed under 
either a curriculum adaptation or a technical assistance grant, in 
which case submission of 2 copies is required.
    Grantees shall send one copy of each final product developed with 
grant funds to the library established in each State to collect 
materials prepared with Institute support. (A list of these libraries 
is contained in Appendix II. Labels for these libraries are available 
from the Institute upon request.) Recipients of curriculum adaptation 
and technical assistance grants are not required to submit final 
products to State libraries.

T. Copyrights

    Except as otherwise provided in the terms and conditions of an 
Institute award, a recipient is free to copyright any books, 
publications, or other copyrightable materials developed in the course 
of an Institute-supported project, but the Institute shall reserve a 
royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, 
or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the materials for 
purposes consistent with the State Justice Institute Act.

U. Inventions and Patents

    If any patentable items, patent rights, processes, or inventions 
are produced in the course of Institute-sponsored work, such fact shall 
be promptly and fully reported to the Institute. Unless there is a 
prior agreement between the grantee and the Institute on disposition of 
such items, the Institute shall determine whether protection of the 
invention or discovery shall be sought. The Institute will also 
determine how the rights in the invention or discovery, including 
rights under any patent issued thereon, shall be allocated and 
administered in order to protect the public interest consistent with 
``Government Patent Policy'' (President's Memorandum for Heads of 
Executive Departments and Agencies, February 18, 1983, and statement of 
Government Patent Policy).

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

    When Institute funds fully cover the cost of developing, producing, 
and disseminating a product, (e.g., a report, curriculum, videotape or 
software), the product should be distributed to the field without 
charge. When Institute funds only partially cover the development, 
production, or dissemination costs, the grantee may recover its costs 
for developing, reproducing, and disseminating the material to those 
requesting it, to the extent that those costs were not covered by 
Institute funds or grantee matching contributions.
    Applicants should disclose their intent to sell grant-related 
products in both the concept paper and the application. Grantees must 
obtain the written, prior approval of the Institute of their plans to 
recover project costs through the sale of grant products.
    Written requests to recover costs ordinarily should be received 
during the grant period and should specify the nature and extent of the 
costs to be recouped, the reason that such costs were not budgeted (if 
the rationale was not disclosed in the approved application), the 
number of copies to be sold, the intended audience for the products to 
be sold, and the proposed sale price. If the product is to be sold for 
more than $25.00, the written request also should include a detailed 
itemization of costs that will be recovered and a certification that 
the costs were not supported by either Institute grant funds or grantee 
matching contributions.
    If, following the end of the grant period, the sale of grant 
products results in revenues that exceed those costs, the revenue must 
continue to be used for the authorized purposes of the Institute-funded 
project or other purposes consistent with the State Justice Institute 
Act that have been approved by the Institute. See sections III.G. and 
XI.F. for requirements regarding project-related income.

W. Availability of Research Data for Secondary Analysis

    Upon request, grantees must make available for secondary analysis a 
diskette(s) or data tape(s) containing research and evaluation data 
collected under an Institute grant and the accompanying code manual. 
Grantees may recover the actual cost of duplicating and mailing or 
otherwise transmitting the data set and manual from the person or 
organization requesting the data. Grantees may provide the requested 
data set in the format in which it was created and analyzed.

X. Approval of Key Staff

    If the qualifications of an employee or consultant assigned to a 
key project staff position are not described in the application or if 
there is a change of a person assigned to such a position, a recipient 
shall submit a description of the qualifications of the newly assigned 
person to the Institute. Prior written approval of the qualifications 
of the new person assigned to a key staff position must be received 
from the Institute before the salary or consulting fee of that person 
and associated costs may be paid or reimbursed from grant funds.

XI. Financial Requirements

A. Accounting Systems and Financial Records

    All grantees, subgrantees, contractors, and other organizations 
directly or indirectly receiving Institute funds are required to 
establish and maintain accounting systems and financial records to 
accurately account for funds they receive. These records shall include 
total program costs, including Institute funds, State and local 
matching shares, and any other fund sources included in the approved 
project budget.
1. Purpose
    The purpose of this section is to establish accounting system 
requirements and to offer guidance on procedures which will assist all 
grantees/subgrantees in:
    a. Complying with the statutory requirements for the awarding, 
disbursement, and accounting of funds;
    b. Complying with regulatory requirements of the Institute for the 
financial management and disposition of funds;
    c. Generating financial data which can be used in the planning, 
management and control of programs; and
    d. Facilitating an effective audit of funded programs and projects.
2. References
    Except where inconsistent with specific provisions of this 
Guideline, the following regulations, directives and reports are 
applicable to Institute grants and cooperative agreements. These 
materials supplement the requirements of this section for accounting 
systems and financial recordkeeping and provide additional guidance on 
how these requirements may be satisfied.
    a. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-21, Cost 
Principles for Educational Institutions.
    b. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost 
Principles for State and Local Governments.
    c. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-88 (revised), 
Indirect Cost Rates, Audit and Audit Follow-up at Educational 
Institutions.
    d. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102, Uniform 
Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local 
Governments.
    e. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110, Grants and 
Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and other 
Non-Profit Organizations.
    f. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-128, Audits of 
State and Local Governments.
    g. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-122, Cost 
Principles for Non-profit Organizations.

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 shall receive all Institute funds awarded 
to such courts and shall be responsible for assuring proper 
administration of Institute funds. The State Supreme Court is 
responsible for all aspects of the project, including proper accounting 
and financial recordkeeping by the subgrantee. The responsibilities 
include:
    a. Reviewing Financial Operations. The State Supreme Court 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 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 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 will ensure, in those instances where subgrantees are required to 
furnish non-Institute matching funds, that the requirements and 
limitations of this guideline are applied to such funds.
    e. Audit Requirement. The State Supreme Court is required to ensure 
that subgrantees have met the necessary audit requirements as set forth 
by the Institute (see sections X.M. and XI.J).
    f. Reporting Irregularities. The State Supreme Court and its 
subgrantees are responsible for promptly reporting to the Institute the 
nature and circumstances surrounding any financial irregularities 
discovered.

C. Accounting System

    The grantee is responsible for establishing and maintaining an 
adequate system of accounting and internal controls for itself and for 
ensuring that an adequate system exists for each of its subgrantees and 
contractors. An acceptable and adequate accounting system is considered 
to be one which:
    1. Properly accounts for receipt of funds under each grant awarded 
and the expenditure of funds for each grant by category of expenditure 
(including matching contributions and project income);
    2. Assures that expended funds are applied to the appropriate 
budget category included within the approved grant;
    3. Presents and classifies historical costs of the grant as 
required for budgetary and evaluation purposes;
    4. Provides cost and property controls to assure optimal use of 
grant funds;
    5. Is integrated with a system of internal controls adequate to 
safeguard the funds and assets covered, check the accuracy and 
reliability of the accounting data, promote operational efficiency, and 
assure conformance with any general or special conditions of the grant;
    6. Meets the prescribed requirements for periodic financial 
reporting of operations; and
    7. Provides financial data for planning, control, measurement, and 
evaluation of direct and indirect costs.

