[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 199 (Thursday, October 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55430-55469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-27234]



[[Page 55429]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





State Justice Institute





_______________________________________________________________________



Grant Guideline; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 1998 / 
Notices  

[[Page 55430]]



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 1999 State Justice 
Institute grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 15, 1998.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the State Justice Institute Act 
of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 10701, et seq., as amended, the Institute is 
authorized to award grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to 
State and local courts, nonprofit organizations, and others for the 
purpose of improving the quality of justice in the State courts of the 
United States.

Status of FY 1999 Appropriations

    The Senate has approved an FY 1999 appropriation of $14 million for 
the Institute. The House of Representatives has approved a $6.85 
million appropriation. The final amount will be determined by a 
Conference Committee. The scope of the grant program in this Guideline 
and the funding targets noted for specific programs may be adjusted 
depending on the final funding figure.

Types of Grants Available and Funding Schedules

    The SJI grant program is designed to be responsive to the most 
important needs of the State courts. To meet the full range of the 
courts' diverse needs, the Institute offers five different categories 
of grants. The types of grants available in FY 1999 and the funding 
cycles for each program are provided below:

Project Grants

    These grants are awarded to support innovative education, research, 
demonstration, and technical assistance projects that can improve the 
administration of justice in State courts nationwide. Except for 
``Single Jurisdiction'' project grants awarded under section II.C.1. 
(see below), project grants are intended to support innovative projects 
of national significance. As provided in section V. of the Guideline, 
project grants may ordinarily not exceed $200,000 a year; however, 
grants in excess of $150,000 are likely to be rare, and awarded only to 
support projects likely to have a significant national impact.
    Applicants must ordinarily submit a concept paper (see section VI.) 
and an application (see section VII.) in order to obtain a project 
grant. As indicated in Section VI.C., the Board may make an 
``accelerated'' grant of less than $40,000 on the basis of the concept 
paper alone when the need for the project is clear and little 
additional information about the operation of the project would be 
provided in an application.
    The FY 1999 mailing deadline for project grant concept papers is 
November 24, 1998. Papers must be postmarked or bear other evidence of 
submission by that date. The Board of Directors will meet in early 
March 1999 to invite formal applications based on the most promising 
concept papers. Applications will be due on May 12, 1999 and awards 
will be approved by the Board in July.

Single Jurisdiction Project Grants

    Section II.C.1. reserves up to $300,000 for Projects Addressing a 
Critical Need of a Single State or Local Jurisdiction. To receive a 
grant under this program, an applicant must demonstrate that (1) the 
proposed project is essential to meeting a critical need of the 
jurisdiction and (2) the need cannot be met solely with State and local 
resources within the foreseeable future. Applicants are encouraged to 
submit proposals to replicate approaches or programs that have been 
evaluated as effective under an SJI grant. Examples of projects that 
could be replicated are listed in Appendix IV.

Technical Assistance Grants

    Section II.C.2. reserves up to $400,000 for Technical Assistance 
Grants. Under this program, a State or local court may receive a grant 
of up to $30,000 to engage outside experts to provide technical 
assistance to diagnose, develop, and implement a response to a 
jurisdiction's problems.
    Letters of application for a Technical Assistance grant may be 
submitted at any time. Applicants submitting letters between October 1, 
1998 and January 15, 1999 will be notified by March 31, 1999; those 
submitting letters between January 16 and March 12, 1999 will be 
notified by May 28, 1999; those submitting letters between March 14 and 
June 11, 1999 will be notified by August 31, 1999; and those submitting 
letters between June 12 and September 30, 1999 will be notified of the 
Board's decision by December 17, 1999.

Curriculum Adaptation Grants

    A grant of up to $20,000 may be awarded to a State or local court 
to replicate or modify a model training program developed with SJI 
funds. The Guideline allocates up to $160,000 for these grants in FY 
1999. See section II.B.2.b.ii.
    Letters requesting Curriculum Adaptation grants may be submitted at 
any time during the fiscal year. However, in order to permit the 
Institute sufficient time to evaluate these proposals, letters must be 
submitted no later than 90 days before the projected date of the 
training program. See section II.B.2.b.ii.(c).

Scholarships

    The Guideline allocates up to $200,000 of FY 1999 funds for 
scholarships to enable judges and court managers to attend out-of-State 
education and training programs. See section II.B.2.b.iii.
    The Institute is making two significant changes in the scholarship 
program this year. The first is that scholarships for eligible 
applicants will be approved largely on a ``first come, first served'' 
basis, although the Institute may approve or disapprove scholarship 
requests in order to achieve appropriate balances on the basis of 
geography, program provider, and type of court or applicant (e.g., 
trial judge, appellate judge, trial court administrator). The second is 
that scholarships will be approved only for programs that either (1) 
address topics included in the Guideline's Special Interest categories 
(section II.B.); (2) enhance the skills of judges and court managers; 
or (3) are part of a graduate program for judges or court personnel.
    Applicants interested in obtaining a scholarship for a program 
beginning between January 1 and March 31, 1999 must submit their 
applications and any required accompanying documents by December 1, 
1998. For programs beginning between April 1 and June 30, 1999, the 
applications and documents must be submitted between January 8 and 
March 8, 1999. For programs beginning between July 1 and September 30, 
1999, the applications and documents must be submitted between April 1 
and June 1, 1999. For programs beginning between October 1 and December 
31, 1999, the applications and documents must be submitted between July 
1 and September 1, 1999. For programs beginning between January 1 and 
March 31, 2000, the applications and documents must be submitted 
between October 1 and December 1, 1999.

[[Page 55431]]

Renewal Grants

    There are two types of renewal grants available from SJI: 
Continuation grants (see sections III.G., V.C. and D., and IX.A.) and 
On-going support grants (see sections III.H., V.C. and D., and IX.B.). 
Continuation grants are intended to enhance the specific program or 
service begun during the initial grant period. On-going support grants 
may be awarded for up to a three-year period to support national-scope 
projects that provide the State courts with critically needed services, 
programs, or products.
    The Guideline establishes a target for renewal grants of 
approximately 25% of the total amount projected to be available for 
grants in FY 1999. See section IX. Grantees should accordingly be aware 
that the award of a grant to support a project does not constitute a 
commitment to provide either continuation funding or on-going support.
    An applicant for a continuation or on-going support grant must 
submit a letter notifying the Institute of its intent to seek such 
funding, no later than 120 days before the end of the current grant 
period. The Institute will then notify the applicant of the deadline 
for its renewal grant application. See section IX.

Special Interest Categories

    The Guideline includes 12 Special Interest categories, i.e., those 
project areas that the Board has identified as being of particular 
importance to the State courts this year. The selection of these 
categories was based on the Board and staff's experience and 
observations over the past year, the recommendations received from 
judges, court managers, lawyers, members of the public, and other 
groups interested in the administration of justice, and the issues 
identified in recent years' concept papers and applications.
    Section II.B. of the Guideline includes the following Special 
Interest categories:
    Improving Public Confidence in the Courts;
    Education and Training for Judges and Other Key Court Personnel 
(this category includes Curriculum Adaptation grants, Scholarships for 
Judges and Key Court Personnel, and National Conferences);
    Dispute Resolution and the Courts;
    Application of Technology;
    Court Management, Financing, and Planning;
    Managed Care and the Courts;
    Substance Abuse and the Courts;
    Children and Families in Court;
    Improving the Courts' Response to Domestic Violence;
    Improving Sentencing Practices;
    Improving Court Security; and
    The Relationship Between State and Federal Courts.

Conferences

    The Institute is soliciting proposals to conduct a National 
Conference on Evaluating the Impact of ``Future and the Courts'' 
Activities. See section II.B.2.b.iv.

Comments

    The Institute received a request from the Texas Municipal Courts 
Education Center recommending that scholarships be available to part-
time judges. In light of the limited funds available for scholarships, 
the Institute will continue to focus the program on the needs of full-
time judges. The National Association of Drug Court Professionals 
offered several suggestions about specific topics that could be 
highlighted in the ``Substance Abuse'' Special Interest category. 
Several of the issues are already within the scope of the category, 
others are more within the purview of other grant programs, and one 
(the conduct of a national symposium on juvenile drug courts) appears 
premature. Accordingly, no substantive changes were made in the Final 
Guideline. Several minor grammatical, typographical, and technical 
changes have been made.

Recommendations to Grant Writers

    Over the past 12 years, Institute staff have reviewed approximately 
3,600 concept papers and 1,700 applications. On the basis of those 
reviews, inquiries from applicants, and the views of the Board, the 
Institute offers the following recommendations to help potential 
applicants present workable, understandable proposals that can meet the 
funding criteria set forth in this Guideline.
    The Institute suggests that applicants make certain that they 
address the questions and issues set forth below when preparing a 
concept paper or application. Concept papers and applications should, 
however, be presented in the formats specified in sections VI. and VII. 
of the Guideline, respectively.

1. What is the subject or problem you wish to address?

    Describe the subject or problem and how it affects the courts and 
the public. Discuss how your approach will improve the situation or 
advance the state of the art or knowledge, and explain why it is the 
most appropriate approach to take. When statistics or research findings 
are cited to support a statement or position, the source of the 
citation should be referenced in a footnote or a reference list.

2. What do you want to do?

    Explain the goal(s) of the project in simple, straightforward 
terms. The goals should describe the intended consequences or expected 
overall effect of the proposed project (e.g., to enable judges to 
sentence drug-abusing offenders more effectively, or to dispose of 
civil cases within 24 months), rather than the tasks or activities to 
be conducted (e.g., hold three training sessions, or install a new 
computer system).
    To the greatest extent possible, an applicant should avoid a 
specialized vocabulary that is not readily understood by the general 
public. Technical jargon does not enhance a paper, nor does a clever 
but uninformative title.

3. How will you do it?

    Describe the methodology carefully so that what you propose to do 
and how you would do it are clear. All proposed tasks should be set 
forth so that a reviewer can see a logical progression of tasks, and 
relate those tasks directly to the accomplishment of the project's 
goal(s). When in doubt about whether to provide a more detailed 
explanation or to assume a particular level of knowledge or expertise 
on the part of the reviewers, provide the additional information. A 
description of project tasks also will help identify necessary budget 
items. All staff positions and project costs should relate directly to 
the tasks described. The Institute encourages applicants to attach 
letters of cooperation and support from the courts and related agencies 
that will be involved in or directly affected by the proposed project.

4. How will you know it works?

    Include an evaluation component that will determine whether the 
proposed training, procedure, service, or technology accomplished the 
objectives it was designed to meet. Concept papers and applications 
should present the criteria that will be used to evaluate the project's 
effectiveness; identify program elements which will require further 
modification; and describe how the evaluation will be conducted, when 
it will occur during the project period, who will conduct it, and what 
specific measures will be used. In most instances, the evaluation 
should be conducted by persons not connected with the implementation of 
the procedure, training, service, or technique, or the administration 
of the project.

[[Page 55432]]

    The Institute has also prepared a more thorough list of 
recommendations to grant writers regarding the development of project 
evaluation plans. Those recommendations are available from the 
Institute upon request.

5. How will others find out about it?

    Include a plan to disseminate the results of the training, 
research, or demonstration beyond the jurisdictions and individuals 
directly affected by the project. The plan should identify the specific 
methods which will be used to inform the field about the project, such 
as the publication of law review or journal articles, or the 
distribution of key materials. A statement that a report or research 
findings ``will be made available to'' the field is not sufficient. The 
specific means of distribution or dissemination as well as the types of 
recipients should be identified. Reproduction and dissemination costs 
are allowable budget items.

6. What are the specific costs involved?

    The budget in both concept papers and applications should be 
presented clearly. Major budget categories such as personnel, benefits, 
travel, supplies, equipment, and indirect costs should be identified 
separately. The components of ``Other'' or ``Miscellaneous'' items 
should be specified in the application budget narrative, and should not 
include set-asides for undefined contingencies.

7. What, if any, match is being offered?

    Courts and other units of State and local government (not including 
publicly-supported institutions of higher education) are required by 
the State Justice Institute Act to contribute a match (cash, non-cash, 
or both) of at least 50 percent of the grant funds requested from the 
Institute. All other applicants also are encouraged to provide a 
matching contribution to assist in meeting the costs of a project.
    The match requirement works as follows: If, for example, the total 
cost of a project is anticipated to be $150,000, a State or local court 
or executive branch agency may request up to $100,000 from the 
Institute to implement the project. The remaining $50,000 (50% of the 
$100,000 requested from SJI) must be provided as match.
    Cash match includes funds directly contributed to the project by 
the applicant, or by other public or private sources. It does not 
include income generated from tuition fees or the sale of project 
products. Non-cash match refers to in-kind contributions by the 
applicant, or other public or private sources. This includes, for 
example, the monetary value of time contributed by existing personnel 
or members of an advisory committee (but not the time spent by 
participants in an educational program attending program sessions). 
When match is offered, the nature of the match (cash or in-kind) should 
be explained and, at the application stage, the tasks and line items 
for which costs will be covered wholly or in part by match should be 
specified.

