[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 240 (Thursday, December 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64192-64236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30363]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE
Grant Guideline
AGENCY: State Justice Institute.
ACTION: Final Grant Guideline.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Guideline sets forth the administrative, programmatic,
and financial requirements attendant to Fiscal Year 1996 State Justice
Institute grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 14, 1995.
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.
[[Page 64193]]
Changes in the Final Guideline
On August 29, 1995, the Institute published its proposed FY 1996
Grant Guideline in the Federal Register for public comment. 60 FR
44936. At the time the proposed Guideline was published, SJI's FY 1996
appropriation was uncertain; the Guideline accordingly cautioned that
the proposed grant program was contingent on the availability of FY
1996 appropriations at about the same $13.55 million level that SJI
received from Congress each year from FY 1992 to 1995.
On November 29, 1995, the House and Senate conference committee
responsible for determining SJI's appropriation set the Institute's FY
1996 funding level at $5 million. If this amount is approved by
Congress and the President, the Institute anticipates the availability
of $6-9 million in grants in FY 1996 (after adding grant funds expected
to be available from prior years and reserving funds for the
administration of the program). This Guideline is contingent on the
availability of $5 million in FY 1996 appropriations.
As a result of the anticipated reduction in SJI's appropriation,
the Board of Directors has made several significant changes in the
final Grant Guideline. They include:
Eliminating the Concept Paper Requirement. In order to facilitate
the review and disposition of FY 1996 funding requests, the Board has
eliminated the concept paper requirement for new proposals this fiscal
year. All applicants will be required to submit formal applications for
project grants no later than February 14, 1996. See section VII. for
application requirements.
Reducing the Number of Special Interest Categories. The number of
Special Interest, i.e., high priority, funding categories has been
reduced from 13 in the proposed Guideline to 7 in the final Guideline.
The seven categories are: Improving Public Confidence in the Courts;
Education and Training for Judges and Other Key Court Personnel;
Children and Families in Court; Application of Technology; Improving
the Courts' Response to Gender-Related Crimes of Violence; the
Relationship Between State and Federal Courts; and Conference
Implementation Projects. See section II.B.2.
Within the constraints of the limited funding expected to be
available in FY 1996, the Board of Directors also remains interested in
proposals seeking to implement projects under the six Special Interest
categories that were dropped from last year's Guideline: Dispute
Resolution and the Courts; Planning and Managing the Future of the
Courts; Resolution of Current Evidentiary Issues; Substance Abuse;
Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts; and Assessing the
Impact of Health Care-Related Issues on the State Courts, as well as a
new category included in the Proposed Guideline, Proving the Security
of Courthouses, Judges, Jurors, and Witnesses.
Changing the Types and Amounts of Grants Available. The final Grant
Guideline eliminates package grants and reduces the amounts allocated
to several other grant programs. As discussed more fully below, the
amount allocated for Technical Assistance grants has been reduced from
$600,000 in the proposed Guideline to $400,000 in the final Guideline;
the amount allocated for Curriculum Adaptation grants has been reduced
from $350,000 to $175,000; and the amount allocated for the Scholarship
Program has been reduced from $250,000 to $175,000. In addition, the
maximum amount contemplated for any single project grant has been
reduced from $300,000 to $200,000, and the maximum duration of a
project grant has been reduced from 24 months to 15 months.
The types of grants available in FY 1996 and the funding cycles for
each program are discussed more fully below:
Project Grants. These grants are awarded to support education,
research, evaluation, demonstration, and technical assistance projects
to improve the administration of justice in the State courts. With
limited exceptions (see sections II.B.2.b.ii. and II.C.), project
grants are intended to support innovative projects of lasting national
significance. As noted above, FY 1996 project grants may be made in
amounts up to $200,000, but grants in excess of $150,000 will be
awarded only to support projects likely to have a significant national
impact.
The FY 1996 mailing deadline for project grant applications is
February 14, 1996. Papers must be postmarked or bear other evidence of
submission by that date. All applications will be considered at the
Board's June 1996 meeting.
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
$400,000 in FY 1996 funds to support technical assistance grants. See
section II.C. The deadlines for submitting letters of application for
Technical Assistance grants are December 22, 1995; March 29, 1996; June
17, 1996; and, subject to the availability of sufficient appropriations
in FY 1997, September 30, 1996.
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 $175,000 for these grants in FY 1996. See section II.B.2.b.ii.
Letters requesting Curriculum Adaptation grants may be submitted at
any time during the fiscal year. However, in order to permit the
Institute sufficient time to evaluate these proposals, letters must be
submitted no later than 90 days before the projected date of the
training program. See section II.B.2.b.ii.(c).
Scholarships. The Guideline allocates up to $175,000 of FY 1996
funds for scholarships to enable judges and court managers to attend
out-of-State education and training programs. See section II.B.2.b.iii.
The Guideline establishes three deadlines for scholarship requests:
February 1, 1996 for programs beginning between April 13 and July 12,
1996; April 15, 1996 for programs beginning between July 13 and
September 30, 1996; and, subject to the availability of FY 1997
appropriations, July 15, 1996 for programs beginning between October 1
and December 31, 1996.
Renewal Grants. There are two types of renewal grants available
from SJI: Continuation grants (see section IX.A.) and On-going support
grants (see section 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 $2 million in FY 1996. 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.
[[Page 64194]]
Recommendations to Grant Writers
Over the past 9 years, Institute staff have reviewed approximately
3,000 concept papers and 1,400 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 an
application.
Applications should, however, be presented in the formats specified
in section VII. of the guideline.
1. What is the subject or problem you wish to address? Describe the
subject or problem and how it affects the courts and the public.
Discuss how your approach will improve the situation or advance the
state of the art or knowledge, and explain why it is the most
appropriate to take. When statistics or research findings are cited to
support a statement or position, the source of the citation should be
referenced in a footnote or a reference list.
2. What do you want to do? Explain the goal(s) of the project in
simple, straightforward terms. The goals should describe the intended
consequences or expected overall effect of the proposed project (e.g.,
to enable judges to sentence drug-abusing offenders more effectively,
or to dispose of civil cases within 24 months), rather than the tasks
or activities to be conducted (e.g., hold 3 training sessions, or
install a new computer system).
To the greatest extent possible, an applicant should avoid a
specialized vocabulary that is not readily understood by the general
public. Technical jargon does not enhance a paper.
3. How will you do it? Describe the methodology carefully so that
what you propose to do and how you would do it are clear. All proposed
tasks should be set forth so that a reviewer can see a logical
progression of tasks and relate those tasks directly to the
accomplishment of the project's goal(s). When in doubt about whether to
provide a more detailed explanation or to assume a particular level of
knowledge or expertise on the part of the reviewers, provide the
additional information. A description of project tasks also will help
identify necessary budget items. All staff positions and project costs
should relate directly to the tasks described. The Institute encourages
applicants to attach letters of cooperation and support from the courts
and related agencies that will be involved in or directly affected by
the proposed project.
4. How will you know it works? Include an evaluation component that
will determine whether the proposed training, procedure, service, or
technology accomplished the objectives it was designed to meet.
Applications should present the criteria that will be used to evaluate
the project's effectiveness, identify program elements which will
require further modification and describe how the evaluation will be
conducted, when it will occur during the project period, who will
conduct it, and what specific measures will be used. In most instances,
the evaluation should be conducted by persons not connected with the
implementation of the procedure, training, service, or technique, or
the administration of the project.
The Institute has also prepared a more thorough list of
recommendations to grant writers regarding the development of project
evaluation plans. Those recommendations are available from the
Institute upon request.
5. How will others find out about it? Include a plan to disseminate
the results of the training, research, or demonstration beyond the
jurisdictions and individuals directly affected by the project. The
plan should identify the specific methods which will be used to inform
the field about the project, such as the publication of law review or
journal articles, or the distribution of key materials. A statement
that a report or research findings ``will be made available to'' the
field is not sufficient. The specific means of distribution or
dissemination as well as the types of recipients should be identified.
Reproduction and dissemination costs are allowable budget items.
6. What are the specific costs involved? The budget 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 grants 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
[[Page 64195]]
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 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.
11. May grant funds be used to purchase equipment? Generally, grant
funds may be used to purchase only the equipment that is necessary to
demonstrate a new technological application in a court, or that is
otherwise essential to accomplishing the objectives of the project.
Equipment purchases to support basic court operations ordinarily will
not be approved. The budget narrative must list the equipment to be
purchased and explain why the equipment is necessary to the success of
the project. Written prior approval of the Institute is required when
the amount of computer hardware to be purchased or leased exceeds
$10,000, or the software to be purchased exceeds $3,000.
12. To what extent may indirect costs be included in the budget
estimates? It is the policy of the Institute that all costs should be
budgeted directly; however, if an applicant has an indirect cost rate
that has been approved by a Federal agency within the last two years,
an indirect cost recovery estimate may be included in the budget. A
copy of the approved rate agreement should be submitted as an appendix
to the application.
If an applicant does not have an approved rate agreement, an
indirect cost rate proposal should be prepared in accordance with
Section XI.H.4 of the Grant Guideline, based on the applicant's audited
financial statements for the prior fiscal year. (Applicants lacking an
audit should budget all project costs directly.) If an indirect cost
rate proposal is to be submitted, the budget should reflect estimates
based on that proposal. Obviously, this requires that the proposal be
completed at the time of application so that the appropriate estimates
may be included; however, grantees have until three months after the
project start date to submit the indirect cost proposal to the
Institute for approval. An indirect cost rate worksheet on computer
diskette is available from the Institute upon request.
13. Does the budget truly reflect all costs required to complete
the project? After preparing the program narrative portion of the
application, applicants may find it helpful to list all the major tasks
or activities required by the proposed project, including the
preparation of products, and note the individual expenses, including
personnel time, related to each. This will help to ensure that, for all
tasks described in the application (e.g., development of a videotape,
research site visits, distribution of a final report), the related
costs appear in the budget and are explained correctly in the budget
narrative.
Recommendations to Grantees
The Institutes 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 1000 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 on 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 grant and each yearly grant under an on-going
support award should be considered as a separate phase of the project.
The reports should be numbered on a grant rather than project basis.
Thus, the first quarterly report filed under a continuation grant or a
yearly increment of an on-going support award should be designated as
number one, the second as number two, and so on, through the final
progress and financial status reports due within 90 days after the end
of the grant period.
3. What information about project activities should be communicated
to SJI? In general, grantees should provide
[[Page 64196]]
prior notice of critical project events such as advisory board meetings
or training sessions so that the Institute Program Manager can attend
if possible. If methodological, schedule, staff, budget allocations, or
other significant changes become necessary, the grantee should contact
the Program Manager prior to implementing any of these changes, so that
possible questions may be addressed in advance. Questions concerning
the financial requirements section of the Guideline, quarterly
financial reporting or payment requests, should be addressed to the
Grants Financial Manager listed in the award letter.
It is helpful to include the grant number assigned to the award on
all correspondence to the Institute.
4. Why is it important to address the special conditions that are
attached to the award document? In some instances, a list of special
conditions is attached to the award document. 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
Guidelines. 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? The basic procedures are the
same for any grant. A continuation grant or the yearly grant under an
on-going support award should be considered as a separate phase of the
project. Payment requests should be numbered on a grant rather than a
project basis. Thus, the first request for funds from a continuation
grant or a yearly increment under an on-going support award should be
designated as number one, the second as number two, and so on through
the final payment request for that grant.
8. If things change during the grant period, can funds be
reallocated from one budget category to another? The Institute
recognizes that some flexibility is requires in implementing a project
design and budget. Thus, grantees may shift funds among direct cost
budget categories. When any one reallocation or the cumulative total of
reallocations are expected to exceed five percent of the approved
project budget, a grantee must specify the proposed changes, explain
the reasons for the changes, and request Institute approval.
The same standard applies to renewal grants. In addition, prior
written Institute approval is required to shift leftover funds from the
original award to cover activities to be conducted under the renewal
award, or to use renewal grant monies to cover costs incurred during
the original grant period.
9. What is the 90-day close-out period? Following the last day of
the grant, a 90-day period is provided to allow for all grant-related
bills to be received and posted, and grant funds drawn down to cover
these expenses. No obligations of grant funds may be incurred during
this period. The last day on which an expenditure of grant funds can be
obligated is the end date of the grant period. Similarly, the 90-day
period is not intended as an opportunity to finish and disseminate
grant products. This should occur before the end of the grant period.
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. 1070(c)(1). Because SJI receives appropriations from Congress,
some grantees auditors have reported SJI funds as ``Other Federal
Assistance.'' This classification is acceptable to SJI but is not
required.
11. If SJI is not a Federal Agency, do OMB circulars apply with
respect to audits? Except to the extent that they are inconsistent with
the express provisions of the SJI Grant Guideline, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-110, A-21, A-87, A-88, A-102, A-122, A-128
and A-133 are incorporated into the Grant Guideline by reference.
Because the Institute's enabling legislation specifically requires the
Institute to ``conduct, or require each recipient to provide for, an
annual fiscal audit'' [see 42 U.S.C. 10711(c)(1)], the Grant Guideline
sets forth options for grantees to comply with this statutory
requirement. (See Section XI.J.)
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 OMB
Circulars A-128, or A-133, in satisfaction of the annual fiscal audit
requirement. Grantees who are required to undertake these audits in
conjunction with Federal grants may include SJI funds as part of the
audit even if the receipt of SJI funds would not require such audits.
This approach gives grantees an option to fold SJI funds into the
governmental audit rather
[[Page 64197]]
than to undertake a separate audit to satisfy SJI's Guidelines
requirements.
In sum, educational and nonprofit organizations that receive
payments from the Institute that are sufficient to meet the
applicability thresholds of OMB Circular A-133 must have their annual
audit conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued
by the Comptroller General of the United States rather than with
generally accepted auditing standards. Grantees in this category that
receive amounts below the minimum threshold referenced in Circular A-
133 must also submit an annual audit to SJI, but they would have the
option to conduct an audit of the entire grantee organization in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; include SJI
funds in an audit of Federal funds conducted in accordance with the
Single Audit Act of 1984 and OMB Circulars A-128 or A-133; or conduct
an audit of only the SJI funds in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards. (See Guideline Section XI.J.) A copy of the above-
noted circulars may be obtained by calling OMB at (202) 395-7250.
12. Does SJI have a CFDA number? Auditors often request that a
grantee provide the Institute's Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) number for guidance in conducting an audit in accordance with
Government Accounting Standards. Because SJI is not a Federal agency,
it has not been issued such a number, and there are no additional
compliance tests to satisfy under the Institute's audit requirements
beyond those of a standard governmental audit.