D. Total Cost Budgeting and Accounting

    Accounting for all funds awarded by the Institute shall be 
structured and executed on a ``total project cost'' basis. That is, 
total project costs, including Institute funds, State and local 
matching shares, and any other fund sources included in the approved 
project budget shall be the foundation for fiscal administration and 
accounting. Grant applications and financial reports require budget and 
cost estimates on the basis of total costs.
1. Timing of Matching Contributions
    Matching contributions need not be applied at the exact time of the 
obligation of Institute funds. However, the full matching share must be 
obligated during the award period, except that with the prior written 
permission of the Institute, contributions made following approval of 
the grant by the Institute's Board but before the beginning of the 
grant may be counted as match. Grantees that do not contemplate making 
matching contributions continuously throughout the course of a project 
or on a task-by-task basis, are required to submit a schedule within 30 
days after the beginning of the project period indicating at what 
points during the project period the matching contributions will be 
made. In instances where a proposed cash match is not fully met, the 
Institute may reduce the award amount accordingly, in order to maintain 
the ratio originally provided for in the award agreement.
2. Records for Match
    All grantees must maintain records which clearly show the source, 
amount, and timing of all matching contributions. In addition, if a 
project has included, within its approved budget, contributions which 
exceed the required matching portion, the grantee must maintain records 
of those contributions in the same manner as it does the Institute 
funds and required matching shares. For all grants made to State and 
local courts, the State Supreme Court has primary responsibility for 
grantee/subgrantee compliance with the requirements of this section. 
(See section XI.B.2.)

E. Maintenance and Retention of Records

    All financial records, supporting documents, statistical records 
and all other records pertinent to grants, subgrants, cooperative 
agreements or contracts under grants shall be retained by each 
organization participating in a project for at least three years for 
purposes of examination and audit. State Supreme Courts may impose 
record retention and maintenance requirements in addition to those 
prescribed in this chapter.
1. Coverage
    The retention requirement extends to books of original entry, 
source documents supporting accounting transactions, the general 
ledger, subsidiary ledgers, personnel and payroll records, cancelled 
checks, and related documents and records. Source documents include 
copies of all grant and subgrant awards, applications, and required 
grantee/subgrantee financial and narrative reports. Personnel and 
payroll records shall include the time and attendance reports for all 
individuals reimbursed under a grant, subgrant or contract, whether 
they are employed full-time or part-time. Time and effort reports will 
be required for consultants.
2. Retention Period
    The three-year retention period starts from the date of the 
submission of the final expenditure report or, for grants which are 
renewed annually, from the date of submission of the annual expenditure 
report.
3. Maintenance
    Grantees and subgrantees are expected to see that records of 
different fiscal years are separately identified and maintained so that 
requested information can be readily located. Grantees and subgrantees 
are also obligated to protect records adequately against fire or other 
damage. When records are stored away from the grantee's/subgrantee's 
principal office, a written index of the location of stored records 
should be on hand, and ready access should be assured.
4. Access
    Grantees and subgrantees must give any authorized representative of 
the Institute access to and the right to examine all records, books, 
papers, and documents related to an Institute grant.

F. Project-Related Income

    Records of the receipt and disposition of project-related income 
must be maintained by the grantee in the same manner as required for 
the project funds that gave rise to the income. The policies governing 
the disposition of the various types of project-related income are 
listed below.
1. Interest
    A State and any agency or instrumentality of a State including 
State institutions of higher education and State hospitals, shall not 
be held accountable for interest earned on advances of project funds. 
When funds are awarded to subgrantees through a State, the subgrantees 
are not held accountable for interest earned on advances of project 
funds. Local units of government and nonprofit organizations that are 
direct grantees must refund any interest earned. Grantees shall so 
order their affairs to ensure minimum balances in their respective 
grant cash accounts.
2. Royalties
    The grantee/subgrantee may retain all royalties received from 
copyrights or other works developed under projects or from patents and 
inventions, unless the terms and conditions of the project provide 
otherwise.
3. Registration and Tuition Fees
    Registration and tuition fees shall be used to pay project-related 
costs not covered by the grant, or to reduce the amount of grant funds 
needed to support the project. Registration and tuition fees may be 
used for other purposes only with the prior written approval of the 
Institute. Estimates of registration and tuition fees, and any expenses 
to be offset by the fees, should be included in the application budget 
forms and narrative.
4. Income from the Sale of Grant Products
    When grant funds fully cover the cost of producing and 
disseminating a limited number of copies of a product, the grantee may, 
with the written prior approval of the Institute, sell additional 
copies reproduced at its expense only at a price that recovers actual 
reproduction and distribution costs that were not covered by Institute 
grant funds or grantee matching contributions to the project. When 
grant funds only partially cover the costs of developing, producing and 
disseminating a product, the grantee may, with the written prior 
approval of the Institute, recover costs for developing, reproducing, 
and disseminating the material to the extent that those costs were not 
covered by Institute grant funds or grantee matching contributions.
    If the sale of products occurs during the project period, the costs 
and income generated by the sales must be reported on the Quarterly 
Financial Status Reports and documented in an auditable manner.
    Whenever possible, the intent to sell a product should be disclosed 
in the concept paper and application or reported to the Institute in 
writing once a decision to sell products has been made. The grantee 
must request approval to recover its product development, reproduction, 
and dissemination costs as specified in section X.V.
5. Other
    Other project income shall be treated in accordance with 
disposition instructions set forth in the project's terms and 
conditions.

G. Payments and Financial Reporting Requirements

1. Payment of Grant Funds
    The procedures and regulations set forth below are applicable to 
all Institute grant funds and grantees.
    a. Request for Advance or Reimbursement of Funds. Grantees will 
receive funds on a ``Check-Issued'' basis. Upon receipt, review, and 
approval of a Request for Advance or Reimbursement by the Institute, a 
check will be issued directly to the grantee or its designated fiscal 
agent. A request must be limited to the grantee's immediate cash needs. 
The Request for Advance or Reimbursement, along with the instructions 
for its preparation, will be included in the official Institute award 
package.
    For purposes of submitting Requests for Advance or Reimbursement, 
recipients of continuation and on-going support grants should consider 
these grants as supplements to and extensions of the original award and 
number their requests on a project rather than a grant basis. (See 
Recommendations to Grantees in the Introduction for further guidance.)
    Payment requests for projects within a package grant may be 
submitted at the same time, but must be calculated separately by 
component project. The alphabetic project identifier (A, B, C, etc.) 
should be appended to the grant number in Block 5 of the Request for 
Advance or Reimbursement. (See Recommendations to Grantees in the 
Introduction for further guidance.)
    b. Termination of Advance and Reimbursement Funding. When a grantee 
organization receiving cash advances from the Institute:
    i. Demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to attain program or 
project goals, or to establish procedures that will minimize the time 
elapsing between cash advances and disbursements, or cannot adhere to 
guideline requirements or special conditions;
    ii. Engages in the improper award and administration of subgrants 
or contracts; or
    iii. Is unable to submit reliable and/or timely reports;