8. Which of the two budget forms should be used?

    Section VII.A.3. of the SJI Grant Guideline encourages use of the 
spreadsheet format of Form C1 if the application requests $100,000 or 
more. Form C1 also works well for projects with discrete tasks, 
regardless of the dollar value of the project. Form C, the tabular 
format, is preferred for projects lacking a number of discrete tasks, 
or for projects requiring less than $100,000 of Institute funding. 
Generally, use the form that best lends itself to representing most 
accurately the budget estimates for the project.

9. How much detail should be included in the budget narrative?

    The budget narrative of an application should provide the basis for 
computing all project-related costs, as indicated in section VII.D. of 
the SJI Grant Guideline. To avoid common shortcomings of application 
budget narratives, applicants should include the following information:

    Personnel estimates that accurately provide the amount of time 
to be spent by personnel involved with the project and the total 
associated costs, including current salaries for the designated 
personnel (e.g., Project Director, 50% for one year, annual salary 
of $50,000 = $25,000). If salary costs are computed using an hourly 
or daily rate, the annual salary and number of hours or days in a 
work-year should be shown.
    Estimates for supplies and expenses supported by a complete 
description of the supplies to be used, the nature and extent of 
printing to be done, anticipated telephone charges, and other common 
expenditures, with the basis for computing the estimates included 
(e.g., 100 reports  x  75 pages each  x  .05/page = $375.00). Supply 
and expense estimates offered simply as ``based on experience'' are 
not sufficient.

    In order to expedite Institute review of the budget, make a final 
comparison of the amounts listed in the budget narrative with those 
listed on the budget form. In the rush to complete all parts of the 
application on time, there may be many last-minute changes; 
unfortunately, when there are discrepancies between the budget 
narrative and the budget form or the amount listed on the application 
cover sheet, it is not possible for the Institute to verify the amount 
of the request. A final check of the numbers on the form against those 
in the narrative will preclude such confusion.

10. What travel regulations apply to the budget estimates?

    Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the 
policies of the applicant organization, and a copy of the applicant's 
travel policy should be submitted as an appendix to the application. If 
the applicant does not have a travel policy established in writing, 
then travel rates must be consistent with those established by the 
Institute or the Federal Government (a copy of the Institute's travel 
policy is available upon request). The budget narrative should state 
which regulations are in force for the project.
    The budget narrative also should include the estimated fare, the 
number of persons traveling, the number of trips to be taken, and the 
length of stay. The estimated costs of travel, lodging, ground 
transportation, and other subsistence should be listed and explained 
separately. It is preferable for the budget to be based on the actual 
costs of traveling to and from the project or meeting sites. If the 
points of origin or destination are not known at the time the budget is 
prepared, an average airfare may be used to estimate the travel costs. 
For example, if it is anticipated that a project advisory committee 
will include members from around the country, a reasonable airfare from 
a central point to the meeting site, or the average of airfares from 
each coast to the meeting site may be used. Applicants should arrange 
travel so as to be able to take advantage of advance-purchase price 
discounts whenever possible.

11. May grant funds be used to purchase equipment?

    Generally, grant funds may be used to purchase only the equipment 
that is necessary to demonstrate a new technological application in a 
court, or that is otherwise essential to accomplishing the objectives 
of the project. The budget narrative must list the equipment to be 
purchased and explain why the equipment is necessary to the success of 
the project. Written prior approval is required when the amount of 
computer hardware to be purchased or leased exceeds $10,000, or the 
software to be purchased exceeds $3000.

[[Page 55433]]

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 indirect cost rate has been approved by a 
Federal agency within the last two years, an indirect cost recovery 
estimate may be included in the budget. 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 and cannot 
budget directly for all costs, 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.)

13. What meeting costs may be covered with grant funds?

    SJI grant funds may cover the reasonable cost of meeting rooms, 
necessary audio-visual equipment, meeting supplies, and working meals.

14. Does the budget truly reflect all costs required to complete the 
project?

    After preparing the program narrative portion of the application, 
applicants may find it helpful to list all the major tasks or 
activities required by the proposed project, including the preparation 
of products, and note the individual expenses, including personnel 
time, related to each. This will help to ensure that, for all tasks 
described in the application (e.g., development of a videotape, 
research site visits, distribution of a final report), the related 
costs appear in the budget and are explained correctly in the budget 
narrative.

Recommendations To Grantees

    The Institute's staff works with grantees to help assure the smooth 
operation of the project and compliance with the Guideline. On the 
basis of monitoring more than 1,600 grants, the Institute staff offers 
the following suggestions to aid grantees in meeting the administrative 
and substantive requirements of their grants. 

1. After the grant has been awarded, when are the first quarterly 
reports due?

    Quarterly Progress Reports and Financial Status Reports must be 
submitted within 30 days after the end of every calendar quarter--i.e. 
no later than January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30--regardless 
of the project's start date. The reporting periods covered by each 
quarterly report end 30 days before the respective deadline for the 
report. When an award period begins December 1, for example, the first 
Quarterly Progress Report describing project activities between 
December 1 and December 31 will be due on January 30. A Financial 
Status Report should be submitted even if funds have not been obligated 
or expended.
    By documenting what has happened over the past three months, 
Quarterly Progress Reports provide an opportunity for project staff and 
Institute staff to resolve any questions before they become problems, 
and make any necessary changes in the project time schedule, budget 
allocations, etc. The Quarterly Project Report should describe project 
activities, their relationship to the approved timeline, and any 
problems encountered and how they were resolved, and outline the tasks 
scheduled for the coming quarter. It is helpful to attach copies of 
relevant memos, draft products, or other requested information. An 
original and one copy of a Quarterly Progress Report and attachments 
should be submitted to the Institute.
    Additional Quarterly Progress Report or Financial Status Report 
forms may be obtained from the grantee's Program Manager at SJI, or 
photocopies may be made from the supply received with the award.

2. Do reporting requirements differ for renewal grants?

    Recipients of a continuation or on-going support grant are required 
to submit quarterly progress and financial status reports on the same 
schedule and with the same information as recipients of a grant for a 
single new project.
    A continuation grant and each yearly grant under an on-going 
support award should be considered as a separate phase of the project. 
The reports should be numbered on a grant rather than project basis. 
Thus, the first quarterly report filed under a continuation grant or a 
yearly increment of an on-going support award should be designated as 
number one, the second as number two, and so on, through the final 
progress and financial status reports due within 90 days after the end 
of the grant period.

3. What information about project activities should be communicated to 
SJI?

    In general, grantees should provide prior notice of critical 
project events such as advisory board meetings or training sessions so 
that the Institute Program Manager can attend if possible. If 
methodological, schedule, staff, budget allocations, or other 
significant changes become necessary, the grantee should contact the 
Program Manager prior to implementing any of these changes, so that 
possible questions may be addressed in advance. Questions concerning 
the financial requirements section of the Guideline, quarterly 
financial reporting, or payment requests, should be addressed to the 
Grants Financial Manager listed in the award letter.
    It is helpful to include the grant number assigned to the award on 
all correspondence to the Institute.

4. Why is it important to address the special conditions that are 
attached to the award document?

    In some instances, a list of special conditions is attached to the 
award document. Special conditions may be imposed to establish a 
schedule for reporting certain key information, to assure that the 
Institute has an opportunity to offer suggestions at critical stages of 
the project, and to provide reminders of some, but not all of the 
requirements contained in the Grant Guideline. Accordingly, it is 
important for grantees to check the special conditions carefully and 
discuss with their Program Manager any questions or problems they may 
have with the conditions. Most concerns about timing, response time, 
and the level of detail required can be resolved in advance through a 
telephone conversation. The Institute's primary concern is to work with 
grantees to assure that their projects accomplish their objectives, not 
to enforce rigid bureaucratic requirements. However, if a grantee fails 
to comply with a special condition or with other grant requirements, 
the Institute may, after proper notice, suspend payment of grant funds 
or terminate the grant.
    Sections X., XI., and XII. of the Grant Guideline contain the 
Institute's administrative and financial requirements. Institute 
Finance Division staff are always available to answer questions and 
provide assistance regarding these provisions.

5. What is a Grant Adjustment?

    A Grant Adjustment is the Institute's form for acknowledging the 
satisfaction of special conditions, or approving changes in grant 
activities, schedule, staffing, sites, or budget allocations requested 
by the project director. It also may be used to correct errors in grant 
documents or deobligate funds from the grant.

6. What schedule should be followed in submitting requests for 
reimbursements or advance payments?

    Requests for reimbursements or advance payments may be made at any

[[Page 55434]]

time after the project start date and before the end of the 90-day 
close-out period. However, the Institute follows the U.S. Treasury's 
policy limiting advances to the minimum amount required to meet 
immediate cash needs. Given normal processing time, grantees should not 
seek to draw down funds for periods greater than 30 days from the date 
of the request.

7. Do procedures for submitting requests for reimbursement or advance 
payment differ for renewal grants?

    The basic procedures are the same for any grant. A continuation 
grant or the yearly grant under an on-going support award should be 
considered as a separate phase of the project. Payment requests should 
be numbered on a grant rather than a project basis. The first request 
for funds from a continuation grant or a yearly increment under an on-
going support award should be designated as number one, the second as 
number two, and so on through the final payment request for that grant.

8. If things change during the grant period, can funds be reallocated 
from one budget category to another?

    The Institute recognizes that some flexibility is required in 
implementing a project design and budget. Thus, grantees may shift 
funds among direct cost budget categories. When any one reallocation or 
the cumulative total of reallocations are expected to exceed five 
percent of the approved project budget, a grantee must specify the 
proposed changes, explain the reasons for the changes, and request 
Institute approval.
    The same standard applies to renewal grants. In addition, prior 
written Institute approval is required to shift leftover funds from the 
original award to cover activities to be conducted under the renewal 
award, or to use renewal grant monies to cover costs incurred during 
the original grant period.

9. What is the 90-day close-out period?

    Following the last day of the grant, a 90-day period is provided to 
allow for all grant-related bills to be received and posted, and grant 
funds drawn down to cover these expenses. No obligations of grant funds 
may be incurred during this period. The last day on which an 
expenditure of grant funds can be obligated is the end date of the 
grant period. Similarly, the 90-day period is not intended as an 
opportunity to finish and disseminate grant products. This should occur 
before the end of the grant period.
    During the 90 days following the end of the award period, all 
monies that have been obligated should be expended. All payment 
requests must be received by the end of the 90-day ``close-out-
period.'' Any unexpended monies held by the grantee that remain after 
the 90-day follow-up period must be returned to the Institute. Any 
funds remaining in the grant that have not been drawn down by the 
grantee will be deobligated.

10. Are funds granted by SJI ``Federal'' funds?

    The State Justice Institute Act provides that, except for purposes 
unrelated to this question, ``the Institute shall not be considered a 
department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government.'' 42 
U.S.C. 10704(c)(1). Because SJI receives appropriations from Congress, 
some grantee auditors have reported SJI grants funds as ``Other Federal 
Assistance.'' This classification is acceptable to SJI but is not 
required.

11. If SJI is not a Federal Agency, do OMB circulars apply with respect 
to audits?

    Except to the extent that they are inconsistent with the express 
provisions of the SJI Grant Guideline, 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. Sec. 10711(c)(1)], the Grant Guideline sets 
forth options for grantees to comply with this statutory requirement. 
(See Section XI.J.)
    SJI will accept audits conducted in accordance with the Single 
Audit Act of 1984 and OMB Circulars A-128, or A-133, in satisfaction of 
the annual fiscal audit requirement. Grantees that are required to 
undertake these audits in conjunction with Federal grants may include 
SJI funds as part of the audit even if the receipt of SJI funds would 
not require such audits. This approach gives grantees an option to fold 
SJI funds into the governmental audit rather than to undertake a 
separate audit to satisfy SJI's Guideline requirements.
    In sum, educational and nonprofit organizations that receive 
payments from the Institute that are sufficient to meet the 
applicability thresholds of OMB Circular A-133 must have their annual 
audit conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued 
by the Comptroller General of the United States rather than with 
generally accepted auditing standards. Grantees in this category that 
receive amounts below the minimum threshold referenced in Circular A-
133 must also submit an annual audit to SJI, but they would have the 
option to conduct an audit of the entire grantee organization in 
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; include SJI 
funds in an audit of Federal funds conducted in accordance with the 
Single Audit Act of 1984 and OMB Circulars A-128 or A-133; or conduct 
an audit of only the SJI funds in accordance with generally accepted 
auditing standards. (See Guideline Section XI.J.) A copy of the above-
noted circulars may be obtained by calling OMB at (202) 395-7250.