Moreover, because SJI is not a Federal agency, SJI funds should not
be aggregated with Federal funds to determine if the applicability
threshold of Circular A-133 has been reached. For example, if in fiscal
year 1996 grantee ``X'' received $10,000 in Federal funds from a
Department of Justice (DOJ) grant program and $20,000 in grant funds
from SJI, the minimum A-133 threshold would not be met. The same
distinction would preclude an auditor from considering the additional
SJI funds in determining what Federal requirements apply to the DOJ
funds.
Grantees that are required to satisfy either the Single Audit Act,
OMB Circulars A-128, or A-133 and who include SJI grant funds in those
audits, need to remember that because of its status as a private non-
profit corporation, SJI is not on routing lists of cognizant Federal
agencies. Therefore, the grantee needs to submit a copy of the audit
report prepared for such a cognizant Federal agency directly to SJI.
The Institute's audit requirements may be found in Section XI.J. of the
Grant Guideline.
* * * * *
The following Grant Guideline is adopted by the State Justice
Institute for FY 1996:
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. Suspension of concept paper submission requirement
VII. Application requirements for new projects
VIII. Application review procedures
IX. Renewal funding procedures and requirements
X. Compliance requirements
XI. Financial requirements
XII. Grant adjustments
Appendix I List of State contacts regarding administration of
institute grants to State and local Courts
Appendix II SJI libraries: Designated sites and contacts
Appendix III Illustrative list of model curricula
Appendix IV Judicial education scholarship application forms (Forms
S1 and S2)
Appendix V Curriculum adaptation and technical assistance grant
budget form (Form E)
Appendix VI Certificate of State approval form (Form B)
Appendix VII Application package (Forms A, C, C-1, D and Disclosure
of Lobbying Activities)
Summary
This Guideline sets forth the programmatic, financial, and
administrative requirements of grants, cooperative agreements, and
contracts awarded by the State Justice Institute. The Institute, a
private, nonprofit corporation established by an Act of Congress, is
authorized to award grants, cooperative agreements and contracts to
improve the administration and quality of justice in the State courts.
Grants may be awarded to State and local courts and their agencies;
national nonprofit organizations controlled by, operating in
conjunction with, and serving the judicial branch of State governments;
and national nonprofit organizations for the education and training of
judges and support personnel of the judicial branch of State
governments. The Institute may also award grants to other nonprofit
organizations with expertise in judicial administration; institutions
of higher education; individuals, partnerships, firms, or corporations,
and private agencies with expertise in judicial administration if the
objectives of the funded program can be better served by such an
entity. Funds may be awarded, as well to Federal, State or local
agencies and institutions other than courts for services that cannot be
provided adequately through nongovernmental arrangements. In addition,
the Institute may provide financial assistance in the form of
interagency agreements with other grantors.
The Institute will consider applications for funding support that
address any of the areas specified in its enabling legislation, as
amended. However, the Board of Directors of the Institute has
designated certain program categories as being of special interest.
The Institute has established one round of competition for FY 1996
funds. The application submission deadline is February 14, 1996, (See
section II.B.2.g) It is anticipated that approximately $6-9 million
will be available for award. This Guideline applies to all concept
papers and applications submitted, as well as grants awarded in FY
1996.
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 Institute was established by Pub. L. 98-620 to improve the
administration of justice in the State courts in the United States.
Incorporated in the State of Virginia as a private, nonprofit
corporation, the Institute is charged, by statute, with the
responsibility to:
A. Direct a national program of financial assistance designed to
assure that each citizen of the United States is provided ready access
to a fair and effective system of justice;
B. Foster coordination and cooperation with the Federal judiciary;
C. Promote recognition of the importance of the separation of
powers doctrine to an independent judiciary; and
D. Encourage education for judges and support personnel of State
court systems through national and State organizations, including
universities.
To accomplish these broad objectives, the Institute is authorized
to provide funds to State courts, national organizations which support
and are supported by State courts, national judicial education
organizations, and other organizations that can assist in improving the
quality of justice in the State courts.
[[Page 64198]]
The Institute is supervised by an 11-member Board of Directors
appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate. The
Board is statutorily composed of six judges, a State court
administrator, and four members of the public, no more than two of whom
can be of the same political party.
Through the award of grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements,
the Institute is authorized to perform the following activities:
A. Support research, demonstrations, special projects, technical
assistance, and training to improve the administration of justice in
the State courts;
B. Provide for the preparation, publication and dissemination of
information regarding State judicial systems;
C. Participate in joint projects with Federal agencies and other
private grantors;
D. Evaluate or provide for the evaluation of programs and projects
funded by the Institute to determine their impact upon the quality of
criminal, civil, and juvenile justice and the extent to which they have
contributed to improving the quality of justice in the State courts;
E. Encourage and assist in furthering judicial education;
F. Encourage, assist, and serve in a consulting capacity to State
and local justice system agencies in the development, maintenance, and
coordination of criminal, civil, and juvenile justice programs and
services; and
G. Be responsible for the certification of national programs that
are intended to aid and improve State judicial systems.
II. Scope of the Program
During FY 1996, the Institute will consider applications for
funding support that address any of the areas specified in its enabling
legislation. The Board, however, has designated certain program
categories as being of ``special interest.'' See section II.B.
A. Authorized Program Areas
The Institute is authorized to fund projects addressing one or more
of the following program areas listed in the State Justice Institute
Act, the Battered Women's Testimony Act of 1992, the Judicial Training
and Research for Child Custody Litigation Act of 1992, and the
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993.
1. Assistance to State and local court systems in establishing
appropriate procedures for the selection and removal of judges and
other court personnel and in determining appropriate levels of
compensation;
2. Education and training programs for judges and other court
personnel for the performance of their general duties and for
specialized functions, and national and regional conferences and
seminars for the dissemination of information on new developments and
innovative techniques;
3. Research on alternative means for using judicial and nonjudicial
personnel in court decisionmaking activities, implementation of
demonstration programs to test such innovative approaches and
evaluations of their effectiveness;
4. Studies of the appropriateness and efficacy of court
organizations and financing structures in particular States, and
support to States to implement plans for improved court organization
and financing;
5. Support for State court planning and budgeting staffs and the
provision of technical assistance in resource allocation and service
forecasting techniques;
6. Studies of the adequacy of court management systems in State and
local courts, and implementation and evaluation of innovative responses
to records management, data processing, court personnel management,
reporting and transcription of court proceedings, and juror utilization
and management;
7. Collection and compilation of statistical data and other
information on the work of the courts and on the work of other agencies
which 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;
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
experience of battered women to develop skills appropriate to providing
such testimony;
16. Research regarding State judicial decisions relating to child
custody litigation involving domestic violence;
17. Development of training curricula to assist State courts to
develop an understanding of, and appropriate responses to child custody
litigation involving domestic violence;
18. Dissemination of information and training materials and
provision of technical assistance regarding the issues listed in
paragraphs 14-17 above;
19. Development of national, regional, and in-State training and
educational programs dealing with criminal and civil aspects of
interstate and international parental child abduction;
20. Other programs, consistent with the purposes of the State
Justice Institute Act, as may be deemed appropriate by the Institute,
including projects dealing with the relationship between Federal and
State court systems in areas where there is concurrent State-Federal
jurisdiction and where Federal courts, directly or indirectly, review
State court proceedings.
Funds will not be made available for the ordinary, routine
operation of court
[[Page 64199]]
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 1996, 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.
Applications which address a ``Special Interest'' category will be
accorded a preference in the rating process. (See the selection
criteria listed in section 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 responsiveness of courts to public concerns
regarding the fairness, accessibility, timeliness, and
comprehensibility of the court process, and to test innovative methods
for increasing the public's confidence in the State courts.
i. The Institute is particularly interested in supporting
innovative projects that examine, develop, and test methods that trial
or appellate courts may use to:
Improve service to individual litigants and trial
participants, including innovative methods for handling cases involving
unrepresented litigants fairly and effectively;
Test methods for more clearly and effectively
communicating decisions and the reasons for them to litigants and the
public;
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; 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 continue to support development or
testing of additional automated kiosks such as those being used by the
courts in Arizona, California, Florida and New York.
ii. The Institute also is interested in supporting projects
designed to improve the quality of justice including those testing
methods for improving court operations based on the research examining
``procedural'' and ``distributive'' justice, and those assessing the
impact of live television coverage of trials on court proceedings,
public understanding, and fairness to litigants.
In addition, the Institute is interest in supporting projects to
follow up on the issues, recommendations, and action plans resulting
from the National Town Hall Meeting on Improving Public Confidence in
the Courts. (See section II.B.2.g., Conference Implementation
Projects.)
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 interpreter certification tests in Russian and Hmong;
development of touchscreen computer systems, videotapes, and written
materials to assist pro se litigants; a demonstration of the use of
volunteers to monitor guardianship; studies of effective and efficient
methods for 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 three subsections: (i) Development of
Innovative Educational Programs; (ii) Curriculum Adaptation Projects;
and (iii) Scholarships. All Institute-supported education and training
programs should be accessible to persons with disabilities in
accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
i. Development of Innovative Educational Programs. This category
includes support for the development and testing of educational
programs for judges or court personnel that address key substantive and
administrative issues of concern to the nation's courts, or assist
local courts or State court systems to develop or enhance their
capacity to deliver quality continuing education. Programs may be
designed for presentation at the local, State, regional, or national
level. Ordinarily, court education programs should be based on some
form of assessment of the needs of the target audience; include clearly
stated learning objectives that delineate the new knowledge or skills
that participants will acquire; incorporate adult education principles
and varying teaching/learning methods;
[[Page 64200]]
and result in the development of a curriculum as defined in section
III.K
The Institute is particularly interested in the development of
education programs that:
Offer or comprise a portion of a comprehensive course of
study that includes seminars or materials for judges or court personnel
at various stages of their careers;
Include self-directed learning packages such as those
using interactive computer-programs, videos, or other visual media
supported by written materials or manuals, or distance-learning
approaches that could help local courts in creating organization-wide
continuing learning opportunities and assist those who do not have
ready access to classroom-centered programs;
Are interdisciplinary or involve collaboration between the
judicial and other branches of government or between courts within a
metropolitan area or multi-State region;
Develop judicial leadership abilities, improve teamwork
within a court, and enhance service to the public by a court;
Familiarize faculty with the effective use of technology
in presenting information; or
Incorporate the findings from SJI-supported demonstration,
evaluation, or research projects.
ii. Curriculum Adaptation Projects
(a) Description of the Program. The Board is reserving up to
$175,000 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 goal of the Curriculum Adaptation Program is to provide State
and local courts with sufficient support to prepare and test 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 which has been modified to meet a
State's or local jurisdiction's educational needs. Generally, it is
anticipated that the adapted curriculum would become part of the
grantee's ongoing educational offerings, and that local instructors
would receive the training needed to enable them to make future
presentations of the curriculum. An illustrative list of the curricula
that may be appropriate for the adaptation is contained in Appendix
III.
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 of local courts, cash or in-kind
match must be provided equal to at least 50% of the grant amount
requested.
(b) Review Criteria. Curriculum Adaptation grants will be awarded
on the basis of criteria including: the goals and objectives of the
proposed project; the need for outside funding to support the program;
the likelihood of effective implementation; the appropriateness of the
educational approach in achieving the project's educational objectives;
the likelihood of effective implementation and integration into the
State's or local jurisdiction's ongoing educational programming; and
expressions of interest by the judges and/or court personnel who would
be directly involved in or affected by the project. In making
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.
(c) Application Procedures. In lieu of formal applications,
applicants for Curriculum Adaptation 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. What are the project's goals and
learning objectives? What is the title of the model curriculum to be
tried? Who developed it? What program components would be implemented,
and what benefits would be derived from this test? Why is this
education program needed at the present time? Who will be responsible
for adapting the model curriculum, and what types of modifications, if
any, in length, format, and content are anticipated? 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 of Implementation. What is the proposed timeline
for modifying and presenting the program? Who would serve as faculty
and how were they selected? How will the presentation of the program be
evaluated and by whom? (Ordinarily, an outside evaluation is not
necessary; however, the results of any participant evaluation should be
included in the final report.) 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. Applicants should
attach a copy of budget Form E (see Appendix V) and a budget narrative
(see Section VII.B) that describes the basis for the computation of all
project-related costs and the source of the match offered.
Local courts should attach a concurrence signed by the
Chief Justice of the State or his or her designee. (See Form B,
Appendix VI.)
Letters of application may be submitted at any time. However,
applicants should allow at least 90 days between the date of submission
and the date of the proposed program to allow sufficient time for
needed planning. The Board of Directors has delegated its authority to
approve Curriculum Adaptation grants to its Judicial Education
Committee. The committee anticipates acting upon applications within 45
days after receipt. Formal grant awards will be made only after
committee approval and negotiation of the final terms of the grant.
(d) Grantee Responsibilities. A recipient of a Curriculum
Adaptation grant must:
(1) Comply with the same quarterly reporting requirements as other
Institute grantees (see Section X.L., infra);
(2) Include in each grant product a prominent acknowledgment that
support was received from the Institute, along with the ``SJI'' logo,
and a disclaimer paragraph based on the example provided in section
X.Q. of the Guideline; and
(3) Submit two copies of the manuals, handbooks, or conference
packets developed under the grant at the conclusion of the grant
period, along with a final report that includes evaluation results and
explains how it
[[Page 64201]]
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
applications set forth in Section VII or the requirements for renewal
applications set forth in Section IX.
iii. Scholarships for Judges and Court Personnel. The Institute is
reserving up to $175,000 to support a scholarship program for State
court judges and court managers.
(a) Program Description/Scholarship Amounts. The purposes of the
Institute scholarship program are to: enhance the knowledge, skills,
and abilities of judges and court managers; enable State court judges
and court managers to attend out-of-State educational programs
sponsored by national and State providers that they could not otherwise
attend because of limited State, local and personal budgets; and
provide States, judicial educators, and the Institute with evaluation
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 round-trip coach airfare or train fare. Recipients who drive to
the site of the program may receive $.30/mile up to the amount of the
advanced purchase round-trip airfare between their home and the program
site. Funds to pay tuition and transportation expenses in excess of
$1,500, and other costs of attending the program such as lodging,
meals, materials, and local transportation (including rental cars) at
the site of the education program, must be obtained from other sources
or be borne by the scholarship recipient.
Scholarship 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 can be awarded only 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 IV). Applications
must be submitted by:
February 1, 1996, for programs beginning between April 13 and July
12, 1996; and
April 15, 1996, for programs beginning between July 13 and
September 30, 1996; and, July 15, 1996, for programs beginning between
October 1, and December 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 (Form S2, see Appendix
IV). Court managers, other than elected clerks of court, also should
submit a letter of support from their supervisor. The Concurrence form
(Form S2) may accompany the applications or be sent separately.