the Institute may terminate advance financing and require the grantee 
organization to finance its operations with its own working capital. 
Payments to the grantee shall then be made by check to reimburse the 
grantee for actual cash disbursements. In the event the grantee 
continues to be deficient, the Institute reserves the right to suspend 
reimbursement payments until the deficiencies are corrected.
    c. Principle of Minimum Cash on Hand. Recipient organizations 
should request funds based upon immediate disbursement requirements. 
Grantees should time their requests to ensure that cash on hand is the 
minimum needed for disbursements to be made immediately or within a few 
days. Idle funds in the hands of subgrantees will impair the goals of 
good cash management.
2. Financial Reporting
    In order to obtain financial information concerning the use of 
funds, the Institute requires that grantees/subgrantees of these funds 
submit timely reports for review.
    Two copies of the Financial Status Report are required from all 
grantees, other than recipients of scholarships under section 
II.B.2.b.v., for each active quarter on a calendar-quarter basis. This 
report is due within 30 days after the close of the calendar quarter. 
It is designed to provide financial information relating to Institute 
funds, State and local matching shares, and any other fund sources 
included in the approved project budget. The report contains 
information on obligations as well as outlays. A copy of the Financial 
Status Report, along with instructions for its preparation, will be 
included in the official Institute Award package. In circumstances 
where an organization requests substantial payments for a project prior 
to the completion of a given quarter, the Institute may request a brief 
summary of the amount requested, by object class, in support of the 
Request for Advance or Reimbursement.
    Grantees receiving a continuation or on-going support grant should 
provide financial information and number their quarterly Financial 
Status Reports on a project rather than a grant basis.
    Grantees receiving a package grant must submit a quarterly 
financial report summarizing the financial activity for the entire 
package and separate reports for each project within the package. On 
the separate reports for the component projects, the alphabetic project 
identifier (A, B, C, etc.) must be appended to the grant number in 
Block 5 of the Financial Status Report.
3. Consequences of Non-Compliance With Submission Requirements
    Failure of the grantee organization to submit required financial 
and program reports may result in a suspension of grant payments or 
revocation of the grant award.

H. Allowability of Costs

1. General
    Except as may be otherwise provided in the conditions of a 
particular grant, cost allowability shall be determined in accordance 
with the principles set forth in OMB Circulars A-87, Cost Principles 
for State and Local Governments; A-21, Cost Principles Applicable to 
Grants and Contracts with Educational Institutions; and A-122, Cost 
Principles for Non-Profit Organizations. No costs may be recovered to 
liquidate obligations which are incurred after the approved grant 
period.
2. Costs Requiring Prior Approval
    a. Preagreement Costs. The written prior approval of the Institute 
is required for costs which are considered necessary to the project but 
occur prior to the award date of the grant.
    b. Equipment. Grant funds may be used to purchase or lease only 
that equipment which is essential to 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.
3. Travel Costs
    Transportation and per diem rates must comply with the policies of 
the applicant organization. If the applicant does not have an 
established written travel policy, then travel rates shall be 
consistent with those established by the Institute or the Federal 
Government. Institute funds shall not be used to cover the 
transportation or per diem costs of a member of a national organization 
to attend an annual or other regular meeting of that organization.
4. Indirect Costs
    These are costs of an organization that are not readily assignable 
to a particular project, but are necessary to the operation of the 
organization and the performance of the project. The cost of operating 
and maintaining facilities, depreciation, and administrative salaries 
are examples of the types of costs that are usually treated as indirect 
costs. It is the policy of the Institute that all costs should be 
budgeted directly; however, if a recipient has an indirect cost rate 
approved by a Federal agency as set forth below, the Institute will 
accept that rate.
    a. Approved Plan Available.
    i. The Institute will accept an indirect cost rate or allocation 
plan approved for a grantee during the preceding two years by any 
Federal granting agency on the basis of allocation methods 
substantially in accord with those set forth in the applicable cost 
circulars. A copy of the approved rate agreement must be submitted to 
the Institute.
    ii. Where flat rates are accepted in lieu of actual indirect costs, 
grantees may not also charge expenses normally included in overhead 
pools, e.g., accounting services, legal services, building occupancy 
and maintenance, etc., as direct costs.
    iii. Organizations with an approved indirect cost rate, utilizing 
total direct costs as the base, usually exclude contracts under grants 
from any overhead recovery. The negotiation agreement will stipulate 
that contracts are excluded from the base for overhead recovery.
    b. Establishment of Indirect Cost Rates. In order to be reimbursed 
for indirect costs, a grantee or organization must first establish an 
appropriate indirect cost rate. To do this, the grantee must prepare an 
indirect cost rate proposal and submit it to the Institute. The 
proposal must be submitted in a timely manner (within three months 
after the start of the grant period) to assure recovery of the full 
amount of allowable indirect costs, and it must be developed in 
accordance with principles and procedures appropriate to the type of 
grantee institution involved.
    c. No Approved Plan. If an indirect cost proposal for recovery of 
actual indirect costs is not submitted to the Institute within three 
months after the start of the grant period, indirect costs will be 
irrevocably disallowed for all months prior to the month that the 
indirect cost proposal is received. This policy is effective for all 
grant awards.

I. Procurement and Property Management Standards

1. Procurement Standards
    For State and local governments, the Institute is adopting the 
standards set forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular A-102. Institutions 
of higher education, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations will 
be governed by the standards set forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular 
A-110.
2. Property Management Standards
    The property management standards as prescribed in Attachment N of 
OMB Circulars A-102 and A-110 shall be applicable to all grantees and 
subgrantees of Institute funds except as provided in section X.O.
    All grantees/subgrantees are required to be prudent in the 
acquisition and management of property with grant funds. If suitable 
property required for the successful execution of projects is already 
available within the grantee or subgrantee organization, expenditures 
of grant funds for the acquisition of new property will be considered 
unnecessary.