12. Does SJI have a CFDA number?

    Auditors often request that a grantee provide the Institute's 
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for guidance in 
conducting an audit in accordance with Government Accounting Standards.
    Because SJI is not a Federal agency, it has not been issued such a 
number, and there are no additional compliance tests to satisfy under 
the Institute's audit requirements beyond those of a standard 
governmental audit.
    Moreover, because SJI is not a Federal agency, SJI funds should not 
be aggregated with Federal funds to determine if the applicability 
threshold of Circular A-133 has been reached. For example, if in fiscal 
year 1997 grantee ``X'' received $10,000 in Federal funds from a 
Department of Justice (DOJ) grant program and $20,000 in grant funds 
from SJI, the minimum A-133 threshold would not be met. The same 
distinction would preclude an auditor from considering the additional 
SJI funds in determining what Federal requirements apply to the DOJ 
funds.
    Grantees who are required to satisfy either the Single Audit Act, 
OMB Circulars A-128, or A-133 and who include SJI grant funds in those 
audits, need to remember that because of its status as a private non-
profit corporation, SJI is not on routing lists of cognizant Federal 
agencies. Therefore, the grantee needs to submit a copy of the audit 
report prepared for such a cognizant Federal agency directly to SJI. 
The Institute's audit requirements may be found in Section XI.J. of the 
Grant Guideline.
    The following Grant Guideline is adopted by the State Justice 
Institute for FY 1999:

State Justice Institute Grant Guideline

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Scope of the Program
III. Definitions
IV. Eligibility for Award

[[Page 55435]]

V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of Awards
VI. Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects
VII. Application Requirements for New Projects
VIII. Application Review Procedures
IX. Renewal Funding Procedures and Requirements
X. Compliance Requirements
XI. Financial Requirements
XII. Grant Adjustments
Appendix I--List of State Contacts Regarding Administration of 
Institute Grants to State and Local Courts
Appendix II--SJI Libraries: Designated Sites and Contacts
Appendix III--Illustrative List of Model Curricula
Appendix IV--Illustrative List of Replicable Projects
Appendix V--State Justice Institute Scholarship Application Forms 
(Forms S1 and S2)
Appendix VI--Line-Item Budget Form (Form E)
Appendix VII--Certificate of State Approval Form (Form B)

I. Background

    The Institute was established by Pub. L. 98-620 to improve the 
administration of justice in the State courts in the United States. 
Incorporated in the State of Virginia as a private, nonprofit 
corporation, the Institute is charged, by statute, with the 
responsibility to:
    A. Direct a national program of financial assistance designed to 
assure that each citizen of the United States is provided ready access 
to a fair and effective system of justice;
    B. Foster coordination and cooperation with the Federal judiciary;
    C. Promote recognition of the importance of the separation of 
powers doctrine to an independent judiciary; and
    D. Encourage education for judges and support personnel of State 
court systems through national and State organizations, including 
universities.
    To accomplish these broad objectives, the Institute is authorized 
to provide funds to State courts, national organizations which support 
and are supported by State courts, national judicial education 
organizations, and other organizations that can assist in improving the 
quality of justice in the State courts.
    The Institute is supervised by an 11-member Board of Directors 
appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate. The 
Board is statutorily composed of six judges, a State court 
administrator, and four members of the public, no more than two of whom 
can be of the same political party.
    Through the award of grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements, 
the Institute is authorized to perform the following activities:
    A. Support research, demonstrations, special projects, technical 
assistance, and training to improve the administration of justice in 
the State courts;
    B. Provide for the preparation, publication, and dissemination of 
information regarding State judicial systems;
    C. Participate in joint projects with Federal agencies and other 
private grantors;
    D. Evaluate or provide for the evaluation of programs and projects 
funded by the Institute to determine their impact upon the quality of 
criminal, civil, and juvenile justice and the extent to which they have 
contributed to improving the quality of justice in the State courts;
    E. Encourage and assist in furthering judicial education;
    F. Encourage, assist, and serve in a consulting capacity to State 
and local justice system agencies in the development, maintenance, and 
coordination of criminal, civil, and juvenile justice programs and 
services; and
    G. Be responsible for the certification of national programs that 
are intended to aid and improve State judicial systems.

II. Scope of the Program

    During FY 1999, the Institute will consider applications for 
funding support that address any of the areas specified in its enabling 
legislation. The Board, however, has designated 12 program categories 
as being of ``special interest.'' See section II.B.

A. Authorized Program Areas

    The Institute is authorized to fund projects addressing one or more 
of the following program areas listed in the State Justice Institute 
Act, the Battered Women's Testimony Act, the Judicial Training and 
Research for Child Custody Litigation Act, and the International 
Parental Kidnapping Crime Act.
    1. Assistance to State and local court systems in establishing 
appropriate procedures for the selection and removal of judges and 
other court personnel and in determining appropriate levels of 
compensation;
    2. Education and training programs for judges and other court 
personnel for the performance of their general duties and for 
specialized functions, and national and regional conferences and 
seminars for the dissemination of information on new developments and 
innovative techniques;
    3. Research on alternative means for using judicial and nonjudicial 
personnel in court decisionmaking activities, implementation of 
demonstration programs to test such innovative approaches, and 
evaluations of their effectiveness;
    4. Studies of the appropriateness and efficacy of court 
organizations and financing structures in particular States, and 
support to States to implement plans for improved court organization 
and financing;
    5. Support for State court planning and budgeting staffs and the 
provision of technical assistance in resource allocation and service 
forecasting techniques;
    6. Studies of the adequacy of court management systems in State and 
local courts, and implementation and evaluation of innovative responses 
to records management, data processing, court personnel management, 
reporting and transcription of court proceedings, and juror utilization 
and management;
    7. Collection and compilation of statistical data and other 
information on the work of the courts and on the work of other agencies 
which relates to and affects the work of courts;
    8. Studies of the causes of trial and appellate court delay in 
resolving cases, and establishing and evaluating experimental programs 
for reducing case processing time;
    9. Development and testing of methods for measuring the performance 
of judges and courts, and experiments in the use of such measures to 
improve the functioning of judges and the courts;
    10. Studies of court rules and procedures, discovery devices, and 
evidentiary standards to identify problems with the operation of such 
rules, procedures, devices, and standards, and the development of 
alternative approaches to better reconcile the requirements of due 
process with the need for swift and certain justice, and testing of the 
utility of those alternative approaches;
    11. Studies of the outcomes of cases in selected areas to identify 
instances in which the substance of justice meted out by the courts 
diverges from public expectations of fairness, consistency, or equity, 
and the development, testing, and evaluation of alternative approaches 
to resolving cases in such problem areas;
    12. Support for programs to increase court responsiveness to the 
needs of citizens through citizen education, improvement of court 
treatment of witnesses, victims, and jurors, and development of 
procedures for obtaining and using measures of public

[[Page 55436]]

satisfaction with court processes to improve court performance;
    13. Testing and evaluating experimental approaches to provide 
increased citizen access to justice, including processes which reduce 
the cost of litigating common grievances, and alternative techniques 
and mechanisms for resolving disputes between citizens;
    14. Collection and analysis of information regarding the 
admissibility and quality of expert testimony on the experiences of 
battered women offered as part of the defense in criminal cases under 
State law, as well as sources of and methods to obtain funds to pay 
costs incurred to provide such testimony, particularly in cases 
involving indigent women defendants;
    15. Development of training materials to assist battered women, 
operators of domestic violence shelters, battered women's advocates, 
and attorneys to use expert testimony on the experiences of battered 
women in appropriate cases, and individuals with expertise in the 
experiences of battered women to develop skills appropriate to 
providing such testimony;
    16. Research regarding State judicial decisions relating to child 
custody litigation involving domestic violence;
    17. Development of training curricula to assist State courts to 
develop an understanding of, and appropriate responses to child custody 
litigation involving domestic violence;
    18. Dissemination of information and training materials and 
provision of technical assistance regarding the issues listed in 
paragraphs 14-17 above;
    19. Development of national, regional, and in-State training and 
educational programs dealing with criminal and civil aspects of 
interstate and international parental child abduction;
    20. Other programs, consistent with the purposes of the State 
Justice Institute Act, as may be deemed appropriate by the Institute, 
including projects dealing with the relationship between Federal and 
State court systems such as where there is concurrent State-Federal 
jurisdiction and where Federal courts, directly or indirectly, review 
State court proceedings.
    Funds will not be made available for the ordinary, routine 
operation of court systems or programs in any of these areas.

B. Special Interest Program Categories

1. General Description.
    The Institute is interested in funding both innovative programs and 
programs of proven merit that can be replicated in other jurisdictions. 
Although applications in any of the statutory program areas are 
eligible for funding in FY 1999, the Institute is especially interested 
in funding those projects that:
    a. Formulate new procedures and techniques, or creatively enhance 
existing arrangements to improve the courts;
    b. Address aspects of the State judicial systems that are in 
special need of serious attention;
    c. Have national significance by developing products, services, and 
techniques that may be used in other States; and
    d. Create and disseminate products that effectively transfer the 
information and ideas developed to relevant audiences in State and 
local judicial systems, or provide technical assistance to facilitate 
the adaptation of effective programs and procedures in other State and 
local jurisdictions.
    A project will be identified as a ``Special Interest'' project if 
it meets the four criteria set forth above and (1) it falls within the 
scope of the ``special interest'' program areas designated below, or 
(2) information coming to the attention of the Institute from the State 
courts, their affiliated organizations, the research literature, or 
other sources demonstrates that the project responds to another special 
need or interest of the State courts.
    Concept papers and applications which address a ``Special 
Interest'' category will be accorded a preference in the rating 
process. (See the selection criteria listed in sections VI.B., 
``Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects,'' and 
VIII.B., ``Application Review Procedures.'')
2. Specific Categories
    The Board has designated the areas set forth below as ``Special 
Interest'' program categories. The order of listing does not imply any 
ordering of priorities among the categories.
    a. Improving Public Confidence in the Courts. This category 
includes demonstration, evaluation, research, and education projects 
designed to improve the responsiveness of courts to public concerns 
regarding the fairness, equity, accessibility, timeliness, and 
comprehensibility of the court process, and test innovative methods for 
increasing the public's confidence in the State courts.
    The Institute is particularly interested in supporting innovative 
projects that examine, develop, and test methods that trial or 
appellate courts may use to:
     Achieve more effectively the educational function of the 
court by clearly communicating information to litigants and the public 
about judicial decisions, the trial and appellate court process, and 
court operations;
     Eliminate race, ethnic, and gender bias in the courts 
through innovative programs, procedures, materials, and court-community 
collaborations to help make courts more accessible, understandable, and 
inclusive for all segments of the communities they serve;
     Assure that judges and court employees meet the highest 
ethical standards and that judicial disciplinary procedures are known, 
fair, and effective;
     Address court-community problems resulting from the influx 
of legal and illegal immigrants, including projects to inform judges 
about the effects of recent Federal and State legislation regarding 
immigrants; design and assess procedures for use in custody, 
visitation, and other domestic relations cases when key family members 
or property are outside the United States; and develop protocols to 
facilitate service of process, the enforcement of orders of judgment, 
and the disposition of criminal and juvenile cases when a non-U.S. 
citizen or corporation is involved;
     Demonstrate and evaluate approaches courts can use to 
implement the concept of restorative justice, including methods for 
involving the community in the sentencing process;
     Test the impact of methods for improving juror 
comprehension in criminal and civil cases, including preparation and 
use of jury instructions in as ``plain English'' as possible, and 
providing access to videotaped instructions and testimony, 
electronically-based evidence, and other aids to comprehension in the 
jury room.
    In addition, the Institute is interested in supporting projects to 
complement or enhance the National Conference on Unrepresented 
Litigants in Court, scheduled to be held in late 1999. and anticipates 
supporting projects to implement the action plans and findings 
developed at that Conference in fiscal year 2000. However, applicants 
are advised that Institute funds may not be used to directly or 
indirectly support legal representation of individuals in specific 
cases.
    Previous SJI-supported projects that address these issues include: 
Enhancing Court-Community Relationships: A National Town Hall Meeting 
Videoconference and projects to implement the action plans developed at 
the conference; national and State conferences on Enhancing Public 
Trust and Confidence in the Courts; educational materials for court 
employees on serving the public;