However, the original signed Concurrence form must be received by the
Institute within two weeks after the appropriate application mailing
deadline (i.e. by February 15, or April 30, or July 30, 1996). No
application will be reviewed if a signed Concurrence has not been
received by the required date.
(e) Review Procedures/Selection Criteria. The Board of Directors
has delegated the authority to approve or deny scholarships to its
Judicial Education Committee. The Institute intends to notify each
applicant whose scholarship has been approved within 60 days after the
relevant application deadline. The Committee will reserve sufficient
funds each quarter to assure the availability of scholarships
throughout the year.
The factors that the Institute will consider in selecting
scholarship recipients are:
The applicant's need for training in the particular course
subject and how the applicant would apply the information/skills
gained;
The benefits to the applicant's court or the State's court
system that would be derived from the applicant's participation in the
specific educational program, including a description of current legal,
procedural, administrative, or other problems affecting the State's
courts, related to topics to be addressed at the educational program
(in addition to submission of a signed Form S2);
The absence of educational programs in the applicant's
State addressing the particular topic;
How the applicant will disseminate the knowledge gained
(e.g., by developing/teaching a course or providing inservice 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 a
Scholarship Payment Voucher (Form S3) together with a tuition statement
from the program sponsor, and a transportation fare receipt (or
statement of the driving mileage to and from the recipient's home to
the site of the educational program). Recipients also must submit to
the Institute a certificate of attendance at the program 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
[[Page 64202]]
serve as faculty on the subject at a State- or locally-sponsored
judicial education program.
c. Children and Families in Court. This category includes
education, evaluation, technical assistance, and research projects to
identify and inform judges of innovative, appropriate, and effective
approaches for handling cases involving children and families. The
Institute is particularly interested in projects to:
i. Assist the courts in addressing the special needs of children in
cases involving family violence including the development and testing
of innovative protocols, procedures, educational programs, and other
measures for improving the capacity of courts to:
Adjudicate child custody cases in which family violence
may be involved;
Determine and address 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;
Adjudicate and monitor child abuse and neglect litigation
and reconcile the need to protect the child with the requirement to
make reasonable efforts to maintain or reunite the family.
ii. Enhance the fairness and effectiveness of the process used to
file, hear, and dispose of cases involving family violence, including
projects to:
Determine when it may be appropriate to refer a case
involving family violence for mediation, and what procedures and
safeguards should be employed;
Assess the impact of family violence coordinating councils
in improving the procedures and practices used by and the services
available to courts in family violence cases, in order to identify
techniques and procedures for improving their operation and
effectiveness;
Evaluate the effectiveness of the innovative programs,
procedures, and strategies used by courts to improve their
responsiveness to the needs of victims of family violence, and the fair
and effective adjudication and disposition of cases involving family
violence.
iii. Improve the effectiveness and operating efficiency of juvenile
and family courts, including projects to:
Develop information for judges and court staff on, and
appropriate special procedures for determining release, protecting
witnesses, adjudicating, and developing dispositions in cases involving
gang members;
Assess the rule and effectiveness of courts with
jurisdiction over juveniles and families in light of the upcoming 100th
anniversary of the establishment of the first juvenile court, and
identify the changes that may be needed as these courts enter the 21st
century;
Define the rules, enhance the training, and assure the
effective use of guardians ad litem;
Develop and test educational materials and curricula to
assist judges in determining the best interest of a child when an
adoption is contested;
Improve the capacity of courts, regardless of structure,
to expeditiously coordinate multiple cases involving members of the
same family, and obtain and appropriately use social and psychological
information gathered in one case involving a family member in a case
involving another family member; and
Improve the handling of 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; the development
of protocols and a benchbook on the questioning of child witnesses; the
preparation of educational materials on making reasonable efforts to
preserve families, adjudicating allegations of child sexual abuse when
custody is in dispute, child victimization, handling child abuse and
neglect cases when parental substance abuse is involved, and on
children as the silent victims of spousal abuse; and examinations of
supervised visitation programs, effective court responses when domestic
violence and custody disputes coincide, and foster care review
procedures.
The Institute has also supported a national and several State
conferences on family violence and the courts, as well as projects
supporting the action plans developed at those conferences; preparation
of descriptions of innovative court practices in family violence cases;
evaluations of the use of court-order treatment for domestic violence
offenders, alternatives to adjudication in child abuse and neglect
cases, and the use of a court-enforced treatment program for batterers
who are also substance abusers; the exploration of the policy issues
related to the mediation of domestic relations cases involving
allegations of family violence; the preparation of educational
materials for judges on family violence issues; and the testing of
videotapes and other educational programs for the parties in divorce
actions and their children.
Finally, the Institute has supported a national symposium on
enhancing coordination of cases involving the same family that are
being heard in different courts; examinations to document the nature
and extent of the coordination problem and demonstrations of innovative
approaches for improving intra-court coordination; technical assistance
to States considering establishment of a family court; development of a
State-based training program for guardians ad litem; examination of the
authority of the juvenile court to enforce treatment orders and the
role of juvenile court judges; and development of innovative approaches
for coordinating services for children and youth.
d. Application of Technology. This category includes the testing of
innovative applications of technology to improve the operation of court
management systems and judicial practices at both the trial and
appellate court levels.
The Institute seeks to support local experiments with promising but
untesting 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, and an educational component to
assure that the staff is appropriately informed regarding the purpose
and use of the new technology. In this context, ``untested'' refers to
novel applications of technology developed for the private sector and
other fields that have not previously been applied to the courts.
The Institute is particularly interested in supporting efforts to
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); and
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 simply image transfer (facsimile or
computer-imaging). 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 innovative information system links between courts and
criminal justice, social service, and treatment agencies.
Ordinarily, the Institute will not provide support for the purchase
of equipment or software in order to implement a technology that has
been
[[Page 64203]]
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
computerized voice information system permitting parties to access by
telephone information pertaining to their cases, an automated public
information directory of courthouse facilities and services; an
automated appellate court bulletin board; and a computer-integrated
courtroom that provides full access to the judicial system for hearing-
impaired jurors, witnesses, crime victims, litigants, attorneys, and
judges.
Demonstration and evaluation of records technology, including: the
development of a court management information display system; the
integration of bar-coding technology with an existing automated case
management system; an on-bench automated system for generating and
processing court orders; an automated judicial education management
system; testing of a document management system for small courts that
uses imaging technology, and of automated telephone docketing for
circuit-riding judges; and evaluation of the use of automated teller
machines for paying jurors.
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 and on court access to the information
superhighway; 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.
e. Improving the Court's Response to Gender-Related Crimes of
Violence. This category includes the development, testing,
presentation, and dissemination of education programs for State; and
local court judges and court personnel on:
The effective use and enforcement of protective orders and
the implications of mutual orders of protection;
Evidentiary issues arising in gender-related criminal
cases, including the use of expert testimony and the application of
rape shield laws and their limits on the introduction of evidence of
the cross-examination of witnesses;
The use of self-defense and provocation defenses by
alleged victims of gender-related violence accused of assaulting or
killing their alleged abusers; and
Sentencing decision-making in cases involving gender-
related crimes of violence.
Institute funds may not be used to provide operational support to
programs offering direct services or compensation to victims of crimes.
In previous funding cycles, the Institute supported a national
conference on family violence and the courts, and follow-up conferences
and technical assistance in several States; development of curricula
for judges on handling stranger and non-stranger rape and sexual
assault cases and on family violence; 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 preparation of an analysis of the issues related to the use of
expert testimony in criminal cases involving domestic violence.
f. 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 made at the
Institute-supported National Conference on the Management of Mass Tort
Cases held in November, 1994. (A summary of the recommendations and
findings from the conference was published in the Winter 1995 issue of
SJI NEWS.)
ii. Develop and test curricula and other educational materials to:
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 1992 National
Conference on State/Federal Judicial Relationships.
iii. Develop and test new approaches to:
handle capital habeas corpus cases fairly and efficiently;
coordinate related State and Federal criminal cases;
coordinate cases that may be brought under the Violence
Against Women Act;
exchange information and coordinate 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, a national conference on mass tort litigation, and the
Chief Justices' Special Committee on Mass Tort Litigation. In addition,
the Institute has supported projects developing judicial impact
statement procedures for national legislation affecting State courts,
and projects examining methods of State and Federal court cooperation;
procedures for facilitating certification of questions of law; the
impact on the State courts of diversity cases and cases brought under
section 1983; the procedures used in Federal habeas corpus review of
State court criminal cases; the factors that
[[Page 64204]]
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 test of
assigning specialized law clerks to trial courts hearing capital cases
in order to improve the fairness and efficiency of death penalty
litigation at the trial level, 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.
g. Conference Implementation Projects. In 1995, the Institute
sponsored four national conferences on issues of critical importance to
the State courts:
The National Conference on Eliminating Race and Ethnic
Bias in the Courts held march 2-5, 1995 in Albuquerque, NM;
The National Interbranch Conference on Funding the State
Courts held September 28-October 1, 1995 in Minneapolis, MN;
The National Town Hall Meeting on Improving Public
Confidence in the Courts convened, via a videoconference, in 11 sites
across the country on October 13-14, 1995; and
The National Symposium on the Implementation and Operation
of Drug Courts to be held on December 2-5, 1995 in Portland, OR.
The Institute is interested in supporting education, demonstration,
technical assistance, research, and evaluation projects to address the
issues or implement the recommendations and State action plans
resulting from these conferences. The Institute is particularly
interested in supporting:
i. The National Conference on Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in
the Courts--Innovative national, regional, and State projects
addressing the non-State specific issues discussed during the
Conference, and projects to implement the action plans developed by
teams from jurisdictions which were unable to meet the previously
announced special October 6, 1995, deadline for concept papers. (For
further information about the Conference, contact SJI Program Manager
Cheryl D. Reynolds at 703-684-6100, or John Richardson, Research
Associate, National Center for State Courts, P.O. Box 7898,
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798, 804-253-2000.)
In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported several
projects to prepare and test curricula and other materials for judges,
court personnel, and judicial education faculty on diversity and
related issues; and provide information regarding the American justice
system for non-English speakers, and improve the quality of court
interpreting.
ii. The National Interbranch Conference on Funding the State
Courts--Innovative projects to develop and test methods for linking
assessments of effectiveness, such as the Trial Court Performance
Standards, to fiscal planning and budgeting, including service efforts
and accomplishments approaches (SEA), performance audits, and
performance budgeting; and test innovative programs and procedures for
providing clear and open interbranch communications at the State and
local levels. (For further information about this conference, contact
SJI Deputy Director, Richard Van Duizend 703-684-6100 or Robert Tobin,
Senior Research Associate, National Center for State Courts, 1700 N.
Moore Street, Suite 1710, Arlington, VA 22209 703-841-0200.)
In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported projects
that examined State court expenditures and staffing; documented methods
for determining judgeship needs; prepared a trial court financial
management guide; analyzed differing methods for financing court
facilities; evaluated techniques for improving collection and
administration of monetary penalties and assessments; and presented
regional conferences on improving relations between the judicial and
legislative branches of government.
iii. The National Town Hall Meeting on Improving Public Confidence
in the Courts--Innovative projects to implement the findings,
recommendations, strategies, and action plans developed by the local
receiving sites as well as at the national broadcast site. (For further
information about the National Town Hall meeting, contact SJI Program
Manager Cheryl D. Reynolds, 703-684-6100; Dr. Pamela Casey, Senior
Research Associate, National Center for State Courts P.O. Box 8798,
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798, 804-253-2000; or Kathleen Sampson,
Director, Information and Program Services, American Judicature
Society, 25 E. Washington Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60602, 312-
558-6900).
For a list of previously funded projects on topics related to the
National Town Hall Meeting, see section 11.B.2.a.
iv. National Symposium on the Implementation and Operation of Drug
Courts--Innovative projects that address the issues, findings, and
recommendations resulting from the Symposium, including, but not
limited to:
The development and testing of educational programs for
judges and court personnel concerning the management of treatment-based
drug court programs;
The examination of the judicial ethics concerns that may
be involved in operating a treatment-based drug court program;
The preparation of measures, forms, and other tools for
self-evaluation of a treatment-based drug court program;
The development and testing of innovative information
systems to facilitate the efficient sharing of information between the
court and the agencies and services involved in the operation of an
effective treatment-base drug court program; and
The evaluation of 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).
(For further information contact SJI Program Manager Janice
Munsterman 703-684-6100 or Caroline Cooper, Justice Programs Office,
The American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Brandywine-Suite
660, Washington, DC 20016-8159, 202-885-2875.)
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.
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 helped to
support projects to provide technical assistance to State and local
courts; identify successful drug case management strategies; conduct
seminars on drug case management; and develop a guidebook for
implementing drug case processing initiatives; as well as to conduct
regional training programs for State judges and legislators on
substance abuse treatment. In addition, SJI has supported the
evaluation of: court-enforced treatment programs initiated by the Dade
County, Florida, Pulaski County, Arkansas, and New York City courts;
special court-ordered programs for women offenders, and other court-
based alcohol and drug assessment programs; replication of the Dade
County program in non-urban sites; assessments of the impact of
legislation and court decisions dealing
[[Page 64205]]
with drug-affected infants, and strategies for coping with increasing
caseload pressures; development of a benchbook and other educational
materials to assist judges in child abuse and neglect cases involving
parental substance abuse and in developing appropriate sentences for
pregnant substance abusers; tests of the use of a dual diagnostic
treatment model for domestic violence cases in which substance abuse
was a factor; and presentation of local and regional educational
programs for judges and other court personnel on substance abuse and
its treatment.
C. Technical Assistance Grants
1. Description of the Program. The Board will set aside up to
$400,000 of Fiscal Year 1996 funds 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 $100,000 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. Technical
assistance grant funds ordinarily may not be used to support production
of a videotape. Normally, the technical assistance must be completed
within 12 months after the start-date of the grant.
2. Eligibility for Technical Assistance Grants. Only a State or
local court may apply for a Technical Assistance grant. As with other
awards to State or local courts, cash or in-kind match must be provided
equal to at least 50% of the grant amount.
3. Review Criteria. Technical Assistance grants will be awarded on
the basis of criteria including: whether the assistance would address a
critical need of the court; the soundness of the technical assistance
approach to the problem; the qualifications of the consultant(s) to be
hired, or the specific criteria that will be used to select the
consultant(s); commitment on the part of the court to act on the
consultant's recommendations; and the reasonableness of the proposed
budget. The Institute also will consider factors such as the level and
nature of the match that would be provided, diversity of subject
matter, geographic diversity, and the level of appropriations available
to the Institute in the current year and the amount expected to be
available in succeeding fiscal years.
The Board has delegated its authority to approve these grants to
its Technical Assistance Committee.
4. Application Procedures. In lieu of formal applications,
applicants for Technical Assistance grants may submit, at any time, an
original and three copies of a detailed letter describing the proposed
project and addressing the issues listed below. Letters from an
individual trial or appellate court must be signed by the presiding
judge or manager of that court. Letters from the State court system
must be signed by the Chief Justice or State Court Administrator.