J. Audit Requirements

1. Implementation
    Each non-scholarship grantee (including a State or local court 
receiving a subgrant from the State Supreme Court) shall provide for an 
annual fiscal audit. The audit may be of the entire grantee 
organization (e.g., a university) or of the specific project funded by 
the Institute. Audits conducted in accordance with the Single Audit Act 
of 1984 and OMB Circular A-128, or OMB Circular A-133 will satisfy the 
requirement for an annual fiscal audit. The audit shall be conducted by 
an independent Certified Public Accountant, or a State or local agency 
authorized to audit government agencies. For grantees receiving more 
than $50,000 in payments during their fiscal year, the audit shall be 
conducted in accordance with the Government Accounting Standards issued 
by the Comptroller General of the United States and shall include:
    a. An opinion on whether the financial statements of the grantee 
present fairly its financial position and the results of its financial 
operations in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
    b. A report on the grantee's internal control structure over 
financial reporting; and,
    c. A report on the tests of compliance with applicable laws and 
regulations that have a direct and material effect on the financial 
statement amounts.
    For grantees receiving payments totalling $50,000 or less during 
their fiscal year, the annual fiscal audit may be conducted in 
accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards established by 
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). A 
written report shall be prepared upon completion of the audit. Grantees 
are responsible for submitting copies of the reports to the Institute 
within 30 days after the acceptance of the report by the grantee, for 
each year that there is financial activity involving Institute funds.
    Grantees who receive funds from a Federal agency and who satisfy 
audit requirements of the cognizant Federal agency, should submit a 
copy of the audit report prepared for that Federal agency to the 
Institute in order to satisfy the provisions of this section. Cognizant 
Federal agencies do not send reports to the Institute. Therefore, each 
grantee must send this report directly to the Institute.
2. Resolution and Clearance of Audit Reports
    Timely action on recommendations by responsible management 
officials is an integral part of the effectiveness of an audit. Each 
grant recipient shall have policies and procedures for acting on audit 
recommendations by designating officials responsible for: follow-up, 
maintaining a record of the actions taken on recommendations and time 
schedules, responding to and acting on audit recommendations, and 
submitting periodic reports to the Institute on recommendations and 
actions taken.
3. Consequences of Non-Resolution of Audit Issues
    It is the general policy of the State Justice Institute not to make 
new grant awards to an applicant having an unresolved audit report 
involving Institute awards. Failure of the grantee organization to 
resolve audit questions may also result in the suspension of payments 
for active Institute grants to that organization.

K. Close-Out of Grants

1. Definition
    Close-out is a process by which the Institute determines that all 
applicable administrative and financial actions and all required work 
of the grant have been completed by both the grantee and the Institute.
2. Grantee Close-Out Requirements
    Within 90 days after the end date of the grant or any approved 
extension thereof (revised end date), the following documents must be 
submitted to the Institute by a grantee other than a recipient of a 
scholarship under section II.B.2.b.v.
    a. Financial Status Report. The final report of expenditures must 
have no unliquidated obligations and must indicate the exact balance of 
unobligated funds. Any unobligated/unexpended funds will be deobligated 
from the award by the Institute. Final payment requests for obligations 
incurred during the award period must be submitted to the Institute 
prior to the end of the 90-day close-out period. Grantees on a check-
issued basis, who have drawn down funds in excess of their obligations/
expenditures, must return any unused funds as soon as it is determined 
that the funds are not required. In no case should any unused funds 
remain with the grantee beyond the submission date of the final 
financial status report.
    b. Final Progress Report. This report should describe the project 
activities during the final calendar quarter of the project and the 
closeout period, including to whom project products have been 
disseminated; provide a summary of activities during the entire 
project; specify whether all the objectives set forth in the approved 
application or an approved adjustment thereto have been met and, if any 
of the objectives have not been met, explain the reasons therefor; and 
discuss what, if anything, could have been done differently that might 
have enhanced the impact of the project or improved its operation.
3. Extension of Close-Out Period
    Upon the written request of the grantee, the Institute may extend 
the close-out period to assure completion of the Grantee's close-out 
requirements. Requests for an extension must be submitted at least 14 
days before the end of the close-out period and must explain why the 
extension is necessary and what steps will be taken to assure that all 
the grantee's responsibilities will be met by the end of the extension 
period.

XII. Grant Adjustments

    All requests for program or budget adjustments requiring Institute 
approval must be submitted in a timely manner by the project director. 
All requests for changes from the approved application will be 
carefully reviewed for both consistency with this guideline and the 
enhancement of grant goals and objectives.

A. Grant Adjustments Requiring Prior Written Approval

    There are several types of grant adjustments which require the 
prior written approval of the Institute. Examples of these adjustments 
include:
    1. Budget revisions among direct cost categories which, 
individually or in the aggregate, exceed or are expected to exceed five 
percent of the approved original budget or the most recently approved 
revised budget. For the purposes of this section, the Institute will 
view budget revisions cumulatively.
    a. For package grants, reallocations among budget categories of an 
individual project within the package that total less than five percent 
of the approved budget for that project do not require a grant 
adjustment. However, transfers of funds between projects included in 
the package require prior, written approval by the Institute.
    b. For continuation and on-going support grants, funds from the 
original award may be used during the renewal grant period and funds 
awarded by a continuation or on-going support grant may be used to 
cover project-related expenditures incurred during the original award 
period, with the prior, written approval of the Institute.
    2. A change in the scope of work to be performed or the objectives 
of the project (see section XII.D.).
    3. A change in the project site.
    4. A change in the project period, such as an extension of the 
grant period and/or extension of the final financial or progress report 
deadline (see section XII.E.).
    5. Satisfaction of special conditions, if required.
    6. A change in or temporary absence of the project director (see 
sections XII.F. and G.).
    7. The assignment of an employee or consultant to a key staff 
position whose qualifications were not described in the application, or 
a change of a person assigned to a key project staff position (see 
section X.X.).
    8. A change in the name of the grantee organization.
    9. A transfer or contracting out of grant-supported activities (see 
section XII.H.).
    10. A transfer of the grant to another recipient.
    11. Preagreement costs, the purchase of automated data processing 
equipment and software, and consultant rates, as specified in section 
XI.H.2.
    12. A change in the nature or number of the products to be prepared 
or the manner in which a product would be distributed.

B. Request for Grant Adjustments

    All grantees and subgrantees must promptly notify the SJI program 
managers, in writing, of events or proposed changes which may require 
an adjustment to the approved application. In requesting an adjustment, 
the grantee must set forth the reasons and basis for the proposed 
adjustment and any other information the SJI program managers determine 
would help the Institute's review.

C. Notification of Approval/Disapproval

    If the request is approved, the grantee will be sent a Grant 
Adjustment signed by the Executive Director or his/her designee. If the 
request is denied, the grantee will be sent a written explanation of 
the reasons for the denial.

D. Changes in the Scope of the Grant

    A grantee/subgrantee may make minor changes in methodology, 
approach, or other aspects of the grant to expedite achievement of the 
grant's objectives with subsequent notification of the SJI program 
manager. Major changes in scope, duration, training methodology, or 
other significant areas must be approved in advance by the Institute.

E. Date Changes

    A request to change or extend the grant period must be made at 
least 30 days in advance of the end date of the grant. A revised task 
plan should accompany requests for a no-cost extension of the grant 
period, along with a revised budget if shifts among budget categories 
will be needed. A request to change or extend the deadline for the 
final financial report or final progress report must be made at least 
14 days in advance of the report deadline (see section XI.K.3.).