[[Page 55437]]

surveys and focus groups to identify concerns about the courts and 
assess how courts are serving the needs of the public; a videotape on 
the role and operation of a State supreme court; a demonstration of the 
use of reparative community sentencing boards and community volunteers 
to monitor adult probationers and to monitor guardianships; evaluation 
of community-based court programs in New York City; and guidelines for 
court-annexed day-care systems;
    Serving Unrepresented Litigants: A national conference on 
unrepresented litigants in courts; a guidebook on the extent of self-
representation and the problems being encountered, and the procedures, 
and programs being used by courts to assist pro se litigants; 
educational materials and a benchbook to assist courts in responding to 
individuals and groups unwilling to comply with legal and 
administrative procedures; developing and evaluating various means by 
which courts can assist unrepresented litigants including local and 
Statewide self-service centers, touchscreen computer kiosks, 
videotapes, plain-English forms and other written materials; assessing 
effective and efficient methods for providing legal representation to 
indigent parties in criminal and family cases; and examining the 
methods courts in rural communities can use to assure access and 
fairness for immigrants;
    Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts: Presenting a 
National Conference on Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts 
and supporting projects to implement the action plans developed at the 
conference; examining the applicability of various dispute resolution 
procedures to different cultural groups; and developing educational 
programs and materials for judges and court staff on diversity and 
related issues;
    Facilitating the Use of Qualified Court Interpreters: Preparing a 
manual and other materials for managing and coordinating court 
interpretation services; developing basic and graduate level curricula 
and other materials for training and assisting court interpreters; and 
assessing the feasibility and effectiveness of interpreting in court 
via the telephone;
    Improving Jury Service and Jury System Management: Developing a 
manual for implementing innovations in jury selection, use, and 
management; preparing a guide for making juries accessible to persons 
with disabilities; documenting methods for reducing juror stress; and 
assessing the effect of allowing jurors to discuss the evidence prior 
to the deliberations on the verdict.
    b. Education and Training for Judges and Other Key Court Personnel. 
The Institute is interested in supporting an array of projects that 
will continue to strengthen and broaden the availability of court 
education programs at the State, regional, and national levels. This 
category is divided into four subsections: (i) Innovative Educational 
Programs; (ii) Curriculum Adaptation Projects; (iii) Scholarships; and 
(iv) National Conferences.
    i. Innovative Educational Programs. This category includes support 
for the development and pilot-testing of innovative, high-quality 
educational programs for judges or court personnel that address key 
substantive and administrative issues of concern to the nation's 
courts, or help local courts or State court systems develop or enhance 
their capacity to deliver quality continuing education. Programs may be 
designed for presentation at the local, State, regional, or national 
level. Ordinarily, court education programs should be based on some 
form of assessment of the needs of the target audience; include clearly 
stated learning objectives that delineate the new knowledge or skills 
that participants will acquire (as opposed to a description of what 
will be taught); incorporate adult education principles and multiple 
teaching/learning methods; and result in the development of a 
disseminable curriculum as defined in section III.J.
    (a) The Institute is particularly interested in the development of 
education programs that:
     Include innovative self-directed learning packages for use 
by judges and court personnel, and distance-learning approaches to 
assist those who do not have ready access to classroom-centered 
programs. These packages and approaches should include the appropriate 
use of various media and technologies such as Internet-based 
programming, interactive CD-ROM or floppy disk-based programs, videos, 
or other audio and visual media, supported by written materials or 
manuals. They also should include a meaningful program evaluation and a 
self-evaluation process that assesses pre-and post-program knowledge 
and skills;
     Familiarize faculty with the effective use of 
instructional technology including methods for effectively presenting 
information through distance learning approaches including the 
Internet, videos, and satellite teleconferences;
     Assist local courts, State court systems, and court 
systems in a geographic region to develop or enhance a comprehensive 
program of continuing education, training, and career development for 
judges and court personnel as an integral part of court operations;
     Test the effectiveness of including a variety of 
experiential instructional approaches in judicial branch education 
programs such as field studies and interchanges with community 
programs, organizations, and institutions; and
     Encourage intergovernmental teambuilding, collaboration, 
and planning among the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of 
government, or courts within a metropolitan area or multi-State region
    (b) The Institute also is interested in supporting the development 
and testing of curricula on issues of critical importance to the 
courts, including those listed in the other Special Interest categories 
described in this Chapter.
    ii. Curriculum Adaptation Projects. (a) Description of the Program. 
The Board is reserving up to $160,000 to provide support for projects 
that adapt a model curriculum developed with SJI support and to pilot 
test it to determine its appropriateness, quality, and effectiveness 
for inclusion in the jurisdiction's judicial branch education program. 
An illustrative list of the curricula that may be appropriate for 
adaptation is contained in Appendix III.
    The goal of the Curriculum Adaptation program is to provide State 
and local courts with sufficient support to modify a model curriculum, 
course module, or national or regional conference program developed 
with SJI funds so as to meet a State's or local jurisdiction's 
educational needs, to pilot-test it to determine its appropriateness, 
quality, and effectiveness, and train future instructors to enable them 
to make future presentations of the curriculum. It is anticipated that 
the adapted curriculum will become part of the grantee's ongoing 
educational offerings.
    Only State or local courts may apply for Curriculum Adaptation 
funding. Grants to support adaptation of educational programs 
previously developed with SJI funds are limited to no more than $20,000 
each. As with other awards to State or local courts, cash or in-kind 
match must be provided in an amount equal to at least 50% of the grant 
amount requested.
    (b) Review Criteria and Procedures. Curriculum Adaptation grants 
will be awarded on the basis of criteria including: the goals and 
objectives of the proposed project; the need for outside funding to 
support the program; the appropriateness of the educational approach in 
achieving the project's

[[Page 55438]]

educational objectives; the likelihood of effective implementation and 
integration into the State's or local jurisdiction's ongoing 
educational programming; and expressions of interest by the judges and/
or court personnel who would be directly involved in or affected by the 
project. In making curriculum adaptation awards, the Institute will 
also consider factors such as the reasonableness of the amount 
requested, compliance with match requirements, diversity of subject 
matter, geographic diversity, the level of appropriations available in 
the current year, and the amount expected to be available in succeeding 
fiscal years.
    The Board anticipates acting upon applications within 45 days after 
receipt. Grant funds will be available only after Board approval, and 
negotiation of the final terms of the grant.
    (c) Application Procedures. In lieu of concept papers and formal 
applications, applicants should submit a detailed letter and three 
photocopies. Although there is no prescribed form for the letter, or a 
minimum or maximum page limit, letters of application should include 
the following information to assure that each of the review criteria 
listed above is addressed:
     Project Description. What is the title of the model 
curriculum to be adapted and who developed it? What are the project's 
goals? Why is this education program needed at the present time? What 
program components would be implemented, and what types of 
modifications, if any, are anticipated in length, format, learning 
objectives, teaching methods, or content? Who would be responsible for 
adapting the model curriculum? Who would the participants be, how many 
would there be, how will they be recruited, and from where would they 
come (e.g., from across the State, from a single local jurisdiction, 
from a multi-State region)?
     Need for Funding. Why are sufficient State or local 
resources unavailable to fully support the modification and 
presentation of the model curriculum? What is the potential for 
replicating or integrating the program in the future using State or 
local funds, once it has been successfully adapted and tested?
     Likelihood of Implementation. What is the proposed 
timeline for modifying and presenting the program? Who would serve as 
faculty and how were they selected? What measures would be taken to 
facilitate subsequent presentations of the adapted program? 
(Ordinarily, an independent evaluation of a curriculum adaptation 
project is not required; however, the results of any evaluation should 
be included in the final report.)
     Expressions of Interest By Judges and/or Court Personnel. 
Does the proposed program have the support of the court system 
leadership, and of judges, court managers, and judicial education 
personnel who are expected to attend? (This may be demonstrated by 
attaching letters of support.)
     Budget and Matching State Contribution. Applicants should 
attach a copy of budget Form E (see Appendix V) and a budget narrative 
(see Section VII.B.) that describes the basis for the computation of 
all project-related costs and the source of the match offered.
     Chief Justice's Concurrence. Local courts should attach a 
concurrence form signed by the Chief Justice of the State or his or her 
designee. (See Form B, Appendix VI.)
    Letters of application may be submitted at any time. However, 
applicants should allow at least 90 days between the date of submission 
and the date of the proposed program to allow sufficient time for 
needed planning.
    (d) Grantee Responsibilities. A recipient of a Curriculum 
Adaptation grant must:
    (1) Comply with the same quarterly reporting requirements as other 
Institute grantees (see Section X.L.);
    (2) Include in each grant product a prominent acknowledgment that 
support was received from the Institute, along with the ``SJI'' logo 
and a disclaimer paragraph (See section X.Q.); and
    (3) Submit one copy of the manuals, handbooks, or conference 
packets developed under the grant at the conclusion of the grant 
period, along with a final report that includes any evaluation results 
and explains how the grantee intends to present the program in the 
future.
    iii. Scholarships for Judges and Court Personnel. The Institute is 
reserving up to $200,000 to support a scholarship program for State 
court judges and court managers.
    (a) Program Description/Scholarship Amounts. The purposes of the 
Institute scholarship program are to: enhance the skills, knowledge, 
and abilities of judges and court managers; enable State court judges 
and court managers to attend out-of-State educational programs 
sponsored by national and State providers that they could not otherwise 
attend because of limited State, local and personal budgets; and 
provide States, judicial educators, and the Institute with evaluative 
information on a range of judicial and court-related education 
programs.
    Scholarships will be granted to individuals only for the purpose of 
attending an out-of-State educational program within the United States.
    A scholarship may cover the cost of tuition and transportation up 
to a maximum total of $1,500 per scholarship. (Transportation expenses 
include round-trip coach airfare or train fare. Recipients who drive to 
the site of the program may receive $.31/mile up to the amount of the 
advanced purchase round-trip airfare between their home and the program 
site.) Funds to pay tuition and transportation expenses in excess of 
$1,500, and other costs of attending the program such as lodging, 
meals, materials, transportation to and from airports, and local 
transportation (including rental cars) at the site of the education 
program, must be obtained from other sources or be borne by the 
scholarship recipient.
    Scholarship applicants are encouraged to check other sources of 
financial assistance and to combine aid from various sources whenever 
possible. In addition, scholarship recipients are encouraged to check 
with their tax advisor to determine whether the scholarship constitutes 
taxable income under Federal and State law.
    (b) Eligibility Requirements. Because of the limited amount of 
funds available:
    (1) Recipients. Scholarships can be awarded only to full-time 
judges of State or local trial and appellate courts; full-time 
professional, State or local court personnel with management 
responsibilities; and supervisory and management probation personnel in 
judicial branch probation offices. Senior judges, part-time judges, 
quasi-judicial hearing officers including referees and commissioners, 
State administrative law judges, staff attorneys, law clerks, line 
staff, law enforcement officers, and other executive branch personnel 
are not eligible to receive a scholarship.
    (2) Courses. Scholarships can be awarded only for courses presented 
in a U.S. jurisdiction other than the one in which the applicant 
resides that are designed to enhance the skills of new or experienced 
judges and court managers; address any of the topics listed in the 
Institute's Special Interest categories; or are offered by a recognized 
graduate program for judges or court managers. The annual or midyear 
meeting of a State or national organization of which the applicant is a 
member does not qualify as an out-of-State educational program for 
scholarship purposes, even though it may include workshops or other 
training sessions.
    (c) Application Procedures. (1) Forms. Judges and court managers 
interested in

[[Page 55439]]