Although there is no prescribed form for the letter nor a minimum
or maximum page limit, letters of application should include the
following information to assure that each of the criteria is addressed:
a. 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?
b. Project Description. What tasks would the consultant be expected
to perform and how would they be accomplished? 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, and who at the
court would be responsible for coordinating all project tasks and
submitting quarterly progress and financial status reports?
If the consultant has been identified, 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.
c. Likelihood of Implementation. What steps have been/will be taken
to facilitate implementation of the consultant's recommendations upon
completion of the technical assistance? For example, if the support or
cooperation of specific court officials or committees, other agencies,
funding bodies, organizations, or a court other than the applicant will
be needed to adopt the changes recommended by the consultant and
approved by the court, how will they be involved in the review of the
recommendations and development of the implementation plan?
d. Budget and Matching State Contribution. A completed Form E,
``Preliminary Budget'' (see Appendix V 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.
The budget narrative should provide the basis for all project-related
costs, including the basis for determining the estimated consultant
costs (e.g., number of days per task times the requested daily
consultant rate). In addition, the budget should provide for submission
of two copies of the consultant's final report to the Institute.
e. Support for the Project from the State Supreme Court or its
Designated Agency or Council. Written concurrence on the need for the
technical assistance must be submitted. This concurrence may be a copy
of SJI Form B (see Appendix VI) signed by the Chief Justice of the
State Supreme Court or the Chief Justice's designee, or a letter from
the State Chief Justice or designee. The concurrence may be submitted
with the applicant's letter or under separate cover prior to
consideration of the application. The concurrence also must specify
whether the State Supreme Court would receive, administer, and account
for the grant funds, if awarded, or would designate the local court or
a specified agency or council to receive the funds directly.
Letters of application may be submitted at any time; however, all
of the letters received during a calendar quarter will be considered at
one time. Applicants submitting letters between September 30 and
December 22, 1995 will be notified of the Board's decision by March 22,
1996; those submitting letters between December 23, 1995 and March 29,
1996 will be notified by July
[[Page 64206]]
1, 1996. Notification of the Board's decisions concerning letters
mailed between March 30 and June 17, 1996 will be made by August 31,
1996. Subject to the availability of sufficient appropriations for
fiscal year 1997, applicants submitting letters between June 18 and
September 30, 1996 will be notified by December 17, 1996.
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 February 14, 1996; May
29, 1996, and July 11, 1996).
5. Grantee Responsibilities. Technical Assistance grant recipients
are subject to the same quarterly reporting requirements as other
Institute grantees. At the conclusion of the grant period, a Technical
Assistance grant recipient must complete a Technical Assistance
Evaluation Form. The grantee also must submit to the Institute two
copies of a final report that explains how it intends to act on the
consultant's recommendations as well as two copies of the consultant's
written report.
III. Definitions
The following definitions apply for the purposes of this guideline:
A. Institute
The State Justice Institute.
B. State Supreme Court
The highest appellate court in a State, or, for the purposes of the
Institute program, a constitutionally or legislatively established
judicial council that acts in place of that court. In States having
more than one court with final appellate authority, State Supreme Court
shall mean that court which also has administrative responsibility for
the State's judicial system. State Supreme Court also includes the
office of the Court or council, if any, it designates to perform the
functions described in this Guideline.
C. Designated Agency or Council
The office or judicial body which is authorized under State law or
by delegation from the State Supreme Court to approve applications for
funds and to receive, administer, and be accountable for those funds.
D. Grantee
The organization, entity, or individual to which an award of
Institute funds is made. For a grant based on an application from a
State or local court, grantee refers to the State Supreme Court or its
designee.
E. Subgrantee
A State or local court which receives Institute funds through the
State Supreme Court.
F. Match
The portion of project costs not borne by the Institute. Match
includes both in-kind and cash contributions. Cash match is the direct
outlay of funds by the grantee to support the project. In-kind match
consists of contributions of time, services, space, supplies, etc.,
made to the project by the grantee or others (e.g., advisory board
members) working directly on the project. Under normal circumstances,
allowable match may be incurred only during the project period. When
appropriate, and with the prior written permission of the Institute,
match may be incurred from the date of the 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. 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).
J. Curriculum
The materials needed to replicate an education or training program
developed with grant funds including, but not limited to: the learning
objectives; the presentation methods; a sample agenda or schedule; an
outline of presentations and other instructors' notes; copies of
overhead transparencies or other visual aids; exercises, case studies,
hypotheticals, quizzes and other materials for involving the
participants; background materials for participants; evaluation forms;
and suggestions for replicating the program including possible faculty
or the preferred qualifications or experience of those selected as
faculty.
K. Products
Tangible materials resulting from funded projects including, but
not limited to: curricula; monographs; reports; books; articles;
manuals; handbooks; benchbooks; guidelines; videotapes; audiotapes; 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
[[Page 64207]]
other jurisdictions. For profit organizations are also eligible for
grants and cooperative agreements; however, they must waive their fees.
The Institute may also make awards to Federal, State or local
agencies and institutions other than courts for services that cannot be
adequately provided through nongovernmental arrangements.
In addition, the Institute may enter into inter-agency agreements
with other public or private funders to support projects consistent
with the purpose of the State Justice Institute Act.
Each application for funding from a State or local court must be
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court or
its designated agency or council. The latter shall receive all
Institute funds awarded to such courts and be responsible for assuring
proper administration of Institute funds, in accordance with section
XI.B.2. of this Guideline. A list of persons to contact in each State
regarding approval of applications from State and local courts and
administration of Institute grants to those courts is contained in
Appendix I.
V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of Awards
A. Types of Projects
Except as expressly provided in section II.B.2.b. and II.C. above,
the Institute has placed no limitation on the overall number of awards
or the number of awards in each special interest category. The general
types of projects are:
1. Education and training;
2. Research and evaluation;
3. Demonstration; and
4. Technical assistance.
B. Types of Grants
The Institute has established the following types of grants:
1. 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. Technical Assistance grants (See section II.C.).
5. Curriculum Adaptation grants (See section II.B.2.b.ii.).
6. Scholarships (See section II.B.2.b.iii).
C. Maximum Size of Awards
1. Except as specified below, applications for new projects and
applications for continuation grants may request funding in amounts up
to $200,000, although new and continuation awards in excess of $150,000
are likely to be rare and to be made, if at all, only for highly
promising proposals that will have a significant impact nationally.
2. Applications for on-going support grants may request funding in
amounts up to $600,000. At the discretion of the Board, the funds for
on-going support grants may be awarded either entirely from the
Institute's appropriations for the fiscal year of the award or from the
Institute's appropriations for successive fiscal years beginning with
the fiscal year of the award. When funds to support the full amount of
an on-going support grant are not awarded from the appropriations for
the fiscal year of award, funds to support any subsequent years of the
grant will be made available upon (1) the satisfactory performance of
the project as reflected in the quarterly Progress Reports required to
be filed and grant monitoring, and (2) the availability of
appropriations for that fiscal year.
3. Applications for technical assistance grants may request funding
in amounts up to $30,000.
4. Applications for curriculum adaptation grants may request
funding in amounts up to $20,000.
5. Applications for scholarships may request funding in amounts up
to $1,500.
D. Length of Grant Periods
1. Grant periods for all new and continuation projects ordinarily
will not exceed 15 months.
2. Grant periods for on-going support grants ordinarily will not
exceed 36 months.
3. Grant periods for technical assistance grants and curriculum
adaptation grants ordinarily will not exceed 12 months.
VI. Suspension of the Concept Paper Submission Requirement
Because of its reduced appropriation for FY 1996, the Institute is
not using concept papers as part of its funding process this year,
except for the special funding cycle announced previously to follow up
on the National Conference on Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the
Courts. Courts, organizations, and individuals seeking a new grant to
support a project must file a full application meeting the requirements
set forth in Chapter VII. of this Guideline, unless the applicant is
seeking a grant under the Institute's Curriculum Adaptation,
Scholarship, or Technical Assistance grant programs. (See sections
II.B.2.b. ii and iii, and section II.C., respectively)
VII. Application Requirements for New Projects
An application for Institute funding support must include an
application form; budget forms (with appropriate documentation); a
project abstract and program narrative; a disclosure of lobbying form,
when applicable; and certain certifications and assurances. These
required application forms are described below and are included in
Appendix VII. They also may be requested via E-mail ([email protected]) or
by calling the Institute and requesting a copy (703-684-6100).
Applicants may photocopy the forms to make completion easier.
A. Forms
1. Application Form (FORM A)
The application form requests basic information regarding the
proposed project, the applicant, and the total amount of funding
support requested from the Institute. It also requires the signature of
an individual authorized to certify on behalf of the applicant that the
information contained in the application is true and complete, that
submission of the application has been authorized by the applicant, and
that if funding for the proposed project is approved, the applicant
will comply with the requirements and conditions of the award,
including the assurances set forth in Form D.
2. Certificate of State Approval (FORM B)
An application from a State or local court must include a copy of
FORM B signed by the State's Chief Justice or Chief Judge, the director
of the designated agency, or the head of the designated council. The
signature denotes that the proposed project has been approved by the
State's highest court or the agency or council it has designated. It
denotes further that if funding for the project is approved by the
Institute, the court or the specified designee will receive,
administer, and be accountable for the awarded funds.
3. Budget Forms (FORM C or C1)
Applicants may submit the proposed project budget either in the
tabular format of FORM C or in the spreadsheet format of FORM C1.
Applicants requesting $100,000 or more are strongly encouraged to use
the spreadsheet format. If the proposed project period is for more than
a year, a separate form should be submitted for each year or portion of
a year for which grant support is requested.
In addition to FORM C or C1, applicants must provide a detailed
[[Page 64208]]
budget narrative providing an explanation of the basis for the
estimates in each budget category. (See section VII.D.)
If funds from other sources are required to conduct the project,
either as match or to support other aspects of the project, the source,
current status of the request, and anticipated decision date must be
provided.
4. Assurances (FORM D)
This form lists the statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements
and conditions with which recipients of Institute funds must comply.
5. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
This form requires applicants other than units of State or local
government to disclose whether they, or another entity that is part of
the same organization as the applicant, have advocated a position
before Congress on any issue, and to identify the specific 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.
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 impart a clear
understanding of the proposed project. Numerous and lengthy appendices
are strongly discouraged.
The program narrative should address the following topics:
1. Project Objectives
The applicant should include a clear, concise statement of what the
proposed project is intended to accomplish. In stating the objectives
of the project, applicants should focus on the overall programmatic
objective (e.g., to enhance understanding and skills regarding a
specific subject, or to determine how a certain procedure affects the
court and litigants) rather than on operational objectives (e.g.,
provide training for 32 judges and court managers, or review data from
300 cases).
2. Program Areas to be Covered
The applicant should list the Special Interest Category(ies) that
is(are) addressed by the proposed project (see section II.B.). If the
proposed project does not fall within one of the Institute's Special
Interest Categories, the applicant should list the Statutory Program
Area(s) that is(are) addressed by the proposed project. (See section
II.A.).
3. Need for the Project
If the project is to be conducted in a specific location(s), the
applicant should discuss the particular needs of the project site(s) to
be addressed by the project and why those needs are not being met
through the use of existing materials, programs, procedures, services
or other resources.
If the project is not site-specific, the applicant should discuss
the problems that the proposed project would address, and why existing
materials, programs, procedures, services or other resources do not
adequately resolve those problems. The discussion should include
specific references to the relevant literature and to the experience in
the field.
4. Tasks, Methods and Evaluation
a. Tasks and Methods. The applicant should delineate the tasks to
be performed in achieving the project objectives and the methods to be
used for accomplishing each task. For example:
i. For research and evaluation projects, the applicant should
include the data sources, data collection strategies, variables to be
examined, and analytic procedures to be used for conducting the
research or evaluation and ensuring the validity and general
applicability of the results. For projects involving human subjects,
the discussion of methods should address the procedures for obtaining
respondents' informed consent, ensuring the respondents' privacy and
freedom for risk or harm, and the protection of others who are not the
subjects of research but would be affected by the research. If the
potential exists for risk or harm to the human subjects, a discussion
should be included that explains the value of the proposed research and
the methods to be used to minimize or eliminate such risk.
ii. For education and training projects, the applicant should
include the adult education techniques to be used in designing and
presenting the program, including the teaching/learning objectives of
the educational design, the teaching methods to be used, and the
opportunities for structured interaction among the participants; how
faculty will be recruited, selected, and trained; the proposed number
and length of the conferences, courses, seminars or workshops to be
conducted; the materials to be provided and how they will be developed;
and the cost to participants.
iii. For demonstration projects, the applicant should include the
demonstration sites and the reasons they were selected, or if the sites
have not been chosen, how they will be identified and their cooperation
obtained; and how the program or procedures will be implemented and
monitored.
iv. For technical assistance projects, the applicant should explain
the types of assistance that will be provided; the particular issues
and problems for which assistance will be provided; how requests will
be obtained and the type of assistance determined; how suitable
providers will be selected and briefed; how reports will be reviewed;
and the cost to recipients.
b. Evaluation. Every project design must include an evaluation plan
to determine whether the project met its objectives. The evaluation
should be designed to provide an objective and independent assessment
of the effectiveness or usefulness of the training or services
provided; the impact of the procedures, technology or services tested;
or the validity and applicability of the research conducted. In
addition, where appropriate, the evaluation process should be designed
to provide on-going or periodic feed back 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
[[Page 64209]]
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.
5. Project Management
The applicant should present a detailed management plan including
the starting and completion date for each task; the time commitments to
the project of key staff and their responsibilities regarding each
project task; and the procedures that will be used to ensure that all
tasks are performed on time, within budget, and at the highest level of
quality. In preparing the project time line, Gantt Chart, or schedule,
applicants should make certain that all project activities, including
publication or reproduction of project products and their initial
dissemination will occur within the proposed project period. The
management plan must also provide for the submission of Quarterly
Progress and Financial Reports within 30 days after the close of each
calendar quarter (i.e., no later than January 30, April 30, July 30,
and October 30).
Applicants should be aware that the Institute is unlikely to
approve more than one limited extension of the grant period. Therefore,
the management plan should be as realistic as possible and fully
reflect the time commitments of the proposed project staff and
consultants.