F. Temporary Absence of the Project Director

    Whenever absence of the project director is expected to exceed a 
continuous period of one month, the plans for the conduct of the 
project director's duties during such absence must be approved in 
advance by the Institute. This information must be provided in a letter 
signed by an authorized representative of the grantee/subgrantee at 
least 30 days before the departure of the project director, or as soon 
as it is known that the project director will be absent. The grant may 
be terminated if arrangements are not approved in advance by the 
Institute.

G. Withdrawal of/Change in Project Director

    If the project director relinquishes or expects to relinquish 
active direction of the project, the Institute must be notified 
immediately. In such cases, if the grantee/subgrantee wishes to 
terminate the project, the Institute will forward procedural 
instructions upon notification of such intent. If the grantee wishes to 
continue the project under the direction of another individual, a 
statement of the candidate's qualifications should be sent to the 
Institute for review and approval. The grant may be terminated if the 
qualifications of the proposed individual are not approved in advance 
by the Institute.

H. Transferring or Contracting Out of Grant-Supported Activities

    A principal activity of the grant-supported project shall not be 
transferred or contracted out to another organization without specific 
prior approval by the Institute. All such arrangements should be 
formalized in a contract or other written agreement between the parties 
involved. Copies of the proposed contract or agreement must be 
submitted for prior approval at the earliest possible time. The 
contract or agreement must state, at a minimum, the activities to be 
performed, the time schedule, the policies and procedures to be 
followed, the dollar limitation of the agreement, and the cost 
principles to be followed in determining what costs, both direct and 
indirect, are to be allowed. The contract or other written agreement 
must not affect the grantee's overall responsibility for the direction 
of the project and accountability to the Institute.

State Justice Institute Board of Directors

Malcolm M. Lucas, Chairman, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of California, 
San Francisco, California
John F. Daffron, Jr., Vice Chairman, Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, 
Chesterfield, Virginia
Janice L. Gradwohl, Secretary, Judge (ret.), County Courts, Lincoln, 
Nebraska
Terrence B. Adamson, Esq., Executive Committee Member, Kaye, Scholer, 
Fierman, Hays, and Handler, Washington, DC
Carl F. Bianchi, Administrative Director of the Idaho Courts, (ret.) 
Boise, Idaho
David A. Brock, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, Concord, 
New Hampshire
James Duke Cameron, Esq., Bonnett, Fairbourne and Friedman, Phoenix, 
Arizona
Vivi L. Dilweg, Judge, Brown County Circuit Court, Green Bay, Wisconsin
Carlos R. Garza, Administrative Judge (ret.), Vienna, Virginia
Keith McNamara, Esq., McNamara and McNamara, Columbus, Ohio
Sandra A. O'Connor, States Attorney of Baltimore County, Towson, 
Maryland
David I. Tevelin, Executive Director (ex officio)
David I. Tevelin,
Executive Director.

Appendix I--List of State Contacts Regarding Administration of 
Institute Grants to State and Local Courts