receiving a scholarship must submit the Institute's Judicial Education 
Scholarship Application Form and the written concurrence of the Chief 
Justice of their State's Supreme Court (or the Chief Justice's 
designee) on the Institute's Judicial Education Scholarship Concurrence 
form (Forms S1 & S2, see Appendix V). The signature of the presiding 
judge of the applicant's court cannot be substituted for that of the 
Chief Justice or the Chief Justice's designee. Court managers, other 
than elected clerks of court, also must submit a letter of support from 
their immediate supervisor.
    An applicant may apply for a scholarship for only one educational 
program during any one application cycle.
    (2) Dates. Scholarship applications with the accompanying documents 
must be submitted during the periods specified below:
    October 1-December 1, 1998, for programs beginning between
    January 1 and March 31, 1999;
    January 8-March 8, 1999, for programs beginning between April 1 and 
June 30, 1999;
    April 1-June 1, 1999, for programs beginning between July 1 and 
September 30, 1999;
    July 1-September 1, 1999, for programs beginning between October 1 
and December 31, 1999; and
    October 1-December 1, 1999, for programs beginning between January 
1 and March 31, 2000.
    No exceptions or extensions will be granted. For the Scholarship 
application cycle beginning January 8, 1999 and all subsequent cycles, 
applications sent prior to the application period will be considered to 
have been sent one week after the beginning of that application period. 
All the required items must be received in order for an application to 
be considered. If the Concurrence form or letter of support is sent 
separately from the application, the postmark date of the last item to 
be sent will be used in applying the above criteria.
    All applications should be sent by mail or courier (not fax or e-
mail) to: Scholarship Program Coordinator, State Justice Institute, 
1650 King Street, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314.
    Applicants are encouraged not to wait for the decision on the 
scholarship to register for the educational program they wish to 
attend.
    (d) Selection Criteria/Review Procedures. Scholarships will be 
awarded on the basis of:
     The date on which the application and concurrence (and 
support letter, if required) were sent;
     The unavailability of State or local funds to cover the 
costs of attending the program or scholarship funds from another 
source;
     The absence of educational programs in the applicant's 
State addressing the topic(s) covered by the educational program for 
which the scholarship is being sought;
     Geographic balance among the recipients;
     The balance of scholarships among educational programs;
     The balance of scholarships among the types of courts 
represented; and
     The level of appropriations available to the Institute in 
the current year and the amount expected to be available in succeeding 
fiscal years.
    The postmark or courier receipt will be used to determine the date 
on which the application form and other required items were sent.
    The Institute intends to notify each applicant whether a 
scholarship has been approved within 30 days after the close of the 
relevant application period. The Institute will reserve sufficient 
funds each quarter to assure the availability of scholarships 
throughout the year.
    (e) Non-transferability. A scholarship is not transferable to 
another individual. It may be used only for the course specified in the 
application unless attendance at a different course that meets the 
eligibility requirements is approved in writing by the Institute. 
Decisions on such requests will be made within 30 days after the 
receipt of the request letter.
    (f) Responsibilities of Scholarship Recipients. Scholarship 
recipients are responsible for disseminating the information received 
from the course to their court colleagues locally, and if possible, 
throughout the State (e.g., by developing a formal seminar, circulating 
the written material, or discussing the information at a meeting or 
conference). Recipients also must submit to the Institute a certificate 
of attendance at the program, an evaluation of the educational program 
they attended, and a copy of the notice of any scholarship funds 
received from other sources. A copy of the evaluation must be sent to 
the Chief Justice of their State. A State or local jurisdiction may 
impose additional requirements on scholarship recipients.
    In order to receive the funds authorized by a scholarship award, 
recipients must submit a Scholarship Payment Voucher (Form S3) together 
with a tuition statement from the program sponsor, and a transportation 
fare receipt (or statement of the driving mileage to and from the 
recipient's home to the site of the educational program). Scholarship 
Payment Vouchers should be submitted within 90 days after the end of 
the course which the recipient attended.
    iv. National Conferences. This category includes support for 
national conferences on topics of major concern to State court judges 
and personnel across the nation. Applicants are encouraged to consider 
the use of videoconference and other technologies to increase 
participation and limit travel expenses in planning and presenting 
conferences. In planning a conference, applicants should provide for a 
written, video, or computer-based product that would widely disseminate 
information, findings, and any recommendations resulting from the 
conference.
    The Institute is particularly interested in supporting a National 
Symposium on Evaluating the Impact of ``Future and the Courts'' 
Activities. In the late 1980's, Virginia and Arizona established the 
first commissions on the future of their State courts. SJI contributed 
support to those commissions, and in May 1990, under a cooperative 
agreement with the American Judicature Society, convened a ``National 
Conference on the Future and the Courts'' in San Antonio. Over the next 
several years, almost every State court system established a 
``futures'' commission, convened a futures conference, or engaged in 
some other long-range planning exercise. Each of those ventures 
produced a set of recommendations for steps that could be taken by the 
courts, the legislature, the bar, other professional disciplines, and 
the public to improve the administration of justice in the State. 
Anecdotal information suggests that, in many States, those 
recommendations produced significant long-term change in a number of 
areas but, in other States, little, if any, change occurred.
    The purpose of the national conference would be to:
    (a) Evaluate the impact of the national and State futures 
activities conducted over the past decade;
    (b) Identify the reasons why some States were more successful than 
others in implementing change; and (c) Assess what steps can be taken 
or methods developed to:
    (1) facilitate the recommended changes that are still appropriate;
    (2) more fully institutionalize long-range planning by State court 
systems and, where appropriate, local courts; and
    (3) assist each State court system or local court in identifying 
future trends that may significantly affect its ability to deliver 
justice.

[[Page 55440]]

    The Board wishes to emphasize that it does not envision this 
conference as a second San Antonio conference. The purpose of the 
proposed conference should not be to develop trends, scenarios, and 
strategies for improving American courts over the next 30 years, but to 
meet the specific goals articulated above.
    c. Dispute Resolution and the Courts. This category includes 
research, evaluation, and demonstration projects to evaluate or enhance 
the effectiveness of court-connected dispute resolution programs. The 
Institute is interested in projects that facilitate comparison among 
research studies by using similar measures and definitions; address the 
nature and operation of ADR programs within the context of the court 
system as a whole; and compare dispute resolution processes to attorney 
settlement as well as trial. Specific topics of interest include:
     Determining the appropriate timing for referrals to 
dispute resolution services to enhance settlements and reduce time to 
disposition;
     Assessing the effect of different referral methods 
including any differences in outcome between voluntary and mandatory 
referrals;
     Comparing the appropriateness and effectiveness of 
facilitative and evaluative mediation in various types of cases;
     Evaluating the effectiveness of the use of family group 
conferencing procedures in dependency, delinquency, and status offense 
cases;
     Evaluating innovative court-connected dispute resolution 
programs for resolving specific types of cases such as minor criminal 
cases, probate proceedings, land-use disputes, and complex and multi-
party litigation;
     Testing of methods that courts can use to assure the 
quality of court-connected dispute resolution programs; and
     Developing methods to eliminate race, ethnic, or gender 
bias in court-connected dispute resolution programs, testing approaches 
for assuring that such programs are open to all members of the 
community served by the court, and assessing whether having a mediator 
pool that reflects the diversity of the community it serves, has an 
impact on the use of mediation by minorities and its effectiveness.
    Applicants should be aware that the Institute will not provide 
operational support for on-going ADR programs or start-up costs of non-
innovative ADR programs. Courts also should be advised that it is 
preferable for the applicant to use its funds to support the 
operational costs of an innovative program and request Institute funds 
to support related technical assistance, training, and evaluation 
elements of the program.
    In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported projects to 
evaluate the use of mediation in civil, domestic relations, juvenile, 
guardianship, medical malpractice, appellate, and minor criminal cases, 
as well as in resolving grievances of court employees. SJI grants also 
have supported assessments of the impact of private judging on State 
courts; multi-door courthouse programs; arbitration of civil cases; 
screening and intake procedures for mediation; early referrals to 
mediation in divorce proceedings; and trial and appellate level civil 
settlement programs.
    In addition, SJI has supported two national conferences on court-
connected dispute resolution; a national ADR resource center and a 
national database of court-connected dispute resolution programs; 
training programs for judges and mediators; the testing of Statewide 
and trial court-based ADR monitoring/evaluation systems and 
implementation manuals; the promulgation and implementation of 
principles and policies regarding the qualifications, selection, and 
training of court-connected neutrals; development of standards for 
court-annexed mediation programs; development of guidelines to help 
mediators avoid conduct that may be considered the unauthorized 
practice of law; and an examination of the applicability of various 
dispute resolution procedures to different cultural groups.
    d. Application of Technology. This category includes the testing of 
innovative applications of technology to improve the operation of court 
management systems and judicial practices at both the trial and 
appellate court levels.
    The Institute seeks to support local experiments with promising but 
untested applications of technology in the courts that include an 
evaluation of the impact of the technology in terms of costs, benefits, 
and staff workload, and a training component to assure that staff is 
appropriately educated about the purpose and use of the new technology. 
In this context, ``untested'' refers to novel applications of 
technology developed for the private sector and other fields that have 
not previously been applied to the courts.
    The Institute is particularly interested in supporting efforts to:
     Evaluate innovative approaches for filing pleadings and 
documents electronically;
     Develop model rules or standards to govern the use of 
electronic filing, electronic notices, and electronic data and document 
interchange;
     Test innovative telecommunications links among courts, and 
between courts and executive branch or private agencies and services.
     Test innovative applications of voice recognition 
technology by judges and clerks in the adjudication process;
     Evaluate and document the innovative uses of technology to 
improve jury management;
     Assess the impact of the use of comprehensive electronic 
court records systems on case management and court procedures;
     Demonstrate and evaluate the use of technology to assist 
judicial decisionmaking;
     Evaluate the use of digital audio and video technology for 
making a record of court proceedings;
     Demonstrate and evaluate the use of videoconferencing 
technology to present testimony by witnesses in remote locations, and 
appellate arguments (but see the limitations specified below);
     Assess the impact of the use of multimedia CD-ROM-based 
briefs on the courts, parties, counsel, and the trial or appellate 
process;
     Assist courts in determining the policies and procedures 
that should govern public access to information filed in electronically 
stored case records; and
     Assist courts in identifying and solving potential ``Year 
2000'' problems.
    Ordinarily, the Institute will not provide support for the purchase 
of equipment or software in order to implement a technology that is 
commonly used by courts, such as videoconferencing between courts and 
jails, optical imaging for recordkeeping, and automated management 
information systems. (See also section XI.H.2.b. regarding other limits 
on the use of grant funds to purchase equipment and software.)
    In previous funding cycles, grants have been awarded to support 
projects that: demonstrate, document, and evaluate the availability of 
electronic forms and information on the Internet to assist pro se 
litigants; access to case data via the Internet; electronic filing and 
document transfer; an electronic document management system; a court 
management information display system; the integration of bar-coding 
technology with an existing automated case management system; an on-
bench automated system for generating and processing court orders; an 
automated judicial education management system; a document management 
system for

[[Page 55441]]

small courts using imaging technology; a computerized citizen intake 
and referral service; an ``analytic judicial desktop system'' to assist 
judges in making sentencing decisions; the application of voice-
recognition technology to stenomask reporting; and the use of automated 
teller machines for paying jurors.
    Grants have also supported national court technology conferences; a 
court technology laboratory to provide judges and court managers an 
opportunity to test automated court-related hardware and software; a 
technical information service to respond to specific inquiries 
concerning court-related technologies; development of recommendations 
for electronic transfer of court documents, model rules on the use of 
computer-generated demonstrative evidence and electronic documentary 
evidence, and guidelines on privacy and public access to electronic 
court information and on court access to the information superhighway; 
implementation and evaluation of a Statewide automated integrated case 
docketing and record-keeping system; computer simulation models to 
assist State courts in evaluating potential strategies for improving 
civil caseflow; and an examination of the impact of the use of 
technology in the trial process.
    e. Court Planning, Management, Financing. The Institute is 
interested in supporting projects that explore emerging issues that 
will affect the State courts as they enter the 21st Century, as well as 
projects that develop and test innovative approaches for managing the 
courts, and securing, managing, and demonstrating the effective use of 
the resources required to fully meet the responsibilities of the 
judicial branch, and institutionalizing long-range planning processes. 
In particular the Institute is interested in:
    i. Demonstration, evaluation, education, research, and technical 
assistance projects to:
     Develop, implement, and assess innovative case management 
techniques for specialized calendars including but not limited to drug 
courts, domestic violence courts, juvenile courts, and family courts;
     Facilitate communication, information sharing, and 
coordination between the juvenile and criminal courts;
     Assess the effects of innovative management approaches 
designed to assure quality services to court users;
     Strengthen the judge's and court manager's skills in 
leadership, planning, and building community confidence in the courts;
     Develop and test innovative educational programs and 
materials to enhance the core competencies required of court managers 
and staff;
     Develop and test methods for facilitating and implementing 
change and for encouraging excellence in court operations;
     Demonstrate and assess the effective use of staff teams in 
court operations; and
     Implement and evaluate approaches for institutionalizing 
long-range strategic planning in individual States and local 
jurisdictions including development of the capacity to conduct 
environmental scanning, trends analysis, and benchmarking.
    ii. Demonstration, evaluation, education, technical assistance, and 
research projects to implement the National Agenda for Assuring Prompt 
and Affordable Justice in the 21st Century, including projects to:
     Document and publicize successful innovative programs and 
practices and establish mentor courts to assist other jurisdictions in 
reducing litigation costs and delay.
     Develop and test rules and procedures that will establish 
economic and other incentives that reduce the cost and time required 
for the resolution of disputes.
     Examine and test how the techniques applied to pretrial 
caseflow management and trial management in general jurisdiction court 
civil and criminal cases can be used to reduce the cost and time 
required in limited jurisdiction high volume courts, domestic relations 
proceedings, cases involving children, and post-adjudication matters.
    iii. The preparation of ``think pieces'' exploring emerging issues 
that may result in significant changes in the court process or judicial 
administration and their implications for judges, court managers, 
policymakers, and the public. Grants supporting such projects are 
limited to no more than $10,000. The resulting essay should be directed 
to the court community and be of publishable quality.
    Possible topics include, but are not limited to:
     the implications on court procedures, court operations, 
and judicial selection of the changing expectations about the proper 
role of courts--from adjudicators to problem solvers;
     the proper balance between collaboration with the 
community and judicial independence;
     the implications of the increasing commerce via the 
Internet for the State courts--what special problems may arise and what 
new rules and procedures may be needed to address those problems;
     how the increased litigation resulting from the North 
American Free Trade Agreement and the global integration of business 
affect the State courts--are special rules and procedures needed?
     what the new ``community courts'' can learn from the 
experience of the old justice of the peace courts,
     the appropriateness of modifying methods for selecting, 
qualifying, and using juries; and
     the likely extent, nature, and impact on the courts of 
litigation arising from ``Year 2000'' problems.
    In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported national 
and Statewide ``future and the courts'' conferences and training; 
curricula, guidebooks, a video on visioning, and a long-range planning 
guide for trial courts; the testing of coordinated State/local 
approaches to institutionalizing long-range planning by the courts; and 
technical assistance to courts conducting futures and long-range 
planning.
    SJI has also supported technical assistance and training to assist 
jurisdictions establish court-led multi-agency teams to address 
critical community problems; executive management programs for teams of 
judges and court administrators; a test of the feasibility of 
implementing the Trial Court Performance Standards in general 
jurisdiction and family courts; Appellate Court Performance Standards 
and Measures; tests of the use of TQM approaches in trial and appellate 
court and State court administrative offices; revision of the Standards 
on Judicial Administration; projects identifying the causes of delay in 
trial and appellate courts; the preparation of a national agenda for 
assuring prompt and affordable justice and the development of 
educational programs for reducing litigation cost and delay in civil, 
criminal, domestic relations, and juvenile courts; the testing of 
various types of weighted caseload systems; a National Interbranch 
Conference on Funding the State Courts; and National Symposia on Court 
Management.
    f. Managed Care and the Courts. The First National Conference on 
Managed Care and the Criminal Justice System, held June 28-30, 1998 in 
Albuquerque, highlighted what many judges and court personnel need to 
know about the implications of managed care for the courts and for 
court-ordered substance abuse, mental health, and other services. 
Accordingly, the Institute is interested