6. Products
The application should contain a description of the products to be
developed by the project (e.g., training curricula and materials,
videotapes, articles, manuals, or handbooks), including when they will
be submitted to the Institute.
a. Dissemination Plan. The application must explain how and to whom
the products will be disseminated; describe how they will benefit the
State courts including how they can be used by judges and court
personnel; identify development, production, and dissemination costs
covered by the project budget; and present the basis on which products
and services developed or provided under the grant will be offered to
the courts community and the public at large (i.e. whether products
will be distributed at no cost to recipients, or if costs are involved,
the reason for charging recipients and the estimated price of the
product). (see section X.V.) Ordinarily, applicants should schedule all
product preparation and distribution activities within the project
period. Applicants also must submit a diskette containing a one-page
abstract summarizing the products resulting from a project in Word,
WordPerfect or ASCII. The abstract should include the grant number and
the name of a contact person together with that individual's address,
telephone number, and e-mail address (if applicable).
A copy of each product must be sent to the library established in
each State to collect the materials developed with Institute support.
(A list of these libraries is contained in Appendix II.) To facilitate
their use, all videotaped products should be distributed in VHS format.
Twenty copies of all project products, must be submitted to the
Institute. A master copy of each videotape, in addition to 20 copies of
each videotape product, must also be provided to the Institute.
b. Types of Products, The type of 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.
c. Institute Review. Applicants must provide for submitting a final
draft of written grant product(s) to the Institute for review and
approval at least 30 days before the product(s) are submitted for
publication or reproduction. For products in a videotape or CD-ROM
format, applicants must provide for incremental Institute review of the
product at the treatment, script, rough-cut, and final stages of
development, or their equivalents. No grant funds may be obligated for
publication or reproduction of a final grant product without the
written approval of the Institute.
d. Acknowledgment, Disclaimer, and Logo. Applicants must also
provide for including in all project products a prominent
acknowledgment that support was received from the Institute and a
disclaimer paragraph based on the example provided in section X.Q. of
the Guideline. The ``SJI'' logo must appear on the front cover of a
written product, or in the opening frames of a video product, unless
the Institute approves another placement.
[[Page 64210]]
7. Applicant Status
An applicant that is not a State or local court and has not
received a grant from the Institute within the past two years should
state whether it is either a national non-profit organization
controlled by, operating in conjunction with, and serving the judicial
branches of State governments; or a national non-profit organization
for the education and training of State court judges and support
personnel. See section IV. If the applicant is a nonjudicial unit of
Federal, State, or local government, it must explain whether the
proposed services could be adequately provided by non-governmental
entities.
8. Staff Capability
The applicant should include a summary of the training and
experience of the key staff members and 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, the
applicant should attach written assurances of cooperation and
availability to the application, or send them under separate cover. In
order to ensure that there is sufficient time to bring them to the
Board's attention, letters of support sent under separate cover must be
received at least four weeks before the meeting of the Board of
Directors at which the application will be considered (i.e., no later
than February 1, 1996, May 16, 1996, June 28, 1996, or August 22, 1996,
respectively).
D. Budget Narrative
The budget narrative should provide the basis for the computation
of all project-related costs. 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
Transporation costs and per diem rates must comply with the
policies of the applicant organization. If the applicant does not have
an established travel policy, then travel rates shall be consistent
with those established by the Institute or the Federal Government. (A
copy of the Institute's travel policy is available upon request.) The
budget narrative should include an explanation of the rate used,
including the components of the per diem rate and the basis for the
estimated transportation expenses. The purpose for travel should also
be included in the narrative.
5. Equipment
Grant funds many be used to purchase only the equipment that is
necessary to demonstrate a new technological application in a court, or
that is otherwise essential to accomplishing the objectives of the
project. Equipment purchases to support basic court operations
ordinarily will not be approved. The applicant should describe the
equipment to be purchased or leased and explain why the acquisition of
that equipment is
[[Page 64211]]
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 machine 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 photocopies of
the application package must be sent by first class or overnight mail,
or by courier no later than February 14, 1996. 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. See section VII.C.11. for receipt deadlines for letters of
support.
2. Applicants submitting more than one application may include
material that would be identical in each application in a cover letter,
and incorporate that material by reference in each application. The
incorporated material will be counted against the 25-page limit for the
program narrative. A copy of the cover letter should be attached to
each copy of each application.
VIII. Application Review Procedures
A. Preliminary Inquiries
The Institute staff will answer inquiries concerning application
procedures. The staff contact will be named in the Institute's letter
acknowledging receipt of the application.
B. Selection Criteria
1. All applications will be rated on the basis of the criteria set
forth below. The Institute will accord the greatest weight to the
following criteria:
a. The soundness of the methodology;
b. The demonstration of need for the project;
c. The appropriateness of the proposed evaluation design;
d. The applicant's management plan and organizational capabilities;
e. The qualifications of the project's staff;
f. The products and benefits resulting from the project including
the extent to which the project will have long-term benefits for State
courts across the Nation;
g. The degree to which the findings, procedures, training,
technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other
jurisdictions.
h. The reasonableness of the proposed budget;
i. The demonstration of cooperation and support of other agencies
that may be affected by the project; and
j. The proposed project's relationship to one of the ``Special
Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B.
2. In determining which applicants to fund, the Institute will also
consider whether the applicant is a State court, a national court
support or education organization, a non-court unit of government, or
other type of entity eligible to receive grants under the Institute's
enabling legislation (see 42 U.S.C. 10705(6) (as amended) and Section
IV above); the availability of financial assistance from other sources
for the project; the amount and nature (cash or in-kind) of the
applicant's match; the extent to which the proposed project would also
benefit the Federal courts or help State courts enforce Federal
constitutional and legislative requirements; and the level of
appropriations available to the Institute in the current year and the
amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.
C. Review and Approval Process
Applications will be reviewed competitively by the Board of
Directors. The Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary of each
application,
[[Page 64212]]
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 and application may not be appealed, but
does not prohibit resubmission of a proposal based on that application
in a subsequent round of funding. The Institute will also notify the
designated State contact listed in Appendix I when grants are approved
by the Board to support projects that will be conducted by or involve
courts in their State.
F. Response to Notification of Approval
Applicants have 30 days from the date of the letter notifying them
that the Board has approved their application to respond to any
revisions requested by the Board. If the requested revisions (or a
reasonable schedule for submitting such revisions) have not been
submitted to the Institute within 30 days after notification, the
approval 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 $2 million of available FY 1996
grant funds for renewal grants. In reviewing applications for renewal
grants, the Board will consider a number of factors in addition to the
criteria set forth in section VIII.B., including whether continuing the
project would provide assistance in finding solutions to current court
problems; whether the project has national impact; whether the project
is being run in an efficient and cost-effective manner; and whether the
project could operate in the future or its products could be
implemented without additional SJI grant assistance.
A. Continuation Grants
1. Purpose and Scope
Continuation grants are intended to support projects with a limited
duration that involve the same type of activities as the previous
project. They are intended to enhance the specific program or service
produced or established during the prior grant period. They may be
used, for example, when a project is divided into two or more
sequential phases, for secondary analysis of data obtained in an
Institute-supported research project, or for more extensive testing of
an innovative technology, procedure, or program developed with SJI
grant support.
In order for a project to be considered for continuation funding,
the grantee must have completed the project tasks and met all grant
requirements and conditions in a timely manner, absent extenuating
circumstances or prior Institute approval of changes to the project
design. Continuation grants are not intended to provide support for a
project for which the grantee has underestimated the amount of time or
funds needed to accomplish the project tasks.
2. Application Procedures--Letters of Intent
Unless specifically invited to submit a renewal application by the
Institute, 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. The applicant should clearly and concisely
state what the continuation project is intended to accomplish.
b. Need for Continuation. The applicant should explain why
continuation of the project is necessary to achieve the goals of the
project, and how the continuation will benefit the participating courts
or the courts community generally. That is, to what extent will the
original goals and objectives of the project be unfulfilled if the
project is not continued, and conversely, how will the findings or
results of the project be enhanced by continuing the project?
c. Report of Current Project Activities. The applicant should
discuss the status of all activities conducted during the previous
project period. Applicants should identify any activities that were not
completed, and explain why.
d. Evaluation Findings. The applicant should present the key
findings, impact, or recommendations resulting from the evaluation of
the project, if they are available, and how they will be addressed
during the proposed continuation. If the findings are not yet
available, applicants should provide the date by which they will be
submitted to the Institute. Ordinarily, the Board will not consider an
application for continuation funding until the Institute has received
the evaluator's report.
e. Tasks, Methods, Staff and Grantee Capability. The applicant
should fully describe any changes in the tasks to be performed, the
methods to be used, the products of the project, and how and to whom
those products will be disseminated, as well as any changes in
[[Page 64213]]
the assigned staff or the grantee's organizational capacity. Applicants
should include, in addition, the criteria and methods by which the
proposed continuation project would be evaluated.
f. Task Schedule. The applicant should present a detailed task
schedule and timeline for the next project period.
g. Other Sources of Support. The applicant should indicate why
other sources of support are inadequate, inappropriate or unavailable.
4. Budget and Budget Narrative
The applicant should provide a complete budget and budget narrative
conforming to the requirements set forth in paragraph VII.D. Changes in
the funding level requested should be discussed in terms of
corresponding increases or decreases in the scope of activities or
services to be rendered.
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. and the factors listed at the beginning of
this Chapter. The key findings and recommendations resulting from an
evaluation of the project and the proposed response to those findings
and recommendations will also be considered. The review and approval
process, return policy, and notification procedures are the same as
those for new projects set forth in sections VIII.C.-VIII.E.
B. On-Going Support Grants
1. Purpose and Scope
On-going support grants are intended to support projects that are
national in scope and that provide the State courts with services,
programs or products for which there is a continuing important need. An
on-going support grant may also be used to fund longitudinal research
that directly benefits the State courts. On-going support grants are
subject to the limits on size and duration set forth in V.C.2. and
V.D.2. A project is eligible for consideration for an on-going support
grant if:
a. The project is supported by and has been evaluated under a grant
from the Institute;
b. The project is national in scope and provides a significant
benefit to the State courts;
c. There is a continuing important need for the services, programs
or products provided by the project as indicated by the level of use
and support by members of the court community;
d. The project is accomplishing its objectives in an effective and
efficient manner; and
e. It is likely that the service or program provided by the project
would be curtailed or significantly reduced without Institute support.
Each project supported by an on-going support grant must include an
evaluation component assessing its effectiveness and operation
throughout the grant period. The evaluation should be independent, but
may be designed collaboratively by the evaluator and the grantee. The
design should call for regular feedback from the evaluator to the
grantee throughout the project period concerning recommendations for
mid-course corrections or improvement of the project, as well as
periodic reports to the Institute at relevant points in the project.
An interim evaluation report must be submitted 18 months into the
grant period. The decision to obligate Institute funds to support the
third year of the project will be based on the interim evaluation
findings and the applicant's response to any deficiencies noted in the
report.
A final evaluation assessing the effectiveness, operation of, and
continuing need for the project must be submitted 90 days before the
end of the 3-year project period.
In addition, a detailed annual task schedule must be submitted not
later than 45 days before the end of the first and second years of the
grant period, along with an explanation of any necessary revisions in
the projected costs for the remainder of the project period. (See also
sections IX.B.3.f. and IX.B.4.)
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.
Unless specifically invited to submit a renewal application by the
Institute, 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. The
applicant should provide a detailed discussion of the benefits provided
by the project to the State courts around the country, including the
degree to which State courts, State court judges, or State court
managers and personnel are using the services or programs provided by
the project.
b. Demonstration of Court Support. The applicant should demonstrate
support for the continuation of the project from the courts community.
c. Report on Current Project Activities. The applicant should
discuss the extent to which the project has met its goals and
objectives, identify any activities that have not been completed, and
explain why.
d. Evaluation Findings. The applicant should attach a copy of the
final evaluation report regarding the effectiveness, impact, and
operation of the project, specify the key findings or recommendations
resulting from the evaluation, and explain how they will be addressed
during the proposed renewal period. Ordinarily, the Board will not
consider an application for on-going support until the Institute has
received the evaluator's report.
e. Objectives, Tasks, Methods, Staff and Grantee Capability. The
applicant should describe fully any changes in the objectives; tasks to
be performed; the methods to be used; the products of the project; how
and to whom those products will be disseminated; the assigned staff;
and the grantee's organizational capacity.
f. Task Schedule. The applicant should present a general schedule
for
[[Page 64214]]
the full proposed project period and a detailed task schedule for the
first year of the proposed new project period as part of the
application. If an on-going support grant is awarded, a detailed annual
task plan must be submitted no later than 45 days before the end of
years one and two of the grant. (See section IX.B.1.)
g. Other Sources of Support. The applicant should indicate why
other sources of support are inadequate, inappropriate or unavailable.
4. Budget and Budget Narrative
The applicant should provide a complete three-year budget and
budget narrative conforming to the requirements set forth in paragraph
VII.D. A complete budget narrative should be provided for each year, or
portion of a year, for which grant support is requested. The budget
should provide for realistic cost-of-living and staff salary increases
over the course of the requested project period.
If an on-going support grant is awarded, an updated budget and
explanatory narrative for the next grant year should be submitted no
later than 45 days before the end of the first and second grant years.
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. Applicants should be aware that the Institute
is unlikely to approve a supplemental budget increase for an on-going
support grant in the absence of well-documented, unanticipated factors
that clearly justify the requested increase.
5. References to Previously Submitted Material
An application for an on-going support grant should not repeat
information contained in a previously approved application or other
previously submitted materials, but should provide specific references
to such materials where appropriate.
6. Submission Requirements, Review and Approval Process, and
Notification of Decision
The submission requirements set forth in section VII.E., other than
the deadline for mailing, apply to applications for an on-going support
grant. Such applications will be rated on the selection criteria set
forth in section VIII.B and the factors listed at the beginning of this
Chapter. The key findings and recommendations resulting from an
evaluation of the project and the proposed response to those findings
and recommendations will also be considered. The review and approval
process, return policy, and notification procedures are the same as
those for new projects set forth in sections VIII.C.-VIII.E.
X. Compliance Requirements
The State Justice Institute Act contains limitations and conditions
on grants, contracts and cooperative agreements of which applicants and
recipients should be aware. In addition to eligibility requirements
which must be met to be considered for an award from the Institute, all
applicants should be aware of and all recipients will be responsible
for ensuring compliance with the following:
A. State and Local Court Systems
Each application for funding from a State or local court must be
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court, or
its designated agency or council. The Supreme Court or its designee
shall receive, administer, and be accountable for all funds awarded on
the basis of such an application. 42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(4). Appendix I to
this Guideline lists the persons to contact in each State regarding the
administration of Institute grants to State and local courts.
B. Matching Requirements
1. All awards to courts or other units of State or local government
(not including publicly supported institutions of higher education)
require a match from private or public sources of not less than 50% of
the total amount of the Institute's award. For example, if the total
cost of a project is anticipated to be $150,000, a State court or
executive branch agency may request up to $100,000 from the Institute
to implement the project. The remaining $50,000 (50% of the $100,000
requested from SJI) must be provided as a match. A cash match, non-cash
match, or both may be provided, but the Institute will give preference
to those applicants who provide a cash match to the Institute's award.