Mr. Oliver Gilmore, Administrative Director, Administrative Office 
of the Courts, 817 South Court Street, Montgomery, Alabama 36130, 
(205) 834-7990
Mr. Arthur H. Snowden II, Administrative Director, Alaska Court 
System, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, (907) 264-0547
Mr. David K. Byers, Administrative Director, Supreme Court of 
Arizona, 1501 West Washington Street, Suite 411, Phoenix, Arizona 
85007-3330, (602) 542-9301
Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, 625 Marshall, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1078, (501) 376-
6655
Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, 303 Second Street, South Tower, San Francisco, 
California 94107, (415) 396-9100
Mr. Steven V. Berson, State Court Administrator, Colorado Judicial 
Department, 1301 Pennsylvania Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 
80203-2416, (303) 861-1111, ext. 585
Ms. Faith P. Arkin, Director, External Affairs, Office of the Chief 
Court Administrator, Drawer N, Station A, Hartford, Connecticut 
06106, (203) 566-8210
Mr. Lowell Groundland, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, Carvel State Office Building, 820 N. French Street, 
Wilmington, Delaware 19801, (302) 571-2480
Mr. Ulysses Hammond, Executive Officer, Courts of the District of 
Columbia, 500 Indiana Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001, (202) 879-
1700
Mr. Kenneth Palmer, State Courts Administrator, Florida State Courts 
System, Supreme Court Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1900, 
(904) 922-5081
Mr. Robert L. Doss, Jr., Director, Administrative Office of the 
Georgia Courts, The Judicial Council of Georgia, 244 Washington 
Street, SW., Suite 500, Atlanta, Georgia 30334-5900, (404) 656-5171
Mr. Perry C. Taitano, Administrative Director, Superior Court of 
Guam, Judiciary Building, 110 West O'Brien Drive, Agana, Guam 96920, 
011 (671) 472-8961 through 8968
Honorable Daniel G. Heely, Administrative Director of the Courts, 
Office of the Administrative Director, Post Office Box 2560, 
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, (808) 539-4900
Honorable Charles F. McDevitt, Chief Justice, Idaho Supreme Court, 
451 West State Street, Boise, Idaho 83720, (208) 334-3464
Mr. Robert E. Davison, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, 840 S. Spring Street, Springfield, Illinois 62704, (312) 
793-3250
Mr. Bruce A. Kotzan, Executive Director, Supreme Court of Indiana, 
State House, Room 323, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, (317) 232-2542
Mr. William J. O'Brien, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Iowa, State House, Des Moines, Iowa 50319, (515) 281-5241
Dr. Howard P. Schwartz, Judicial Administrator, Kansas Judicial 
Center, 301 West 10th Street, Topeka, Kansas 66612, (923) 296-4873
Ms. Laura Stammel, Assistant Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, 100 Mill Creek Park, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, (502) 564-
2350
Dr. Hugh M. Collins, Judicial Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Louisiana, 301 Loyola Avenue, Room 109, New Orleans, Louisiana 
70112-1887, (504) 568-5747
Mr. James T. Glessner, State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 4820, Downtown Station, Portland, 
Maine 04112, (207) 822-0792
Ms. Deborah A. Unitus, Assistant State Court Administrator, 
Administrative Office of the Courts, Rowe Boulevard and Taylor 
Avenue, Annapolis, Maryland 21401, (301) 974-2141
Honorable John E. Fenton, Jr., Chief Justice for Administration and 
Management, The Trial Court, Administrative Office of the Trial 
Court, Two Center Plaza, Suite 540, Boston, Massachusetts 02108, 
(617) 742-8575
Ms. Marilyn K. Hall, State Court Administrator, Michigan Supreme 
Court, P.O. Box 30048, 611 West Ottawa Street, Lansing, Michigan 
48909, (517) 373-0136
Ms. Sue K. Dosal, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Minnesota, 230 State Capitol, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, (617) 296-
2474
Honorable Leslie Johnson, Director, Center for Court Education and 
Continuing Studies, Box 879, Oxford, Mississippi 38677, (601) 232-
5955
Mr. Ron Larkin State Court Administrator, 1105 R Southwest Blvd., 
Jefferson City, Missouri 65109, (314) 751-3585
Mr. Patrick A. Chenovick, State Court Administrator, Montana Supreme 
Court, Justice Building, Room 315, 215 North Sanders, Helena, 
Montana 59620-3001, (406) 444-2621
Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Nebraska, State Capitol Building, Room 1220, Lincoln, Nebraska 
68509, (404) 471-2643
Mr. Donald J. Mello, Court Administrator, Administrative Office of 
the Courts, Capitol Complex, Carson City, Nevada 89710, (702) 885-
5076
Mr. James F. Lynch, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of New 
Hampshire, Frank Rowe Kenison Building, Concord, New Hampshire 
03301, (603) 271-2419
Mr. Robert Lipscher, Administrative Director, Administrative Office 
of the Courts, CN-037, RJH Justice Complex, Trenton, New Jersey 
08625, (609) 984-0275
Honorable E. Leo Milones, Chief Administrative Judge, Office of 
Court Administration, 270 Broadway, New York, New York 10007, (212) 
587-2004
Ms. Deborah Kanter, State Court Administrator, Administrative Office 
of the Courts, Supreme Court of New Mexico, Supreme Court Building, 
Room 25, Sante Fe, New Mexico 87503, (505) 827-4800
Mr. James C. Drennan, Administrative Director, Administrative Office 
of the Courts, Post Office Box 2448, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602, 
(919) 733-7106/7107
Mr. Keithe E. Nelson, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
North Dakota, State Capitol Building, Bismarck, North Dakota 58505, 
(701) 224-4216
Mr. Stephan W. Stover, Administrative Director of the Courts, 
Supreme Court of Ohio, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, 
Columbus, Ohio 43266-0419, (614) 466-2653
Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Administrative Director, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, 1925 N. Stiles, Suite 305, Oklahoma City, 
Oklahoma 73105, (405) 521-2450
Mr. R. William Linden, Jr., State Court Administrator, Supreme Court 
of Oregon, Supreme Court Building, Salem, Oregon 97310, (503) 378-
6046
Mr. Thomas B. Darr, Director for Legislative Affairs, Communications 
and Administration, 5035 Ritter Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 
17055, (717) 795-2000
Dr. Robert C. Harrell, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, 
(401) 277-3266
Mr. Louis L. Rosen, Director, South Carolina Court Administration, 
Post Office Box 50447, Columbia, South Carolina 29250, (803) 734-
1800
Honorable Robert A. Miller, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of South 
Dakota, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, South Dakota 57501, (605) 
773-4885
Mr. Charles E. Ferrell, Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of 
Tennessee, Supreme Court Building, Room 422, Nashville, Tennessee 
37219, (615) 741-2687
Mr. C. Raymond Judice, Administrative Director, Office of Court 
Administration of the Texas Judicial System, Post Office Box 12066, 
Austin, Texas 78711, (512) 463-1625
Mr. Ronald W. Gibson, State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, 230 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 
84102, (801) 533-6371
Mr. Thomas J. Lehner, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Vermont, 
111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602, (802) 828-3281
Ms. Viola E. Smith, Clerk of the Court/Administrator, Territorial 
Court of the Virgin Islands, Post Office Box 70, Charlotte Amalie, 
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801, (809) 774-6680, ext. 248
Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of 
Virginia, Administrative Offices, 100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor, 
Richmond, Virginia 23219, (804) 786-6455
Ms. Mary C. McQueen, Administrator for the Courts, Supreme Court of 
Washington, Highways-Licensing Building, 6th Floor, 12th and 
Washington, Olympia, Washington 98504, (206) 753-5780
Mr. Ted J. Philyaw, Administrative Director of the Courts, 
Administrative Office, 402-E State Capitol, Charleston, West 
Virginia 25305, (304) 348-0145
Mr. J. Denis Moran, Director of State Courts, Post Office Box 1688, 
Madison, Wisconsin 53701-1688, (608) 266-6828
Mr. Robert L. Duncan, Court Coordinator, Supreme Court Building, 
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, (307) 777-7581

Appendix II--SJI Libraries Designated Sites and Contacts (August 
1993)