[[Page 55442]]

in supporting educational, research, and demonstration projects to:
     Develop and test State, regional, and local educational 
programs for judges and court staff on the implications of managed care 
for the provision of drug and alcohol treatment, mental health 
treatment, and other services to adult and juvenile offenders, 
neglected and abused children and their families, and persons subject 
to civil commitment. In addition to defining managed care principles 
and procedures, the curricula and materials (which could include 
modules for use at State judicial conferences and meetings of State 
clerk and court managers associations) should cover such matters as: 
(i) strategies for ensuring that contracts with managed care 
organizations satisfactorily address court concerns such as protecting 
public safety, dealing appropriately with non-compliance by a person 
under court order, reporting, providing ancillary services, and (ii) 
assuring the continuity and prompt provision of ordered services; and 
methods for establishing collaborative public sector managed care 
programs for court-ordered services.
     Draft model managed care contract provisions and letters 
of agreement for the provision of court-ordered treatment and services 
to adults and juveniles.
     Develop and test performance measures to determine the 
quality and appropriateness of court-ordered treatment and services.
     Document public sector and private sector managed care 
programs that effectively provide court-ordered treatment and other 
services to adults and juveniles.
    g. Substance Abuse. This category includes education, technical 
assistance, research, and evaluation projects to assist courts in 
handling a large volume of substance abuse-related criminal, civil, 
juvenile, and domestic relations cases fairly and expeditiously. (It 
does not include providing support for planning, establishing, 
operating, or enhancing a local drug court. Applicants interested in 
obtaining grants to plan, implement, operate, or enhance a drug court 
program should contact the Drug Court Program Office, Office of Justice 
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.)
    The Institute is particularly interested in projects to:
     Evaluate the effectiveness of ``family drug court'' 
programs (i.e. specialized calendars that provide intensely supervised, 
court-enforced substance abuse treatment and other services to families 
involved in child neglect, child abuse, domestic violence, or other 
family cases);
     Develop a self-evaluation guide for ``juvenile drug 
court'' programs;
     Develop and test curricula on the specific knowledge and 
skills needed to manage drug court programs for adults, juveniles, or 
families.
     Develop and test effective approaches for identifying and 
treating substance abuse by judges, lawyers, and court staff, and 
determining and lessening the impact on the courts of such substance 
abuse.
    The Institute has supported the presentation of the 1995 National 
Symposium on the Implementation and Operation of Court-Enforced Drug 
Treatment Programs as well as the 1991 National Conference on Substance 
Abuse and the Courts, and efforts to implement the State and local 
plans developed at these Conferences.
    It has also supported projects to evaluate court-enforced treatment 
programs, and other court-based alcohol and drug assessment programs; 
develop a self-evaluation guide for drug courts; test the applicability 
of drug courts in non-urban sites and develop guidance for 
jurisdictions establishing juvenile drug courts; involve community 
groups and families in drug court programs; assess the impact of 
legislation and court decisions dealing with drug-affected infants; 
develop strategies for coping with increasing caseload pressures, and 
benchbooks and other educational materials on child abuse and neglect 
cases involving parental substance abuse and appropriate sentences for 
pregnant substance abusers; test the use of a dual diagnostic treatment 
model for domestic violence cases in which substance abuse was a 
factor; and present local and regional educational programs for judges 
and other court personnel on substance abuse and its treatment. In 
addition, SJI has supported an information system that permits courts, 
criminal justice agencies, and drug treatment providers to share 
information electronically.
    h. Children and Families in Court. This category includes 
education, demonstration, evaluation, technical assistance, and 
research projects to identify and inform judges of innovative, 
effective approaches for handling cases involving children and 
families. The Institute is particularly interested in projects to:
     Develop and test innovative protocol, procedures, 
educational programs, and other measures to determine and address the 
service needs of children exposed to family violence and the methods 
for mitigating those effects when issuing protection, custody, 
visitation, or other orders;
     Develop and test guidelines, curricula, and other 
materials to assist judges in establishing and enforcing custody, and 
support orders in cases in which a child's parents were never married 
to each other;
     Develop and test effective approaches for the detention, 
adjudication, and disposition of juveniles under age 13 who are accused 
of involvement in a violent offense;
     Develop and test procedures and programs to include 
victims of offenses committed by juveniles in the juvenile court 
process (other than victim-offender mediation programs);
     Create and test educational programs, guidelines, and 
monitoring systems to assure that the juvenile justice system meets the 
needs of girls and children of color;
     Develop and test innovative techniques for improving 
communication, sharing information, and coordinating juvenile and 
criminal courts and divisions;
     Design or evaluate information systems that not only 
provide aggregate data, but are able to track individual cases, 
individual juveniles, and specific families, so that judges and court 
managers can manage their caseloads effectively, track placement and 
service delivery, and coordinate orders in different proceedings 
involving members of the same family; and
     Develop and test educational programs to assure that 
everyone coming into contact with courts serving children and families 
are treated with dignity, respect, and courtesy.
    See also the topics listed in the Special Interest Category on 
Managed Care and the Courts (section II.B.2.f.)
    In previous funding cycles, the Institute supported national and 
State conferences on courts, children, and the family; a review of 
juvenile courts in light of the upcoming 100th anniversary of the 
founding of the first juvenile court; testing of alternative models for 
achieving the goals of a family court without altering court structure; 
the authority of the juvenile court to enforce treatment orders and the 
role of juvenile court judges; validation of a risk assessment tool for 
juvenile offenders; and an assessment of the effectiveness of various 
intervention strategies for young violent offenders and for low-risk 
juvenile offenders.
    In addition, the Institute has supported a symposium on the 
resolution of interstate child welfare issues; and educational 
materials on the questioning of child witnesses, determining the best 
interest of a child

[[Page 55443]]

and making reasonable efforts to preserve families, adjudicating 
allegations of child sexual abuse when custody is in dispute, child 
victimization, handling child abuse and neglect cases when parental 
substance abuse is involved, and on children as the silent victims of 
spousal abuse.
    Other Institute grants have supported the development of computer-
based training on the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, and the 
examination of supervised visitation programs, effective court 
responses when domestic violence and custody disputes coincide, and 
foster care review procedures.
    The Institute also has supported projects to enhance coordination 
of cases involving the same family that are being heard in different 
courts; develop an MIS system to link the court with executive branch 
and private juvenile justice agencies and services; assist States 
considering establishment of a family court; develop national and 
State-based training materials for guardians ad litem as well as a set 
of performance measures; test the use of differentiated case management 
in juvenile court and methods for reducing the use of continuances; and 
develop innovative approaches for coordinating the appointment of 
guardians and Federal representative payees for disabled persons.
    i. Improving the Courts' Response to Domestic Violence. This 
category includes innovative education, demonstration, technical 
assistance, evaluation, and research projects to improve the fair and 
effective processing, consideration, and disposition of cases 
concerning domestic violence and gender-related violent crimes, 
including projects to:
     Develop and test methods for facilitating recognition and 
enforcement of protection orders issued by a State, Federal, or Tribal 
court in another jurisdiction;
     Determine the effective use of information contained in 
protection order files stored in court electronic databases consistent 
with the protection of the privacy and safety of victims of violence;
     Evaluate the effectiveness of domestic violence courts 
(i.e., specialized calendars or divisions for considering domestic 
violence cases and related matters), including their impact on victims, 
offenders, and court operations;
     Assess the effectiveness of including jurisdiction over 
family violence in a unified family court;
     Demonstrate effective ways to coordinate the response to 
domestic violence and gender-related crimes of violence among courts, 
criminal justice agencies, and social services programs, and to assure 
that courts are fully accessible to victims of domestic violence and 
other gender-related violent crimes;
     Test the effectiveness of innovative sentencing and 
treatment approaches in cases involving domestic violence and other 
gender-related crimes including sentences that incorporate restorative 
justice measures.
    Institute funds may not be used to provide operational support to 
programs offering direct services or compensation to victims of crimes. 
(Applicants interested in obtaining such operational support should 
contact the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), Office of Justice 
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, or the agency in their State that 
awards OVC funds to State and local victim assistance and compensation 
programs.)
    In previous funding cycles, the Institute supported national and 
State conferences on family violence and the courts as well as projects 
to implement the action plans developed at these conferences; 
preparation of descriptions of innovative court practices in family 
violence cases, including programs for battered mothers and their 
children; and development of recommendations on how to improve access 
to rural courts for victims of family violence, conduct fatality 
reviews, and collect and report dispositional and other data concerning 
family violence cases.
    The Institute also supported a national conference, national and 
regional symposia, and the development of guides on the implementation 
of the full faith and credit requirements included in the Violence 
Against Women Act; and the drafting of a proposed uniform statute on 
the recognition of protection orders from other jurisdictions.
    In addition, Institute grants have resulted in the development of 
curricula for judges on a range of topics regarding the handling of 
family violence, rape, and sexual assault cases; evaluations of the 
effectiveness of specialized domestic violence calendars, court-ordered 
treatment for family violence offenders, the use of alternatives to 
adjudication in child abuse cases, and procedures to improve the 
effectiveness of civil protection orders for family violence victims; 
research on the use of mediation in domestic relations cases involving 
allegations of violence, the relevancy of culture in adjudicating and 
disposing of family violence cases, and effective sentencing of sex 
offenders; and analyses of the issues related to the use of expert 
testimony in criminal cases involving domestic violence.
    The Institute also has funded testing of procedures for 
coordinating multiple cases involving a single family and for 
electronic filing of petitions for protection orders; development of 
links among courts, criminal justice agencies, and service providers to 
share information and assist victims of violence; and the production of 
videotapes and other educational programs for the parties in divorce 
actions and their children.
    j. Improving Sentencing Practices. This category includes 
education, demonstration, technical assistance, evaluation, and 
research projects to address and implement the findings and 
recommendations reached at the National Symposium on Sentencing: The 
Judicial Response to Crime. In particular, the Institute is interested 
in projects to:
     Identify and document effective sentencing approaches for 
particular types of offenders and offenses including juvenile offenders 
tried as adults;
     Improve public understanding of sentencing options and 
approaches and their cost and effectiveness;
     Eliminate disparities in sentencing on the basis of race, 
gender, ethnicity, national origin, and income;
     Assess effective and appropriate approaches for sentencing 
mentally ill and mentally retarded offenders; and
     Develop and test educational programs and materials for 
judges on evaluating expert testimony regarding sex offenders; 
appropriate and effective sentencing and treatment of sex offenders; 
and assuring the safety of the victim, the public, and the offender 
when a community-based sentence is imposed.
    See also the paragraph on developing and testing the effectiveness 
of sentences based on restorative justice principles in section 
II.B.2.a. and the topics listed in the Special Interest category on 
Managed Care and the Courts, section II.B.2.f.
    In addition to the National Symposium on Sentencing, the Institute 
has supported development of a handbook, educational materials, 
symposia, and technical assistance on the appropriate and effective use 
of intermediate sanctions; tests of the use of day-fines, community 
reparation boards, special court-ordered programs for women offenders, 
and various fine and restitution collection programs; and presentation 
of a regional conference on implementation of sentencing innovations.