(For a further definition of match, see section III.F.)
The requirement to provide match may be waived in exceptionally
rare circumstances upon approval of the Chief Justice of the highest
court in the State and a majority of the Board of Directors. 42 U.S.C.
10705(d).
2. Other eligible recipients of Institute funds are not required to
provide a match, but are encouraged to contribute to meeting the costs
of the project. In instances where match is proposed, the grantee is
responsible for ensuring that the total amount proposed is actually
contributed. If a proposed contribution is not fully met, the Institute
may reduce the award amount accordingly, in order to maintain the ratio
originally provided for in the award agreement (see sections VIII.B.
above and XI.D.).
C. Conflict of Interest
Personnel and other officials connected with Institute-funded
programs shall adhere to the following requirements:
1. No official or employee of a recipient court or organization
shall participate personally through decision, approval, disapproval,
recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise in
any proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other
determination, contract, grant, cooperative agreement, claim,
controversy, or other particular matter in which Institute funds are
used, where to his/her knowledge he/she or his/her immediate family,
partners, organization other than a public agency in which he/she is
serving as officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee or any
person or organization with whom he/she is negotiating or has any
arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial
interest.
2. In the use of Institute project funds, an official or employee
of a recipient court or organization shall avoid any action which might
result in or create the appearance of:
a. Using an official position for private gain; or
b. Affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the
integrity of the Institute program.
3. Requests for proposals or invitations for bids issued by a
recipient of Institute funds or a subgrantee or subcontractor will
provide notice to prospective bidders that the contractors who develop
or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work and/or
requests for proposals for a proposed procurement will be excluded from
bidding on or submitting a proposal to compete for the award of such
procurement.
D. Lobbying
Funds awarded to recipients by the Institute shall not be used,
indirectly or directly, to influence Executive orders or similar
promulgations by Federal, State or local agencies, or to influence the
passage or defeat of any legislation by Federal, State or local
legislative bodies. 42 U.S.C. 10706(a).
It is the policy of the Board of Directors to award funds only to
support applications submitted by organizations that would carry out
the objectives of their applications in an unbiased manner. Consistent
with this policy and
[[Page 64215]]
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 of 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 measures necessary to effectuate
this provision.
L. Reporting Requirements
Recipients of Institute funds, other than scholarships awarded
under section II.B.2.b.iii., shall submit Quarterly Progress and
Financial Reports within 30 days of the close of each calendar quarter
(that is, no later than January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30).
Two copies of each report must be sent. The Quarterly Progress Reports
shall include a narrative description of project activities during the
calendar quarter, the relationship between those activities and the
task schedule and objectives set forth in the approved application or
an approved adjustment thereto, any significant problems areas that
have developed and how they will be resolved, and the activities
scheduled during the next reporting period.
The quarterly financial status report shall be submitted in
accordance with section XI.G.2. of this guideline. A final project
progress report and financial status report shall be submitted within
90 days after the end of the grant period in accordance with section
XI.K.2. of this Guideline.
M. Audit
Each recipient must provide for an annual fiscal audit which shall
include an opinion on whether the financial statements of the grantee
present fairly its financial position and financial operations are in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. (See section
XI.J. of the Guideline for the requirements of such audits.)
N. Suspension of Funding
After providing a recipient reasonable notice and opportunity to
submit written documentation demonstrating why fund termination or
suspension should not occur, the Institute may terminate or suspend
funding of a project that fails to comply substantially with the Act,
Institute Guideline, or the terms and conditions of the award. 42
U.S.C. 10708(a).
O. Title to Property
At the conclusion of the project, title to all expendable and
nonexpendable personal property purchased with Institute funds shall
vest in the recipient court, organization, or individual that purchased
the property if certification is made to 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.
[[Page 64216]]
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 project, unless another
placement is approved in writing by the Institute. This includes final
products printed or otherwise reproduced during the grant period, as
well as reprintings or reproductions of those materials following the
end of the grant period. A camera-ready logo sheet is available from
the Institute upon request.
Recipients also shall display the following disclaimer on all grant
products;
``This [document, film, videotape, etc.] was developed under
[grant/cooperative agreement, number SJI-(insert number)] from the Sate
Justice Institute. The points of view expressed are those of the
[author(s), filmmaker(s), etc.] and do not necessarily represent the
official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.''
R. Institute Approval of Grant Products
No grant funds may be obligated for publication or reproduction of
a final product developed with grant funds without the written approval
of the Institute. Grantees shall submit a final draft of each written
product to the Institute for review and approval. These drafts shall be
submitted at least 30 days before the product is scheduled to be sent
for publication or reproduction to permit Institute review and
incorporation of any appropriate changes agreed upon by the grantee and
the Institute. Grantees shall provide for timely review by the
Institute of videotape or CD-ROM products at the treatment, script,
rough cut, and final stages of development or their equivalents, prior
to initiating the next stage of product development.
S. Distribution of Grant Products
In addition to the distribution specified in the grant application,
grantees shall send:
1. Twenty copies of each final product developed with grant funds
to the Institute, unless the product was developed under either a
curriculum adaptation or a technical assistance grant, in which case
submission of 2 copies is required.
2. A master copy of each videotape produced with grant funds to the
Institute.
3. A one-page abstract to the Institute summarizing the products
produced during the project for posting on the Internet together with a
diskette containing the abstract in Word, WordPerfect, or ASCII. The
abstract should include the grant number, a contact name, address,
telephone numbers, and e-mail address (if applicable).
4. One copy of each final product developed with grant funds to the
library established in each State to collect materials prepared with
Institute support. (A list of these libraries is contained in Appendix
II. Labels for these libraries are available from the Institute upon
request.) Recipients of curriculum adaptation and technical assistance
grants are not required to submit final products to State libraries.
T. Copyrights
Except as otherwise provided in the terms and conditions of an
Institute award, a recipient is free to copyright any books,
publications, or other copyrightable materials developed in the course
of an Institute-supported project, but the Institute shall reserve a
royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish,
or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the materials for
purposes consistent with the State Justice Institute Act.
U. Inventions and Patents
If any patentable items, patent rights, processes, or inventions
are produced in the course of institute-sponsored work, such fact shall
be promptly and fully reported to the Institute. Unless there is a
prior agreement between the grantee and the Institute on disposition of
such items, the Institute shall determine whether protection of the
invention or discovery shall be sought. The Institute will also
determine how the rights in the invention or discovery, including
rights under any patent issued thereon, shall be allocated and
administered in order to protect the public interest consistent with
``Government Patent Policy'' (President's Memorandum for Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies, February 18, 1983, and Statement of
Government Patent Policy).
V. Charges for Grant-Related Products/Recovery of Costs
When Institute funds fully cover the cost of developing, producing,
and disseminating a product, (e.g., a report, curriculum, videotape or
software), the product should be distributed to the field without
charge. When Institute funds only partially cover the development,
production, or dissemination costs, the grantee may, with the
Institute's prior written approval, recover its costs for developing,
producing, and disseminating the material to those requesting it, to
the extent that those costs were not covered by Institute funds or
grantee matching contributions.
Applicants should disclose their intent to sell grant-related
products in the application. Grantees must obtain the written, prior
approval of the Institute of their plans to recover project costs
through the sale of grant products.
Written requests to recover costs ordinarily should be received
during the grant period and should specify the nature and extent of the
costs to be recouped, the reason that such costs were not budgeted (if
the rationale was not disclosed in the approved application), the
number of copies to be sold, the intended audience for the products to
be sold, and the proposed sale price. If the product is to be sold for
more than $25.00, the written request also should include a detailed
itemization of costs that will be recovered and a certification that
the costs were not supported by either Institute grant funds or grantee
matching contributions.
In the event that the sale of grant products results in revenues
that exceed the costs to develop, produce, and disseminate the product,
the revenue must continue to be used for the authorized purposes of the
Institute-funded project or other purposes consistent with the State
Justice Institute Act that have been approved by the Institute. See
sections III.F. and XI.F. for requirements regarding project-related
income realized during the project period.
W. Availability of Research Data for Secondary Analysis
Upon request, grantees must make available for secondary analysis a
diskette(s) or data tape(s) containing research and evaluation data
collected under an Institute grant and the accompanying code manual.
Grantees may recover the actual cost of duplicating and mailing or
otherwise transmitting the data set and manual from the person or
organization requesting the data. Grantees may provide the requested
data set in the format in which it was created and analyzed.
X. Approval of Key Staff
If the qualifications of an employee or consultant assigned to a
key project staff position are not described in the application or if
there is a change of a person assigned to such a position, a recipient
shall submit a description of
[[Page 64217]]
the qualifications of the newly assigned person to the Institute. Prior
written approval of the qualifications of the new person assigned to a
key staff position must be received from the Institute before the
salary or consulting fee of that person and associated costs may be
paid or reimbursed from grant funds.
XI. Financial Requirements
A. Accounting Systems and Financial Records
All grantees, subgrantees, contractors, and other organizations
directly or indirectly receiving Institute funds are required to
establish and maintain accounting systems and financial records to
accurately account for funds they receive. These records shall include
total program costs, including Institute funds, State and local
matching shares, and any other fund sources included in the approved
project budget.
1. Purpose
The purpose of this section is to establish accounting system
requirements and to offer guidance on procedures which will assist all
grantees/subgrantees in:
a. Complying with the statutory requirements for the awarding,
disbursement, and accounting of funds;
b. Complying with regulatory requirements of the Institute for the
financial management and disposition of funds;
c. Generating financial data which can be used in the planning,
management and control of programs; and
d. Facilitating an effective audit of funded programs and projects.
2. References
Except where inconsistent with specific provisions of this
Guideline, the following regulations, directives and reports are
applicable to Institute grants and cooperative agreements under the
same terms and conditions that apply to Federal grantees. These
materials supplement the requirements of this section for accounting
systems and financial recordkeeping and provide additional guidance on
how these requirements may be satisfied. (Circulars may be obtained
from OMB by calling 202-395-7250.)
a. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-21, Cost
Principles for Educational Institutions.
b. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost
Principles for State and Local Governments.
c. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-88 (revised),
Indirect Cost Rates, Audit and Audit Follow-up at Educational
Institutions.
d. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102, Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local
Governments.
e. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110, Grants and
Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and other
Non-Profit Organizations.
f. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-128, Audits of
State and Local Governments.
g. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-122, Cost
Principles for Non-profit Organizations.
h. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of
Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non-profit Institutions.
B. Supervision and Monitoring Responsibilities
1. Grantee Responsibilities
All grantees receiving direct awards from the Institute are
responsible for the management and fiscal control of all funds.
Responsibilities include accounting for receipts and expenditures,
maintaining adequate financial records and refunding expenditures
disallowed by audits.
2. Responsibilities of State Supreme Court
Each application for funding from a State or local court must be
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court, or
its designated agency or council.
The State Supreme Court or its designee shall receive all Institute
funds awarded to such courts; shall be responsible for assuring proper
administration of Institute funds; and shall be responsible for all
aspects of the project, including proper accounting and financial
recordkeeping by the subgrantee. These responsibilities include:
a. Reviewing Financial Operations. The State Supreme Court or its
designee should be familiar with, and periodically monitor, its
subgrantees' financial operations, records system and procedures.
Particular attention should be directed to the maintenance of current
financial data.
b. Recording Financial Activities. The subgrantee's grant award or
contract obligation, as well as cash advances and other financial
activities, should be recorded in the financial records of the State
Supreme Court or its designee in summary form. Subgrantee expenditures
should be recorded on the books of the State Supreme Court OR evidenced
by report forms duly filed by the subgrantee. Non-Institute
contributions applied to projects by subgrantees should likewise be
recorded, as should any project income resulting from program
operations.
c. Budgeting and Budget Review. The State Supreme Court or its
designee should ensure that each subgrantee prepares an adequate budget
as the basis for its award commitment. The detail of each project
budget should be maintained on file by the State Supreme Court.
d. Accounting for Non-Institute Contributions. The State Supreme
Court or its designee will ensure, in those instances where subgrantees
are required to furnish non-Institute matching funds, that the
requirements and limitations of this guideline are applied to such
funds.
e. Audit Requirement. The State Supreme Court or its designee is
required to ensure that subgrantees have met the necessary audit
requirements as set forth by the Institute (see sections X.M. and
XI.J).
f. Reporting Irregularities. The State Supreme Court, its
designees, and its subgrantees are responsible for promptly reporting
to the Institute the nature and circumstances surrounding any financial
irregularities discovered.
C. Accounting System
The grantee is responsible for establishing and maintaining an
adequate system of accounting and internal controls for itself and for
ensuring that an adequate system exists for each of its subgrantees and
contractors. An acceptable and adequate accounting system is considered
to be one which:
1. Properly accounts for receipt of funds under each grant awarded
and the expenditure of funds for each grant by category of expenditure
(including matching contributions and project income);
2. Assures that expended funds are applied to the appropriate
budget category included with 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;
[[Page 64218]]
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, canceled
checks, and related documents and records. Source documents include
copies of all grant and subgrant awards, applications, and required
grantee/subgrantee financial and narrative reports. Personnel and
payroll records shall include the time and attendance reports for all
individuals reimbursed under a grant, subgrant or contract, whether
they are employed full-time or part-time. Time and effort reports will
be required for consultants.
2. Retention Period
The three-year retention period starts from the date of the
submission of the final expenditure report or, for grants which are
renewed annually, from the date of submission of the annual expenditure
report.
3. Maintenance
Grantees and subgrantees are expected to see that records of
different fiscal years are separately identified and maintained so that
requested information can be readily located. Grantees and subgrantees
are also obligated to protect records adequately against fire or other
damage. When records are stored away from the grantee's/subgrantee's
principal office, a written index of the location of stored records
should be on hand, and ready access should be assured.
4. Access
Grantees and subgrantees must give any authorized representative of
the Institute access to and the right to examine all records, books,
papers, and documents related to an Institute grant.
F. Project-Related Income
Records of the receipt and disposition of project-related income
must be maintained by the grantee in the same manner as required for
the project funds that gave rise to the income. 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 order
their affairs so as 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 intended to recover
actual reproduction and distribution costs that were not covered by
Institute grant funds or grantee matching contributions to the project.
When grant funds only partially cover the costs of developing,
producing and disseminating a product, the grantee may, with the
written prior approval of the Institute, recover costs for developing,
reproducing, and disseminating the material to the extent that those
costs were not covered by Institute grant funds or grantee matching
contributions. If the grantee recovers its costs in this manner, then
[[Page 64219]]
amounts expended by the grantee to develop, produce, and disseminate
the material may not be considered match.
If the sale of products occurs during the project period, the costs
and income generated by the sales must be reported on the Quarterly
Financial Status Reports and documented in an auditable manner.