State: Alabama
Location: Supreme Court Library
Contact: Mr. William C. Younger, State Law Librarian, Alabama 
Supreme Court Bldg., 445 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36130, 
(205) 242-4347
State: Alaska
Location: Anchorage Law Library
Contact: Ms. Cynthia S. Petumenos, State Law Librarian, Alaska Court 
Libraries, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, (907) 264-0583
State: Arizona
Location: State Law Library
Contact: Ms. Sharon Womack, Director, Department of Library and 
Archives, State Capitol, 1700 West Washington, Phoenix, Arizona 
85007, (602) 542-4035
State: Arkansas
Location: Administrative Office of the Courts
Contact: Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, Supreme Court of 
Arkansas, Administrative Office of the Courts, Justice Building, 625 
Marshall, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1078, (501) 376-6655
State: California
Location: Administrative Office of the Courts
Contact: Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court Administrator, 
Administrative Office of the Courts, 303 Second Street, South Tower, 
San Francisco, California 94107, (415) 396-9100
State: Colorado
Location: Supreme Court Library
Contact: Ms. Frances Campbell, Supreme Court Law Librarian, Colorado 
State Judicial Building, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80203, 
(303) 837-3720
State: Connecticut
Location: State Library
Contact: Mr. Richard Akeroyd, State Librarian, 231 Capital Avenue, 
Hartford, Connecticut 06106, (203) 566-4301
State: Delaware
Location: Administrative Office of the Courts
Contact: Mr. Michael E. McLaughlin, Deputy Director, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, Carvel State Office Building, 820 North French 
Street, 11th Floor, P.O. Box 8911, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, (302) 
571-2480
State: District of Columbia
Location: Executive Office, District of Columbia Courts
Contact: Mr. Ulysses Hammond, Executive Officer, Courts of the 
District of Columbia, 500 Indiana Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001, 
(202) 879-1700
State: Florida
Location: Administrative Office of the Courts
Contact: Mr. Kenneth Palmer, State Court Administrator, Florida 
State Courts System, Supreme Court Building, Tallahassee, Florida 
32399-1900, (904) 488-8621
State: Georgia
Location: Administrative Office of the Courts
Contact: Mr. Robert L. Doss, Jr., Director, Administrative Office of 
the Courts, The Judicial Council of Georgia, 244 Washington Street, 
SW., Suite 550, Atlanta, Georgia 30334, (404) 656-5171
State: Hawaii
Location: Supreme Court Library
Contact: Ms. Ann Koto, Acting Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law 
Library, P.O. Box 2560, Honolulu, Hawaii 96804, (808) 548-4605
State: Idaho
Location: AOC Judicial Education Library/State, Law Library in Boise
Contact: Ms. Laura Pershing, State Law Librarian, Idaho State Law 
Library, Supreme Court Building, 451 West State Street, Boise, Idaho 
83720, (208) 334-3316
State: Illinois
Location: Supreme Court Library
Contact: Ms. Brenda I. Larison, Supreme Court Library, Supreme Court 
Building, Springfield, Illinois 62701-1791, (217) 782-2424
State: Indiana
Location: Supreme Court Library
Contact: Ms. Constance Matts, Supreme Court Librarian, Supreme Court 
Library, State House, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, (317) 232-2557
State: Iowa
Location: Administrative Office of the Court
Contact: Mr. Jerry K. Beatty, Executive Director, Judicial Education 
and Planning, Administrative Office of the Courts, State Capital 
Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319, (515) 281-8279
State: Kansas
Location: Supreme Court Library
Contact: Mr. Fred Knecht, Law Librarian, Kansas Supreme Court 
Library, 301 West 10th Street, Topeka, Kansas 66614, (913) 296-3257
State: Kentucky
Location: State Law Library
Contact: Ms. Sallie Howard, State Law Librarian, State Law Library, 
State Capital, Room 200-A, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, (502) 564-4848
State: Louisiana
Location: State Law Library
Contact: Ms. Carol Billings, Director, Louisiana Law Library, 301 
Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, (504) 568-5705
State: Maine
Location: State Law and Legislative Reference Library
Contact: Ms. Lynn E. Randall, State Law Librarian, State House 
Station 43, Augusta, Maine 04333, (207) 289-1600
State: Maryland
Location: State Law Library,
Contact: Mr. Michael S. Miller, Director, Maryland State Law 
Library, Court of Appeal Building, 361 Rowe Boulevard, Annapolis, 
Maryland 21401, (301) 974-3395
State: Massachusetts
Location: Middlesex Law Library
Contact: Ms. Sandra Lindheimer, Librarian, Middlesex Law Library, 
Superior Court House, 40 Thorndike Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 
02141, (617) 494-4148
State: Michigan
Location: Michigan Judicial Institute
Contact: Mr. Dennis W. Catlin, Executive Director, Michigan Judicial 
Institute, 222 Washington Square North, P.O. Box 30205, Lansing, 
Michigan 48909, (517) 334-7804
State: Minnesota
Location: State Law Library (Minnesota Judicial Center)
Contact: Mr. Marvin R. Anderson, State Law Librarian, Supreme Court 
of Minnesota, 25 Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, 
(612) 297-2084
State: Mississippi
Location: Mississippi Judicial College
Contact: Mr. Rick D. Patt, Staff Attorney, Mississippi Judicial 
College, 6th Floor, 3825 Ridgewood, Jackson, Mississippi 39211, 
(601) 982-6590
State: Montana
Location: State Law Library
Contact: Ms. Judith Meadows, State Law Librarian, State Law Library 
of Montana, Justice Building, 215 North Sanders, Helena, Montana 
59620, (406) 444-3660
State: National
Location: JERITT Project/ Michigan State University
Contact: Dr. John K. Hudzik, Project Director, Judicial Education, 
Reference, Information and Technical Transfer Project (JERITT), 
Michigan State University, 560 Baker Hall, East Lansing, Michigan 
48824
State: Nebraska
Location: Administrative Office of the Courts
Contact: Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court Administrator, Supreme 
Court of Nebraska, Administrative Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 
98910, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8910, (402) 471-3730
State: Nevada
Location: National Judicial College
Contact: Dean V. Robert Payant, National Judicial College, Judicial 
College Building, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89550, (702) 
784-6747
State: New Jersey
Location: New Jersey State Library
Contact: Mr. Robert L. Bland, Law Coordinator, State of New Jersey, 
Department of Education, State Library, 185 West State Street, 
CN520, Trenton, New Jersey 08625, (609) 292-6230
State: New Mexico
Location: Supreme Court Library
Contact: Mr. Thaddeus Bejnar, Librarian, Supreme Court Library, Post 
Office Drawer L, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504, (505) 827-4850
State: New York
Location: Supreme Court Library
Contact: Ms. Susan M. Wood, Esq., Principal Law Librarian, New York 
State Supreme Court Law Library, Onondaga County Court House, 
Syracuse, New York 13202, (315) 435-2063
State: North Carolina
Location: Supreme Court Library
Contact: Ms. Louise Stafford, Librarian, North Carolina Supreme 
Court Library, P.O. Box 28006 (by courier), 500 Justice Building, 2 
East Morgan Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601, (919) 733-3425
State: North Dakota
Location: Supreme Court Library
Contact: Ms. Marcella Kramer, Assistant Law Librarian, Supreme Court 
Law Library, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, 2nd Floor, Judicial Wing, 
Bismarck, North Dakota 58505-0530, (701) 224-2229
State: Northern Mariana Islands
Location: Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands
Contact: Honorable Jose S. Dela Cruz, Chief Justice, Supreme Court 
of the Northern Mariana Islands, P.O. Box 2165, Saipan, MP 96950, 
(670) 234-5275
State: Ohio
Location: Supreme Court Library
Contact: Mr. Paul S. Fu, Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law Library, 
Supreme Court of Ohio, 30 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43266-
0419, (614) 466-2044
State: Oklahoma
Location: Administrative Office of the Courts
Contact: Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Director, Administrative Office of 
the Courts, 1915 North Stiles, Suite 305, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 
73105, (405) 521-2450
State: Oregon
Location: Administrative Office of the Courts
Contact: Mr. R. William Linden, Jr.,
State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Oregon, Supreme Court 
Building, Salem, Oregon 97310, (503) 378-6046
State: Pennsylvania
Location: State Library of Pennsylvania
Contact: Ms. Betty Lutz, Head, Acquisitions Section, State Library 
of Pennsylvania, Technical Services, G46 Forum Building, Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania 17105, (717) 787-4440
State: Puerto Rico
Location: Office of Court Administration
Contact: Mr. Alfredo Rivera-Mendoza, Esq., Director, Area of 
Planning and Management, Office of Court Administration, P.O. Box 
917, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919
State: Rhode Island
Location: State Law Library
Contact: Mr. Kendall F. Svengalis, Law Librarian, Licht Judicial 
Complex, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, (401) 
277-3275
State: South Carolina
Location: Coleman Karesh Law Library (University of South Carolina 
School of Law)
Contact: Mr. Bruce S. Johnson, Law Librarian, Associate Professor of 
Law, Coleman Karesh Law Library, U. S. C. Law Center, University of 
South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, (803) 777-5944
State: Tennessee
Location: Tennessee State Law Library
Contact: Ms. Donna C. Wair, Librarian, Tennessee State Law Library, 
Supreme Court Building, 401 Seventh Avenue N, Nashville, Tennessee 
37243-0609, (615) 741-2016
State: Texas
Location: State Law Library
Contact: Ms. Kay Schleuter, Director, State Law Library, P.O. Box 
12367, Austin, Texas 78711, (512) 463-1722
State: U.S. Virgin Islands
Location: Library of the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands 
(St. Thomas)
Contact: Librarian, The Library, Territorial Court of the Virgin 
Islands, Post Office Box 70, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. 
Virgin Islands 00804
State: Utah
Location: Utah State Judicial Administration Library
Contact: Ms. Jennifer Bullock, Librarian, Utah State Judicial 
Administration Library, 230 South 500 East, Suite 300, Salt Lake 
City, Utah 84102, (801) 533-6371
State: Vermont
Location: Supreme Court of Vermont
Contact: Mr. Thomas J. Lehner, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Vermont, 111 State Street, c/o Pavilion Office Building, Montpelier, 
Vermont 05602, (802) 828-3278
State: Virginia
Location: Administrative Office of the Courts
Contact: Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, Executive Secretary, Supreme Court 
of Virginia, Administrative Offices, 100 North Ninth Street, Third 
Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219, (804) 786-6455
State: Washington
Location: Washington State Law Library
Contact: Ms. Deborah Norwood, State Law Librarian, Washington State 
Law Library, Temple of Justice, Mail Stop AV-02, Olympia, Washington 
98504-0502, (206) 357-2146
State: West Virginia
Location: Administrative Office of the Courts
Contact: Mr. Richard H. Rosswurm, Deputy Administrative Director for 
Judicial Education, West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, State 
Capitol, Capitol E-400, Charleston, West Virginia 25305, (304) 348-
0145
State: Wisconsin
Location: State Law Library
Contact: Ms. Marcia Koslov, State Law Librarian, State Law Library, 
310E State Capitol, P.O. Box 7881, Madison, Wisconsin 53707, (608) 
266-1424
State: Wyoming
Location: Wyoming State Law Library
Contact: Ms. Kathy Carlson, Law Librarian, Wyoming State Law 
Library, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, (307) 777-
7509
National: American Judicature Society
Contact: Ms. Clara Wells, Assistant for Information and Library 
Services, 25 East Washington Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, Illinois 
60602, (312) 558-6900
National: National Center for State Courts
Contact: Ms. Peggy Rogers, Acquisitions/Serials Librarian, 300 
Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8798, (804) 253-2000