[[Page 55444]]

    k. Improving Court Security. This category includes demonstration, 
evaluation, technical assistance, education, and research projects to 
enhance the security of courthouses and the people who use and work in 
them. The Institute is particularly interested in supporting innovative 
projects to:
     Develop policies, protocols, and procedures designed to 
prevent harassment, threats, and incidents endangering the lives and 
property of judges, court employees, jurors, litigants, witnesses, and 
other members of the public in court facilities;
     Evaluate innovative applications of technology to prevent 
courthouse incidents that endanger the lives and property of judges, 
court personnel, and courtroom participants; and
     Develop and test model training programs that will assist 
judges and court personnel in protecting their safety and that of 
jurors, litigants, witnesses, and other members of the public in court 
facilities, and in managing cases involving individuals or 
organizations unwilling to cooperate with legal or administrative 
procedures.
    In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported Statewide 
strategic planning to enhance court security; a demonstration project 
to organize sharing of court security staff between counties; a court 
security clearinghouse; and an educational program and benchbook on the 
common law court movement.
    l. The Relationship Between State and Federal Courts. This category 
includes education, research, demonstration, and evaluation projects 
designed to facilitate appropriate and effective communication, 
cooperation, and coordination between State and Federal courts. The 
Institute is particularly interested in innovative projects that:
    i. Develop and test curricula and disseminate information regarding 
effective methods being used at the trial court, State, and Circuit 
levels to coordinate cases and administrative activities, and share 
facilities; and
    ii. Develop and test new approaches to:
     Implement the habeas corpus provisions of the Anti-
Terrorism Act of 1996;
     Handle capital habeas corpus cases fairly and efficiently;
     Coordinate and process mass tort cases fairly and 
efficiently at the trial and appellate levels;
     Coordinate cases in which there is concurrent jurisdiction 
including State and Federal cases brought under the Violence Against 
Women Act;
     Develop a guidebook for judges to assist in determining 
whether punitive damages should be awarded, calculating the amount in 
which they should be awarded, and instructing jurors regarding these 
issues.
     Exchange information and coordinate calendars among State 
and Federal courts; and
     Share facilities, jury pools, alternative dispute 
resolution programs, information regarding persons on pretrial release 
or probation, and court services.
    In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported national 
and regional conferences on State-Federal judicial relationships, a 
national conference on mass tort litigation, and the Chief Justices' 
Special Committee on Mass Tort Litigation.
    In addition, the Institute has supported projects testing the use 
common electronic filing process for the State and Federal courts in 
New Mexico, and other methods of State and Federal trial and appellate 
court cooperation; developing judicial impact statement procedures for 
national legislation affecting State courts; establishing procedures 
for facilitating certification of questions of law; assessing the 
impact on the State courts of diversity cases and cases brought under 
section 1983, the procedures used in Federal habeas corpus review of 
State court criminal cases, and the factors that motivate litigants to 
select Federal or State courts; and the mechanisms for transferring 
cases between Federal and State courts, as well as the methods for 
effectively consolidating, deciding, and managing complex litigation.
    The Institute has also supported a clearinghouse of information on 
State constitutional law decisions; educational programs for State 
judges on coordination of Federal bankruptcy cases with State 
litigation as well as research on the impact of bankruptcy stays on 
State litigation; and the assignment of specialized law clerks to trial 
courts hearing capital cases in order to improve the fairness and 
efficiency of death penalty litigation at the trial level.

C. Single Jurisdiction Projects

    The Board will consider supporting a limited number of projects 
submitted by State or local courts that address the needs of only the 
applicant State or local jurisdiction. The Institute has established 
two categories of Single Jurisdiction Projects:
1. Projects Addressing a Critical Need of a Single State or Local 
Jurisdiction Including ``Replication Grants''
    a. Description of the Program. The Board will set aside up to 
$300,000 to support projects submitted by State or local courts that 
address the needs of only the applicant State or local jurisdiction. A 
project under this section may address any of the topics included in 
the Special Interest Categories or Statutory Program Areas. Ordinarily, 
the Institute will not provide support solely for the purchase of 
equipment or software.
    Concept papers for single jurisdiction projects may be submitted by 
a State court system, an appellate court, or a limited or general 
jurisdiction trial court. All awards under this category are subject to 
the matching requirements set forth in section X.B.1.
    The Board is particularly interested in supporting projects to 
replicate programs, procedures, or strategies that have been developed, 
demonstrated, or evaluated through an SJI grant. (A list of examples of 
such grants is contained in Appendix IV.) Replication grants are 
subject to the same limits on amount and duration as other project 
grants. (See section V.)
    b. Application Procedures. Concept papers and applications 
requesting funds for projects under this section must meet the 
requirements of sections VI. (``Concept Paper Submission Requirements 
for New Projects'') and VII. (``Application Requirements''), 
respectively, and must demonstrate that:
    i. The proposed project is essential to meeting a critical need of 
the jurisdiction; and
    ii. The need cannot be met solely with State and local resources 
within the foreseeable future.
2. Technical Assistance Grants
    a. Description of the Program. The Board will set aside up to 
$400,000 to support the provision of technical assistance to State and 
local courts. The exact amount to be awarded for these grants will 
depend on the number and quality of the applications submitted in this 
category and other categories of the Guideline. The Committee will 
reserve sufficient funds each quarter to assure the availability of 
technical assistance grants throughout the year. The program is 
designed to provide State and local courts with sufficient support to 
obtain technical assistance to diagnose a problem, develop a response 
to that problem, and initiate implementation of any needed changes.
    Technical Assistance grants are limited to no more than $30,000 
each, and may cover the cost of obtaining the services of expert 
consultants; travel by a team of officials from one court to examine a 
practice, program, or facility in another jurisdiction that the 
applicant court is interested in

[[Page 55445]]

replicating; or both. Technical assistance grant funds ordinarily may 
not be used to support production of a videotape. Normally, the 
technical assistance must be completed within 12 months after the 
start-date of the grant.
    b. Eligibility for Technical Assistance Grants. Only a State or 
local court may apply for a Technical Assistance grant. As with other 
awards to State or local courts, cash or in-kind match must be provided 
equal to at least 50% of the grant amount.
    c. Review Criteria. Technical Assistance grants will be awarded on 
the basis of criteria including: whether the assistance would address a 
critical need of the court; the soundness of the technical assistance 
approach to the problem; the qualifications of the consultant(s) to be 
hired, or the specific criteria that will be used to select the 
consultant(s); commitment on the part of the court to act on the 
consultant's recommendations; and the reasonableness of the proposed 
budget. The Institute also will consider factors such as the level and 
nature of the match that would be provided, diversity of subject 
matter, geographic diversity, the level of appropriations available to 
the Institute in the current year, and the amount expected to be 
available in succeeding fiscal years.
    d. Application Procedures. In lieu of formal applications, 
applicants for Technical Assistance grants may submit, at any time, an 
original and three copies of a detailed letter describing the proposed 
project and addressing the issues listed below. Letters from an 
individual trial or appellate court must be signed by the presiding 
judge or manager of that court. Letters from the State court system 
must be signed by the Chief Justice or State Court Administrator.
    Although there is no prescribed form for the letter nor a minimum 
or maximum page limit, letters of application should include the 
following information to assure that each of the criteria is addressed:
    i. Need for Funding. What is the critical need facing the court? 
How will the proposed technical assistance help the court meet this 
critical need? Why cannot State or local resources fully support the 
costs of the required consultant services?
    ii. Project Description. What tasks would the consultant be 
expected to perform and how would they be accomplished? Which 
organization or individual would be hired to provide the assistance and 
how was this consultant selected? If a consultant has not yet been 
identified, what procedures and criteria would be used to select the 
consultant? (Applicants are expected to follow their jurisdiction's 
normal procedures for procuring consultant services.) What is the time 
frame for completion of the technical assistance? How would the court 
oversee the project and provide guidance to the consultant, and who at 
the court would be responsible for coordinating all project tasks and 
submitting quarterly progress and financial status reports?
    If the consultant has been identified, the applicant should provide 
a letter from that individual or organization documenting interest in 
and availability for the project, as well as the consultant's ability 
to complete the assignment within the proposed time period and for the 
proposed cost. The consultant must agree to submit a detailed written 
report to the court and the Institute upon completion of the technical 
assistance.
    iii. Likelihood of Implementation. What steps have been/will be 
taken to facilitate implementation of the consultant's recommendations 
upon completion of the technical assistance? For example, if the 
support or cooperation of specific court officials or committees, other 
agencies, funding bodies, organizations, or a court other than the 
applicant will be needed to adopt the changes recommended by the 
consultant and approved by the court, how will they be involved in the 
review of the recommendations and development of the implementation 
plan?
    iv. Budget and Matching State Contribution. A completed Form E, 
``Preliminary Budget'' (see Appendix V) and budget narrative must be 
included with the applicant's letter requesting technical assistance. 
The estimated cost of the technical assistance services should be 
broken down into the categories listed on the budget form rather than 
aggregated under the Consultant/Contractual category.
    The budget narrative should provide the basis for all project-
related costs, including the basis for determining the estimated 
consultant costs, if compensation of the consultant is required (e.g., 
number of days per task times the requested daily consultant rate). 
Applicants should be aware that consultant rates above $300 per day 
must be approved in advance by the Institute, and that no consultant 
will be paid at a rate in excess of $900 per day. In addition, the 
budget should provide for submission of two copies of the consultant's 
final report to the Institute.
    Recipients of technical assistance grants do not have to submit an 
audit, but must maintain appropriate documentation to support 
expenditures. (See section X.M.)
    v. Support for the Project from the State Supreme Court or its 
Designated Agency or Council. Written concurrence on the need for the 
technical assistance must be submitted. This concurrence may be a copy 
of SJI Form B (see Appendix VI) signed by the Chief Justice of the 
State Supreme Court or the Chief Justice's designee, or a letter from 
the State Chief Justice or designee. The concurrence may be submitted 
with the applicant's letter or under separate cover prior to 
consideration of the application. The concurrence also must specify 
whether the State Supreme Court would receive, administer, and account 
for the grant funds, if awarded, or would designate the local court or 
a specified agency or council to receive the funds directly.
    Letters of application may be submitted at any time; however, all 
of the letters received during a calendar quarter will be considered at 
one time. Applicants submitting letters between June 12 and September 
30, 1998 will be notified of the Board's decision by December 11, 1998; 
those submitting letters between October 1, 1998 and January 15, 1999 
will be notified by March 31, 1999; notification of the Board's 
decisions concerning letters mailed between January 16 and March 12, 
1999, will be made by May 28, 1999; notice of decisions regarding 
letters submitted between March 13 and June 11, 1999 will be made by 
August 31, 1999. Subject to the availability of sufficient 
appropriations for fiscal year 2000, applicants submitting letters 
between June 12 and September 30, 1999, will be notified by December 
17, 1999.
    If the support or cooperation of agencies, funding bodies, 
organizations, or courts other than the applicant would be needed in 
order for the consultant to perform the required tasks, written 
assurances of such support or cooperation should accompany the 
application letter. Support letters also may be submitted under 
separate cover; however, to ensure that there is sufficient time to 
bring them to the attention of the Board's Technical Assistance 
Committee, letters sent under separate cover must be received not less 
than three weeks prior to the Board meeting at which the technical 
assistance requests will be considered (i.e., by October 30, 1998, and 
February 11, April 9, and July 16, 1999).
    vi. Grantee Responsibilities. Technical Assistance grant recipients 
are subject to the same quarterly reporting requirements as other 
Institute grantees. At the conclusion of the grant period, a

[[Page 55446]]

Technical Assistance grant recipient must complete a Technical 
Assistance Evaluation Form. The grantee also must submit to the 
Institute one copy of a final report that explains how it intends to 
act on the consultant's recommendations, as well as a copy of the 
consultant's written report.

III. Definitions

    The following definitions apply for the purposes of this Guideline:

A. Institute

    The State Justice Institute.

B. State Supreme Court

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

C. Designated Agency or Council

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

D. Grantee

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

E. Subgrantee

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

F. Match

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

G. Continuation Grant

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

H. On-going Support Grant

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

I. Human Subjects

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

J. Curriculum

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

K. Products

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

IV. Eligibility for Award

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

[[Page 55447]]

V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of Awards

A. Types of Projects

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

B. Types of Grants

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

C. Maximum Size of Awards

    1. Except as specified below, applications for new project grants 
and applications for continuation grants may request funding in amounts 
up to $200,000, although new and continuation awards in excess of 
$150,000 are likely to be rare and to be made, if at all, only for 
highly promising proposals that will have a significant impact 
nationally.
    2. Applications for on-going support grants may request funding in 
amounts up to $600,000 over three years, although awards in excess of 
$450,000 are likely to be rare. At the discretion of the Board, the 
funds for on-going support grants may be awarded either entirely from 
the Institute's appropriations for the fiscal year of the award or from 
the Institute's appropriations for successive fiscal years beginning 
with the fiscal year of the award. When funds to support the full 
amount of an on-going support grant are not awarded from the 
appropriations for the fiscal year of award, funds to support any 
subsequent years of the grant will be made available upon (1) the 
satisfactory performance of the project as reflected in the Quarterly 
Progress Reports required to be filed and grant monitoring; (2) the 
availability of appropriations for that fiscal year; and (3) a 
determination that the project continues to fall within the Institute's 
priorities.
    3. Applications for technical assistance grants may request funding 
in amounts up to $30,000.
    4. Applications for curriculum adaptation grants may request 
funding in amounts up to $20,000.
    5. Applications for scholarships may request funding in amounts up 
to $1,500.