Whenever possible, the intent to sell a product should be disclosed in
the 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.
b. Continuation and On-Going Support Awards. For purposes of
submitting Requests for Advance or Reimbursement, recipients of
continuation and on-going support grants should treat each grant as a
new project and number their requests accordingly (i.e. on a grant
rather than a project basis). For example, the first request for
payment from a continuation grant or each year of an on-going support
would be number 1, the second number 2, etc. (See Recommendations to
Grantees in the Introduction for further guidance.)
c. Termination of Advance and Reimbursement Funding. When a grantee
organization receiving cash advances from the Institute:
i. Demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to attain program or
project goals, or to establish procedures that will minimize the time
elapsing between cash advances and disbursements, or cannot adhere to
guideline requirements or special conditions;
ii. Engages in the improper award and administration of subgrants
or contracts; or
iii. Is unable to submit reliable and/or timely reports; the
Institute may terminate advance financing and require the grantee
organization to finance its operations with its own working capital.
Payments to the grantee shall then be made by check to reimburse the
grantee for actual cash disbursements. In the event the grantee
continues to be deficient, the Institute reserves the right to suspend
reimbursement payments until the deficiencies are corrected.
d. Principle of Minimum Cash on Hand. Recipient organizations
should request funds based upon immediate disbursement requirements.
Grantees should time their requests to ensure that cash on hand is the
minimum needed for disbursements to be made immediately or within a few
days. Idle funds in the hands of subgrantees will impair the goals of
good cash management.
2. Financial Reporting
a. General Requirements. In order to obtain financial information
concerning the use of funds, the Institute requires that grantees/
subgrantees of these funds submit timely reports for review.
Three copies of the Financial Status Report are required from all
grantees, other than recipients of scholarships under section
II.B.2.b.iii., for each active quarter on a calendar-quarter basis.
This report is due within 30 days after the close of the calendar
quarter. It is designed to provide financial information relating to
Institute funds, State and local matching shares, 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.
b. Additional Requirements for Renewal Grants. Grantees receiving a
continuation or on-going support grant should number their quarterly
Financial Status Reports on a grant rather than a project basis. For
example, the first quarterly report for a continuation grant or each
year of an on-going support award should be number 1, the second number
2, etc.
3. Consequences of Non-Compliance With Submission Requirements
Failure of the grantee organization to submit required financial
and program reports may result in a suspension 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. Copies of these circulars may be obtained from OMB by calling
(202) 395-7250.
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
Transporation 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
[[Page 64220]]
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 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 and
occupancy and maintenance, etc., as direct costs.
iii. Organizations with an approved indirect cost rate, utilizing
total direct costs as the base, usually exclude contracts under grants
from any overhead recovery. The negotiated agreement will stipulate
that contracts are excluded from the base for overhead recovery.
b. Establishment of Indirect Cost Rates. In order to be reimbursed
for indirect costs, a grantee or organization must first establish an
appropriate indirect cost rate. To do this, the grantee must prepare an
indirect cost rate proposal and submit it to the Institute. The
proposal must be submitted 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
as specified in the applicable OMB Circular. Copies of OMB Circulars
may be obtained directly from OMB by calling (202) 395-7250.
c. No Approved Plan. If an indirect cost proposal for recovery of
actual indirect costs is not submitted to the Institute within three
months after the start of the grant period, indirect costs will be
irrevocably disallowed for all months prior to the month that the
indirect cost proposal is received. This policy is effective for all
grant awards.
I. Procurement and Property Management Standards
1. Procurement Standards
For State and local governments, the Institute is adopting the
standards set forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular A-102. Institutions
of higher education, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations will
be governed by the standards set forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular
A-110.
2. Property Management Standards
The property management standards as prescribed in Attachment N of
OMB Circulars A-102 and A-110 shall be applicable to all grantees and
subgrantees of Institute funds except as provided in section X.O.
All grantees/subgrantees are required to be prudent in the
acquisition and management of property with grant funds. If suitable
property required for the successful execution of projects is already
available within the grantee or subgrantee organization, expenditures
of grant funds for the acquisition of new property will be considered
unnecessary.
J. Audit Requirements
1. Implementation
Each non-scholarship grantee (including a State or local court
receiving a subgrant from the State Supreme Court) shall provide for an
annual fiscal audit. The audit may be of the entire grantee
organization (e.g., a university) or of the specific project funded by
the Institute. Audits conducted in accordance with the Single Audit Act
of 1984 and OMB Circular A-128, or OMB Circular A-133 will satisfy the
requirement for an annual fiscal audit. The audit shall be conducted by
an independent Certified Public Accountant, or a State or local agency
authorized to audit government agencies.
Grantees who receive funds from a Federal agency and who satisfy
audit requirements of the cognizant Federal agency, should submit a
copy of the audit report prepared for that Federal agency to the
Institute in order to satisfy the provisions of this section. Cognizant
Federal agencies do not send reports to the Institute. Therefore, each
grantee must send this report directly to the Institute.
2. Resolution and Clearance of Audit Reports
Timely action on recommendations by responsible management
officials is an integral part of the effectiveness of an audit. Each
grant recipient shall have policies and procedures for acting on audit
recommendations by designating officials responsible for: follow-up,
maintaining a record of the actions taken on recommendations and time
schedules, responding to and acting on audit recommendations, and
submitting periodic reports to the Institute on recommendations and
actions taken.
3. Consequences of Non-Resolution of Audit Issues
It is the general policy of the State Justice Institute not to make
new grant awards to an applicant having an unresolved audit report
involving Institute awards. Failure of the grantee organization to
resolve audit questions may also result in the suspension of payments
for active Institute grants to that organization.
K. Close-Out of Grants
1. Definition
Close-out is a process by which the Institute determines that all
applicable administrative and financial actions and all required work
of the grant have been completed by both the grantee and the Institute.
2. Grantee Close-Out Requirements
Within 90 days after the end date of the grant or any approved
extension thereof (revised end date), the following documents must be
submitted to the Institute by the grantee other than a recipient of a
scholarship under section II.B.2.b.iii. These reporting requirements
apply at the conclusion of any non-scholarship grant, even when the
project will receive renewal funding through a continuation or on-going
support grant.
a. Financial State 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 90-day close-out period. Grantees on a check-issued
basis, which have drawn down funds in excess of their obligations/
expenditures, must return any unused funds as soon as it is determined
that the funds are not required. In no case should any unused funds
remain with the grantee beyond the submission date of the final
financial status report.
b. Final Progress Report. This report should describe the project
activities during the final calendar quarter of the project and the
close-out period, including to whom project products have been
disseminated; provide a
[[Page 64221]]
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.
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 their SJI program
manager, in writing, of events or proposed changes which may require an
adjustment to the approved application. In requesting an adjustment,
the grantee must set forth the reasons and basis for the proposed
adjustment and any other information the 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 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. The reasons why
the change is necessary and the steps being taken to avoid further
delays should be explained in detail. 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.). Grantees should
be aware that the Institute is unlikely to approve more than one
limited extension of the grant period.
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
[[Page 64222]]
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
David A. Brock, Co-Chairman, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of New
Hampshire, Concord, New Hampshire
John F. Daffron, Jr., Co-Chairman, Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit,
Chesterfield, Virginia
Sandra A. O'Connor, Secretary, States Attorney of Baltimore County,
Towson, Maryland
Terrence B. Adamson, Esq., Executive Committee Member, Kaye,
Scholer, Fierman, Hays, and Handler, Washington, DC
Joseph F. Baca, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Robert N. Baldwin, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Virginia, Richmond, Virginia
Carlos R. Garza, Administrative Judge (ret.), Vienna, Virginia
Janice L. Gradwohl, Judge (ret.), County Courts, Lincoln, Nebraska
Keith McNamara, Esq., McNamara and McNamara, Columbus, Ohio
Florence Murray, Justice, Rhode Island Supreme Court, Providence,
Rhode Island
Janie L. Shores, Justice, Supreme Court of Alabama, Montgomery,
Alabama
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. Frank Gregory, 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, N.W., Washington, D.C. 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, S.W., 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
Sharon Miyoshiro, Administrative Director of the Courts, Office of
the Administrative Director, Post Office Box 2560, Honolulu, Hawaii
96813, (808) 539-4900
Honorable Charles F. McDevitt, Chief Justice, Idaho Supreme Court,
451 West State Street, Boise, Idaho 83720, (208) 334-3464
Mr. Robert E. Davison, Director, Administrative Office of the
Courts, 840 S. Spring Street, Springfield, Illinois 62704, (312)
793-3250
Mr. Bruce A. Kotzan, Executive Director, Supreme Court of Indiana,
State House, Room 323, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, (317) 232-2542
Mr. William J. O'Brien, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Iowa, State House, Des Moines, Iowa 50319, (515) 281-5241
Dr. Howard P. Schwartz, Judicial Administrator, Kansas Judicial
Center, 301 West 10th Street, Topeka, Kansas 66612, (923) 296-4873
Ms. Laura Stammel, Assistant Director, Administrative Office of the
Courts, 100 Mill Creek Park, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, (502) 564-
2350
Dr. Hugh M. Collins, Judicial Administrator, Supreme Court of
Louisiana, 301 Loyola Avenue, Room 109, New Orleans, Louisiana
70112-1887, (504) 568-5747
Mr. James T. Glessner, State Court Administrator, Administrative
Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 4820, Downtown Station, Portland,
Maine 04112, (207) 822-0792
Ms. Deborah A. Unitus, Assistant State Court Administrator,
Administrative Office of the Courts, Rowe Boulevard and Taylor
Avenue, Annapolis, Maryland 21401, (301) 974-2141
Honorable John J. Irwin, Jr., Chief Justice for Administration and
Management, The Trial Court, Administrative Office of the Trial
Court, Two Center Plaza, Suite 540, Boston, Massachusetts 02108,
(617) 742-8575
Ms. Marilyn K. Hall, State Court Administrator, Michigan Supreme
Court, P.O. Box 30048, 611 West Ottawa Street, Lansing, Michigan
48909, (517) 373-0136
Ms. Sue K. Dosal, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Minnesota, 230 State Capitol, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, (617) 296-
2474
Honorable Leslie Johnson, Director, Center for Court Education and
Continuing Studies, P.O. 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. Donald Goodnow, 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 Milonas, 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
Hon. Jack Cozort, Acting Administrative Director, Administrative
Office of the Courts, P.O. 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
Ms. Kingsley Click, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Oregon, Supreme Court Building, Salem, Oregon 97310, (503) 986-5500
Mr. Thomas B. Darr, Director for Legislative Affairs, Communications
and Administration, 5035 Ritter Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania
17055, (717) 795-2000
Dr. Robert C. Harrall, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of
Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903,
(401) 277-3266
Mr. George A. Markert, Director, South Carolina Court
Administration, P.O. Box
[[Page 64223]]
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. Jerry L. Benedict, Administrative Director, Office of Court
Administration of the Texas Judicial System, P.O. Box 12066, Austin,
Texas 78711, (512) 463-1625
Mr. Daniel Becker, State Court Administrator, Administrative Office
of the Courts, 230 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102, (801)
533-6371
Mr. Lee Suskin, Acting 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, P.O. Box 70, Charlotte Amalie, St.
Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801, (809) 774-6680, ext 248
Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of
Virginia, Administrative Offices, 100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor,
Richmond, Virginia 23219, (804) 786-6455
Ms. Mary C. McQueen, Administrator for the Courts, Supreme Court of
Washington, Highways-Licensing Building, 6th Floor, 12th &
Washington, Olympia, Washington 98504, (206) 753-5780
Mr. Ted J. Philyaw, Administrative Director of the Courts,
Administrative Office, 402-E State Capitol, Charleston, West
Virginia 25305, (304) 348-0145
Mr. J. Denis Moran, Director of State Courts, P.O. 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
1995)
State: Alabama
Location: Supreme Court Library
Contact: Mr. William C. Younger, State Law Librarian, Alabama
Supreme Court Bldg., 445 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36130,
(205) 242-4347
State: Alaska
Location: Anchorage Law Library
Contact: Ms. Cynthia S. Petumenos, State Law Librarian, Alaska Court
Libraries, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, (907) 264-0583
State: Arizona
Location: State Law Library
Contact: Ms. Sharon Womack, Director, Department of Library &
Archives, State Capitol, 1700 West Washington, Phoenix, Arizona
85007, (602) 542-4035
State: Arkansas
Location: Administrative Office of the Courts
Contact: Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, Supreme Court of
Arkansas, Administrative Office of the Courts, Justice Building, 625
Marshall, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1078, (501) 376-6655
State: California
Location: Administrative Office of the Courts
Contact: 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, N.W., Washington, D.C.
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,
S.W., 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
& 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: 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
[[Page 64224]]
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. Lousie Stafford, Librarian, North Carolina Supreme
Court Library, P.O. Box 26806 (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: Mr. Honorable Jose S. Delta 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: Ms. Kingsley Click, 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: Roger Williams Law School Library
Contact: Ms. Gail Winson, Director, Roger Williams Law School, 10
Metacom Ave., Bristol, RI 02809-5171, (401) 254-4546
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
National: 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, (517) 353-8603
Appendix III--Illustrative List of Model Curricula
The following list includes examples of curricula that have been
developed with support from SJI, and that might be--or in some cases
have been--successfully adapted for State-based education programs
for judges and other court personnel. A list of all SJI-supported
education projects is available from the Institute. Please also
check with the JERITT project (517/353-8603) and with your State
SJI-designated Library (see Appendix II) for information on other
curricula that may be appropriate for your State's needs.