Appendix III--State Justice Institute Scholarship Application

(Form S1)

Applicant Information

1. Applicant Name:-----------------------------------------------------
(Last)     (First)     (M)

2. Position:-----------------------------------------------------------

3. Name of Court:------------------------------------------------------

4. Address:------------------------------------------------------------
Street/P.O. Box

----------------------------------------------------------------------
City     State     Zip Code

5. Telephone No.-------------------------------------------------------

6. Congressional District:---------------------------------------------

Program Information

7. Course Name:--------------------------------------------------------

8. Course Dates:-------------------------------------------------------

9. Course Provider:----------------------------------------------------

10. Location Offered:--------------------------------------------------

Estimated Expenses

(Please note, scholarships are limited to tuition and transportation 
expenses to and from the site of the course up to a maximum of 
$1,500.)

Tuition: $-------------------------------------------------------------

Transportation: $------------------------------------------------------
(airfare, trainfare or if you plan to drive, the approximate 
distance and mileage rate)

Amount Requested: $----------------------------------------------------
(This application does not serve as a registration for the course. 
Please contact the education provider.)

Additional Information

     Please attach a current resume or professional summary, and 
answer the following questions. (You may attach additional pages if 
necessary.)
    1. How will your taking this course benefit you, your court, and 
the State's courts generally?
    2. Is there any education or training currently available 
through your State on this topic?
    3. How will you apply what you have learned? Please include any 
plans you may have to develop/teach a course on this topic in your 
jurisdiction/State, provide in-service training, or otherwise 
disseminate what you have learned to colleagues.
    4. Are State or local funds available to support your attendance 
at the proposed course? If so, what amount(s) will be provided?
    5. How long have you served as a judge or court manager?
    6. How long do you anticipate serving as a judge or court 
manager, assuming reelection or reappointment?
    7. How long has it been since you attended a non-mandatory 
continuing professional education program?

Statement of Applicant's Commitment

    If a scholarship is awarded, I will submit an evaluation of the 
educational program to the State Justice Institute and to the Chief 
Justice of my State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date

    Please return this form and Form S-2 to: State Justice 
Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria Virginia 22314.

State Justice Institute--Scholarship Application; Concurrence

(Form S2)

I,---------------------------------------------------------------------

Name of Chief Justice (or Chief Justice's Designee)

have reviewed the application for a scholarship to attend the

program entitled-------------------------------------------------------

prepared by------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Applicant

and concur in its submission to the State Justice Institute. The 
applicant's participation in the program would benefit the State; 
the applicant's absence to attend the program would not present an 
undue hardship to the court; and receipt of a scholarship would not 
diminish the amount of funds made available by the State for 
judicial education.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date

Appendix IV

                 State Justice Institute Project Budget                 
                                [Form E]                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               SJI      Cash     In-kind
                 Category                     funds     match     match 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel.................................  $         $         $       
Fringe Benefits...........................  $         $         $       
Consultant/Contractual....................  $         $         $       
Travel....................................  $         $         $       
Equipment.................................  $         $         $       
Supplies..................................  $         $         $       
Telephone.................................  $         $         $       
Postage...................................  $         $         $       
Printing/Photocopying.....................  $         $         $       
Audit.....................................  $         $         $       
Other.....................................  $         $         $       
Indirect Costs (%)........................  $         $         $       
      Total...............................  $         $         $       
Project Total: $__________                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Financial assistance has been or will be sought for this project 
from the following other sources:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix V

State Justice Institute

Certificate of State Approval

Form B

(Instructions on Reverse Side)

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 Designated Trial or Appellate Court or Agency

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date

Instructions--Form B

    The State Justice Institute Act requires that:
    Each application for funding by a State or local court shall be 
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court, 
or its designated agency or council, which shall receive, 
administer, and be accountable for all funds awarded by the 
Institute to such courts. 42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(4).
    Form B should be signed by the Chief Judge or Chief Justice of 
the State Supreme Court, or by the director of the designated agency 
or chair of the designated council. If the designated agency or 
council differs from the designee listed in Appendix I to the State 
Justice Institute Grant Guideline, evidence of the new or additional 
designation should be attached.
    The term ``State Supreme Court'' refers to the court of last 
resort of a State. ``Designated agency or council'' refers to the 
office or judicial body which is authorized under State law or by 
delegation from the State Supreme Court to approve applications for 
funds and to receive, administer and be accountable for those funds.

[FR Doc. 94-20319 Filed 8-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-P