``Manual for Judicial Writing Workshop for Trial Judges''
(University of Georgia/Colorado Judicial Department: SJI-87-018/019)
``Judicial Education Curriculum: Teaching Guides on Court Security,
and Jury Management and Impanelment'' (Institute for Court
Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI-88-053)
``Caseflow Management Principles and Practices'' (Institute for
Court Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI-87-056)
``Adjudication of Farm Credit Issues'' (Rural Justice Center: SJI-
87-059)
``A National Program for Reporting on the Courts and the Law''
(American Judicature Society: SJI-88-014)
``Model Judicial Mediation Training Program'' (American Arbitration
Association: SJI-88-078)
``Domestic Violence: A Curriculum for Rural Courts'' from ``A
Project to Improve Access to Rural Courts for Victims of Domestic
Violence'' (Rural Justice Center: SJI-88-081)
``Career Writing Program for Appellate Judges'' (American Academy of
Judicial Education: SJI-88-086-P92-1)
[[Page 64225]]
``Judges Media Relations Seminar'' from ``A Statewide Program for
Improving Media and Judicial Relations'' (Minnesota Supreme Court:
SJI-89-024)
``Minding the Courts into the Twentieth Century'' (Michigan Judicial
Institute: SJI-89-029)
``Innovative Juvenile and Family Court Training'' (Youth Law Center:
SJI-87-060, SJI-89-039)
``Troubled Families, Troubled Judges'' (Brandeis University: SJI-89-
071)
``Judicial Settlement Manual'' from ``Judicial Settlement:
Development of a New Course Module, Film, and Instructional Manual''
(National Judicial College: SJI-89-089)
``Judicial Training Materials on Spousal Support'', ``Family
Violence: Effective Judicial Intervention''; ``Judicial Training
Materials on Child Custody and Visitation'' from ``Enhancing Gender
Fairness in the State Courts'' (Women Judges' Fund for Justice: SJI-
89-062)
``Introduction to the Jurisprudence of Victims' Rights'' from
``Victim Rights and the Judiciary: A Training and Implementation
Project'' (National Organization for Victim Assistance: SJI-89-083)
``Fundamental Skills Training Curriculum for Juvenile Probation
Officers'' (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges:
(SJI-90-017)
``Pre-Bench Training for New Judges'' (American Judicature Society`
SJI-90-028)
``A Manual for Workshops on Processing Felony Dispositions in
Limited Jurisdiction Courts'' (National Center for State Courts:
SJI-90-052)
``The Crucial Nature of Attitudes and Values in Judicial Education''
(National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-90-058)
``Policy Alternatives and Current Court Practices in the Special
Problem Areas of Jurisdiction Over the Family'' from ``Juvenile and
Family Court Key Issues Curriculum Enhancement Project'' (National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-90-066)
``Gender Fairness Faculty Development Workshops'' (National Judicial
College: SJI-90-077)
``A Unified Orientation and Mentoring Program for New Judges of All
Arizona Trial Courts'' (Arizona Supreme Court: SJI-90-078)
``National Guardianship Monitoring Program'' from ``AARP Volunteers:
A Resource for State Guardianship Services'' (Association for the
Advancement of Retired Persons: SJI-91-013)
``Medicine, Ethics, and the Law: Preconception to Birth'' (Women
Judges Fund for Justice: SJI-89-062, SJI-91-019)
``The Leadership Institute in Judicial Education'' and ``The
Advanced Leadership Institute in Judicial Education'' (Appalachian
State University: SJI-91-021)
``Managing Trials Effectively: A Program for State Trial Judges''
(National Center for State Courts/National Judicial College: SJI-87-
066/067, SJI-89-054/055, SJI-91-025/026)
``Faculty Development Instructional Program'' from ``Curriculum
Review'' (National Judicial College: SJI-91-039)
``Legal Institute for Special and Limited Jurisdiction Judges''
(National Judicial College: SJI-89-043, SJI-91-040)
``Managerial Budgeting in the Courts''; ``Performance Appraisal in
the Courts''; ``Managing Changes in the Courts''; all three from
``Broadening Educational Opportunities for Judges and Other Key
Court Personnel'' (Institute for Court Management/National Center
for State Courts: SJI-91-043)
``An Approach to Long-Range Strategic Planning in the Courts''
(Center for Public Policy Studies: SJI-91-045)
``Implementing the Court-Related Needs of Older People and Persons
with Disabilities: An Instructional Guide'' (National Judicial
College: SJI-91-054)
``National Judicial Response to Domestic Violence: Civil and
Criminal Curricula'' (Family Violence Prevention Fund: SJI-87-061,
SJI-89-070, SJI-91-055)
``Access to Justice: The Impartial Jury and the Justice System'' and
``When Justice is Up to You'' from ``Pre-Juror Education Project''
(Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area:
SJI-91-071)
``Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Decisions'' (National
Judicial College: SJI-91-080)
``Strengthening Rural Courts of Limited Jurisdiction'' and ``Team
Training for Judges and Clerks'' from ``Rural Limited Jurisdiction
Court Curriculum Project'' (Rural Justice Center: SJI-90-014, SJI-
91-082)
``Medical/Legal Issues in Juvenile and Family Courts'' (National
Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-91-091)
``Good Times, Bad Times: Drugs, Youth, and the Judiciary''
(Professional Development and Training Center, Inc.: SJI-91-095)
``Judicial Response to Stranger and Nonstranger Rape and Sexual
Assault'' (National Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality
for Women and Men: SJI-92-003)
``Interbranch Relations Workshop'' (Ohio Judicial Conference: SJI-
92-079)
``Legal Institute for Non-Law Trained Judges'' (Arizona Supreme
Court: SJI-92-146)
``New Employee Orientation Facilitators Guide'' from ``The Minnesota
Comprehensive Curriculum Design and Training Program for Court
Personnel'' (Minnesota Supreme Court: SJI-92-155)
``Magistrates Correspondence Course'' (Alaska Court System: SJI-92-
156)
``Southwestern Judges' Conference on Environmental Law'' (University
of New Mexico: SJI-92-162)
``Cultural Diversity Awareness in Nebraska Courts'' from ``Native
American Alternatives to Incarceration Project'' (Nebraska Urban
Indian Health Coalition: SJI-93-028)
``A Videotape Training Program in Ethics and Professional Conduct
for Nonjudicial Court Personnel'' (American Judicature Society: SJI-
93-068)
``Integrating Trial Management and Caseflow Management'' (Justice
Management Institute: SJI-93-214)
``Civil and Criminal Procedural Innovations for Appellate Courts''
(National Center for State Courts: SJI-94-002)
``Comprehensive ADR Curriculum for Judges'' (American Bar
Association: SJI-95-002)
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-M
[[Page 64226]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN14DE95.000
[[Page 64227]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN14DE95.001
[[Page 64228]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN14DE95.002
[[Page 64229]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN14DE95.003
[[Page 64230]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN14DE95.004
[[Page 64231]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN14DE95.005
[[Page 64232]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN14DE95.006
[[Page 64233]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN14DE95.007
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-C
[[Page 64234]]
State Justice Institute
Assurances
The applicant hereby assures and certifies that it possesses legal
authority to apply for the award, and that if funds are awarded by the
State Justice Institute pursuant to this application, it will comply
with all applicable provisions of law and the regulations, policies,
guidelines and requirements of the Institute as they relate to the
acceptance and use of Institute funds pursuant to this application. The
applicant further assures and certifies with respect to this
application, that:
1. No person will, 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, and that
the applicant will immediately take any measures necessary to
effectuate this assurance.
2. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 10706(a), funds awarded to the
applicant by the Institute will not be used, directly or indirectly,
to influence the issuance, amendment, or revocation of any Executive
order or similar promulgation by Federal, State or local agencies,
or to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation or
constitutional amendment by any Federal, State or local legislative
body.
3. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 10706(a) and 10707(c):
a. It will not contribute or make available Institute funds,
project personnel, or equipment to any political party or
association, to the campaign of any candidate for public or party
office, or to influence the passage of defeat of any ballot measure,
initiative, or referendum;
b. No officer or employee of the applicant will intentionally
identify the Institute or the applicant with any partisan or
nonpartisan political activity or the campaign of any candidate for
public or party office; and,
c. No officer or employee of the applicant will engage in
partisan political activity while engaged in work supported in whole
or in part by the Institute.
4. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 10706(b), no funds awarded by
the Institute will be used to support or conduct training programs
for the purpose of advocating particular nonjudicial public policies
or encouraging nonjudicial political activities.
5. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 10706(d), no funds awarded by
the Institute will be used to supplant State or local funds
supporting a program or activity; 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 to solely purchase
equipment for a court system.
6. It will provide for an annual fiscal audit of the project.
7. It will give the Institute, through any authorized
representative, access to and the right to examine all records,
books, papers, or documents related to the award.
8. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 10708(b) (as amended), research
or statistical information that is furnished during the course of
the project and that is identifiable to any specific individual,
shall not be used or revealed for any purpose other than the purpose
for which it was obtained. Such information and copies thereof shall
be immune from legal process, and shall not be offered as evidence
or used for any purpose in any action suit, or other judicial,
legislative, or administrative proceeding without the consent of the
person who furnished the information.
9. All research involving human subjects will 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 of harm to those subjects due to
their participation.
10. All products prepared as the result of the project will be
originally-developed material unless otherwise specifically provided
for in the award documents, and that material not originally
developed that is included in such projects must be properly
identified, whether the material is in a verbatim or extensive
paraphrase format.
11. No funds will be obligated for publication or reproduction
of a final product developed with Institute funds without the
written approval of the Institute. The recipient will submit a final
draft of each such product to the Institute for review and approval
prior to submitting that product for publication or reproduction.
12. The following statement will be prominently displayed on all
products prepared as a result of the project:
This [document, film, videotape, etc.] was developed under a
[grant, cooperative agreement, contract] from the State Justice
Institute. Points of review expressed herein are those of the
[author(s), filmmaker(s), etc.] and do not necessarily represent the
official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.
13. The ``SJI'' log will appear on the front cover of a written
product or in the opening frames of a video production produced with
SJI funds, unless another placement is approved in writing by the
Institute.
14. Except as otherwise provided in the terms and conditions of
an Institute award, the 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, non-exclusive and irrevocable right to
reproduce, publish, or other wise use, and to authorize others to
use, the materials for purposes consistent with the State Justice
Institute Act.
15. It will submit quarterly progress and financial reports
within 30 days of the close of each calendar quarter during the
funding period (that is, no later than January 30, April 30, July
30, and October 30); that progress reports will 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; and that financial
reports will contain the information requested on the financial
report form included in the award documents.
16. At the conclusion of the project, title to all expendable
and nonexpendable personal property purchased with Institute funds
shall vest in the 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
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.
17. The person signing the application is authorized to do so on
behalf of the applicant and to obligate the applicant to comply with
the assurances enumerated above.
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-M
[[Page 64235]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN14DE95.008
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-C
[[Page 64236]]
Instructions--Form A
1. (a)-(g) Legal Name of Applicant court, entity or individual;
Name of The Organizational Unit, if any, that will conduct the
project; Complete Address of applicant; Name and telephone number of
a Contact Person who can provide further information about this
application.
2. (a) State or Local Court includes all appellate, general
jurisdiction, limited jurisdiction, and special jurisdiction courts.
Agencies of State and local courts include all governmental offices
that are supervised by or report for administrative purposes to the
chief or presiding justice or judge, or his or her designee.
(b) National State Court Support Organization include national
non-profit organizations controlled by, operating in conjunction
with, and serving the State courts.
(c) National State Court Education/Training Organizations
include national non-profit organizations for the education and
training of judges and support personnel of the judicial branch of
State government.
(d) College or University includes all institutions of higher
education.
(e) Other Non-profit Organization or Agency includes those non-
profit organizations and private agencies with expertise in judicial
administration not included in sub-paragraphs (b)-(d).
(f) Individual means a person not applying in conjunction with
or on behalf of an entity identified in one of the other categories.
(g) Corporation or Partnership includes for-profit and not-for-
profit entities not falling within one of the other categories.
(h) Other Unit of Government includes any governmental agency,
office, or organization that is not a State or local court.
3. Employer Identification Number as assigned by the Internal
Revenue Service.
4. (a)-(f) Entity to Receive Funds is the court or organization
that will receive, administer, and account for any moneys awarded.
For example, if the applicant is a State or local court, the entity
to receive funds would be the State's Supreme Court or its
designated agency or council in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
10705(b)(4). If the applicant is a special university program, the
responsible entity may be the university's structure. Applicants
should complete this block only if the entity that will receive the
funds is different from the applicant.
5. (a)-(e) Circle the letter of the Type of activities that best
characterizes the project. If project funds will be substantially
divided among two or more activities, circle the letters for each of
those activities.
6. (a) New refers to the first award of State Justice Institute
funds for a particular project, whether or not the applicant has
received previous awards for different projects from the Institute.
(b) Supplement refers to the award of additional funds to permit
an existing project to complete the task originally proposes or to
augment the scope of the project within the current project period.
(c) Continuation refers to an extension for an additional
funding period.
(d) Ongoing Support refers to an SJI-funded project for which
there is a continuing important national need.
7. The Title of the Proposed Project shall reflect the
objectives of the activities to be conducted.
8. The Proposed Start Date of the project should be the earliest
feasible date on which the applicant will be able to begin project
activities following the date of award. An explanation should be
provided in the Program Narrative if the proposed start date is more
than 90 days after the estimated award date set forth in the
Application Review Procedures section of the current Grant
Guideline.
9. Project Duration refers to the number of months the applicant
estimates will be needed to complete all project tasks after the
proposed start date.
10. (a) Insert the Amount Requested from the State Justice
Institute to conduct the project.
(b) The Amount of Match is the amount, if any, to be contributed
to the project by the applicant, by a unit of State or local
governments, by a Federal agency, or by private sources. See 42
U.S.C. 10705(d).
Cash Match refers to funds directly contributed by the
applicant, a unit of State or local government, a Federal agency, or
private sources to support the project.
Non-cash Match refers to in-kind contributions by the applicant,
a unit of State or local government, or private sources to support
the project. The applicant should describe in detail, both the value
it assigns to in-kind contributions and the basis for determining
that value.
Total Match refers to the sum of the cash and in-kind
contributions to the project.
(c) Total Project Cost represents the sum of the amount
requested from the Institute and all match contributions to the
project.
11. If this application or an application requesting support for
the same project or an essentially similar project has been
Previously Submitted to another funding source (Federal or private),
the name of the source, the date of the previous submission, the
amount of funding sought, and the disposition (if any) should be
entered.
12. Enter the number of the applicant's Congressional District
and the name of the applicant's Representative and the number of the
Congressional district(s) in which most of the project activities
will take place and the name(s) of the Representatives from those
districts. If the project activities are not site-specific, for
example a series of training workshops that will bring together
participants from around the State, the country, or from a
particular region, enter Statewide, National, or Regional, as
appropriate, in the space provided.
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 shall be accountable for those
funds.
Instructions--Forms C and C1
Applicants may submit the proposed project budgets either in the
tabular format of Form C or in a spreadsheet format similar to Form
C1. Applicants requesting more than $100,000 are encouraged to use
the spreadsheet format. If the proposed project period is for more
than 12 months, separate totals should be submitted for each
succeeding twelve-month period or portion thereof beyond 12.
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 Guidelines section VII.D). If
the applicant is requesting indirect costs and has an indirect cost
rate that has been approved by a Federal agency, the basis for that
rate together with a copy of the letter or other official document
stating that it has been approved should be attached.
If funds from other sources have been requested 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.
COLUMN HEADINGS: For Budget Form C1 columns should be labeled
consecutively by tasks, e.g., TASK #1, TASK #2, etc. At the end of
each twelve month period or portion thereof beyond month 12 the
following four columns must be included: SJI FUNDS; MATCH; OTHER;
TOTAL. Entries in these columns should include the line-item totals
by source of funding per the column headings.
[FR Doc. 95-30363 Filed 12-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-M