D. Length of Grant Periods

    1. Grant periods for all new and continuation projects ordinarily 
will not exceed 15 months.
    2. Grant periods for on-going support grants ordinarily will not 
exceed 36 months.
    3. Grant periods for technical assistance grants and curriculum 
adaptation grants ordinarily will not exceed 12 months.

VI. Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects

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

A. Format and Content

    All concept papers must include a cover sheet, a program narrative, 
and a preliminary budget.
1. The Cover Sheet
    The cover sheet for all concept papers must contain:
    a. A title that clearly describes the proposed project;
    b. The name and address of the court, organization, or individual 
submitting the paper;
    c. The name, title, address (if different from that in b.), and 
telephone number of a contact person who can provide further 
information about the paper;
    d. The letter of the Special Interest Category (see section 
II.B.2.) or the number of the statutory Program Area (see section 
II.A.) that the proposed project addresses most directly; and
    e. The estimated length of the proposed project.
    Applicants requesting the Board to waive the application 
requirement and approve a grant of less than $40,000 based on the 
concept paper, should add APPLICATION WAIVER REQUESTED to the 
information on the cover page.
2. The Program Narrative
    The program narrative of a concept paper should be no longer than 
necessary, but must not exceed eight (8) double-spaced pages on 8\1/2\ 
by 11 inch paper. Margins must be at least 1 inch and type size must be 
at least 12 point and 12 cpi. The pages should be numbered. The 
narrative should describe:
    a. Why is this project needed and how will it benefit State courts? 
If the project is to be conducted in a specific location(s), applicants 
should discuss the particular needs of the project site(s) to be 
addressed by the project, why those needs are not being met through the 
use of existing materials, programs, procedures, services, or other 
resources, and the benefits that would be realized by the proposed 
site(s).
    If the project is not site-specific, applicants should discuss the 
problems that the proposed project will address, why existing 
materials, programs, procedures, services, or other resources do not 
adequately resolve those problems, and the benefits that would be 
realized from the project by State courts generally.
    b. What will be done if a grant is awarded? Applicants should 
include a summary description of the project to be conducted and the 
approach to be taken, including the anticipated length of the grant 
period. Applicants requesting a waiver of the application requirement 
for a grant of less than $40,000 should explain the proposed methods 
for conducting the project as fully as space allows, and include a 
detailed task schedule as an attachment to the concept paper.
    c. How will the effects and quality of the project be determined? 
Applicants should include a summary description of how the project will 
be evaluated, including the evaluation criteria.
    d. How will others find out about the project and be able to use 
the results? Applicants should describe the products that will result, 
the degree to which they will be applicable to courts across the 
nation, and to whom the products and results of the project will be 
disseminated in addition to the SJI-designated libraries (e.g., State 
chief justices, specified groups of trial judges, State court 
administrators, specified groups of trial court administrators, State 
judicial educators, or other audiences).

[[Page 55448]]

3. The Budget
    a. Preliminary Budget. A preliminary budget must be attached to the 
narrative that includes the information specified on Form E included in 
Appendix VI of this Guideline. Applicants should be aware that prior 
written Institute approval is required for any consultant rate in 
excess of $300 per day, and that Institute funds may not be used to pay 
a consultant in excess of $900 per day.
    b. Concept Papers Requesting Accelerated Award of a Grant of Less 
than $40,000. Applicants requesting a waiver of the application 
requirement and approval of a grant based on a concept paper under 
section VI.C., must attach to Form E (see Appendix VI) a budget 
narrative that explains the basis for each of the items listed, and 
indicates whether the costs would be paid from grant funds, through a 
matching contribution, or from other sources. Courts requesting an 
accelerated award must also attach a Certificate of State Approval 
(Form B) signed by the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court or the 
Chief Justice's designee.
4. Letters of Cooperation or Support
    The Institute encourages concept paper applicants to attach letters 
of cooperation and support from the courts and related agencies that 
will be involved in or directly affected by the proposed project. 
Letters of support also may be sent under separate cover. However, in 
order to ensure that there is sufficient time to bring them to the 
Board's attention, support letters sent under separate cover must be 
received no later than January 6, 1999.
5. Page Limits
    a. The Institute will not accept concept papers with program 
narratives exceeding the limits set in sections VI.A.2. The page limit 
does not include the cover page, budget form, the budget narrative if 
required under section VI.A.3.b., the task schedule if required under 
section VI.A.2.b., and any letters of cooperation or endorsements. 
Additional material should not be attached unless it is essential to 
impart a clear understanding of the project.
    b. Applicants submitting more than one concept paper may include 
material that would be identical in each concept paper in a cover 
letter, and incorporate that material by reference in each paper. The 
incorporated material will be counted against the eight-page limit for 
each paper. A copy of the cover letter should be attached to each copy 
of each concept paper.
6. Sample Concept Papers
    Sample concept papers from previous funding cycles are available 
from the Institute upon request.

B. Selection Criteria

    1. All concept papers will be evaluated on the basis of the 
following criteria:
    a. The demonstration of need for the project;
    b. The soundness and innovativeness of the approach described;
    c. The benefits to be derived from the project;
    d. The reasonableness of the proposed budget;
    e. The proposed project's relationship to one of the ``Special 
Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B; and
    f. The degree to which the findings, procedures, training, 
technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other 
jurisdictions.
    ``Single jurisdiction'' concept papers submitted pursuant to 
section II.C. will be rated on the proposed project's relation to one 
of the ``Special Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B., and 
on the special requirements listed in section II.C.1.
    2. In determining which concept papers will be approved for award 
or selected for development into full applications, the Institute will 
also consider the availability of financial assistance from other 
sources for the project; the amount and nature (cash or in-kind) of the 
applicant's anticipated match; whether the applicant is a State court, 
a national court support or education organization, a non-court unit of 
government, or another type of entity eligible to receive grants under 
the Institute's enabling legislation (see 42 U.S.C. 10705(b), as 
amended and section IV above); the extent to which the proposed project 
would also benefit the Federal courts or help the State courts enforce 
Federal constitutional and legislative requirements, and the level of 
appropriations available to the Institute in the current year and the 
amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.

C. Review Process

    Concept papers will be reviewed competitively by the Board of 
Directors. Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary and a 
rating sheet assigning points for each relevant selection criterion for 
those concept papers which fall within the scope of the Institute's 
funding program and merit serious consideration by the Board. Staff 
will also prepare a list of those papers that, in the judgment of the 
Executive Director, propose projects that lie outside the scope of the 
Institute's funding program or are not likely to merit serious 
consideration by the Board. The narrative summaries, rating sheets, and 
list of non-reviewed papers will be presented to the Board for its 
review. Committees of the Board will review concept paper summaries 
within assigned program areas and prepare recommendations for the full 
Board. The full Board of Directors will then decide which concept paper 
applicants should be invited to submit formal applications for funding. 
The decision to invite an application is solely that of the Board of 
Directors.
    The Board may waive the application requirement and approve a grant 
based on a concept paper for a project requiring less than $40,000, 
when the need for and benefits of the project are clear, and the 
methodology and budget require little additional explanation. 
Applicants considering whether to request consideration for an 
accelerated award should make certain that the proposed budget is 
sufficient to accomplish the project objectives in a quality manner. 
Because the Institute's experience has been that projects to conduct 
empirical research or a program evaluation ordinarily require a more 
thorough explanation of the methodology to be used than can be provided 
within the space limitations of a concept paper, the Board is unlikely 
to waive the application requirement for such projects.

D. Submission Requirements

    Except as noted below, an original and three copies of all concept 
papers submitted for consideration in Fiscal Year 1999 must be sent by 
first class or overnight mail or by courier (but not by fax or e-mail) 
no later than November 24, 1998.
    A postmark or courier receipt will constitute evidence of the 
submission date. All envelopes containing concept papers should be 
marked CONCEPT PAPER and should be sent to: State Justice Institute, 
1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
    The Institute will send written notice to all persons submitting 
concept papers, informing them of the Board's decisions regarding their 
papers and of the key issues and questions that arose during the review 
process. A decision by the Board not to invite an application may not 
be appealed, but applicants may resubmit of the concept paper or a 
revision thereof in a subsequent round of funding. The Institute will 
also notify the designated State contact listed in Appendix I when the 
Board invites applications that are based on concept

[[Page 55449]]

papers which are submitted by courts within their State or which 
specify a participating site within their State.
    Receipt of each concept paper will be acknowledged in writing. 
Extensions of the deadline for submission of concept papers will not be 
granted.

VII. Application Requirements for New Projects

    An application for Institute funding support must include an 
application form; budget forms (with appropriate documentation); a 
project abstract and program narrative; a disclosure of lobbying form, 
when applicable; and certain certifications and assurances. The 
required application forms will be sent to applicants invited to submit 
a full application. Applicants may photocopy the forms to make 
completion easier.

A. Forms

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

B. Project Abstract

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

C. Program Narrative

    The program narrative for an application should not exceed 25 
double-spaced pages on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper. Margins must be at 
least 1 inch, and type size must be at least 12-point and 12 cpi. The 
pages should be numbered. This page limit does not include the forms, 
the abstract, the budget narrative, and any appendices containing 
resumes and letters of cooperation or endorsement. Additional 
background material should be attached only if it is essential to 
impart a clear understanding of the proposed project. Numerous and 
lengthy appendices are strongly discouraged.
    The program narrative should address the following topics:
1. Project Objectives
    The applicant should include a clear, concise statement of what the 
proposed project is intended to accomplish. In stating the objectives 
of the project, applicants should focus on the overall programmatic 
objective (e.g., to enhance understanding and skills regarding a 
specific subject, or to determine how a certain procedure affects the 
court and litigants) rather than on operational objectives (e.g., 
provide training for 32 judges and court managers, or review data from 
300 cases).
2. Program Areas To Be Covered
    The applicant should list the Special Interest Category or 
Categories that are addressed by the proposed project (see section 
II.B.). If the proposed project does not fall within one of the 
Institute's Special Interest Categories, the applicant should list the 
Statutory Program Area or Areas that are addressed by the proposed 
project. (See section II.A.)
3. Need for the Project
    If the project is to be conducted in a specific location(s), the 
applicant should discuss the particular needs of the project site(s) to 
be addressed by the project and why those needs are not being met 
through the use of existing materials, programs, procedures, services, 
or other resources.
    If the project is not site-specific, the applicant should discuss 
the problems that the proposed project would address, and why existing 
materials, programs, procedures, services, or other resources do not 
adequately resolve those problems. The discussion should include 
specific references to the relevant literature and to the experience in 
the field.
4. Tasks, Methods and Evaluation
    a. Tasks and Methods. The applicant should delineate the tasks to 
be performed in achieving the project objectives and the methods to be 
used for accomplishing each task. For example:
    i. For research and evaluation projects, the applicant should 
include the data sources, data collection strategies, variables to be 
examined, and analytic procedures to be used for conducting the 
research or evaluation and ensuring the validity and general 
applicability of the results. For projects involving human subjects, 
the discussion of methods should address the procedures for obtaining 
respondents' informed consent, ensuring the respondents' privacy and 
freedom from risk or harm, and the protection of others who are not the 
subjects of research but would be affected by the research. If the 
potential exists for risk or harm to the human subjects, a discussion 
should be included that explains the value of the proposed research and 
the methods to be used to minimize or eliminate such risk.

[[Page 55450]]

    ii. For education and training projects, the applicant should 
include the adult education techniques to be used in designing and 
presenting the program, including the teaching/learning objectives of 
the educational design, the teaching methods to be used, and the 
opportunities for structured interaction among the participants; how 
faculty will be recruited, selected, and trained; the proposed number 
and length of the conferences, courses, seminars, or workshops to be 
conducted and the estimated number of persons who will attend them; the 
materials to be provided and how they will be developed; and the cost 
to participants.
    iii. For demonstration projects, the applicant should include the 
demonstration sites and the reasons they were selected, or if the sites 
have not been chosen, how they will be identified and their cooperation 
obtained; and how the program or procedures will be implemented and 
monitored.
    iv. For technical assistance projects, the applicant should explain 
the types of assistance that will be provided; the particular issues 
and problems for which assistance will be provided; how requests will 
be obtained and the type of assistance determined; how suitable 
providers will be selected and briefed; how reports will be reviewed; 
and the cost to recipients.
    b. Evaluation. Every project design must include an evaluation plan 
to determine whether the project met its objectives. The evaluation 
should be designed to provide an objective and independent assessment 
of the effectiveness or usefulness of the training or services 
provided; the impact of the procedures, technology, or services tested; 
or the validity and applicability of the research conducted. In 
addition, where appropriate, the evaluation process should be designed 
to provide on-going or periodic feedback on the effectiveness or 
utility of particular programs, educational offerings, or achievements 
which can then be further refined as a result of the evaluation 
process. The plan should present the qualifications of the 
evaluator(s); describe the criteria, related to the project's 
programmatic objectives, that will be used to evaluate the project's 
effectiveness; explain how the evaluation will be conducted, including 
the specific data collection and analysis techniques to be used; 
discuss why this approach is appropriate; and present a schedule for 
completion of the evaluation within the proposed project period.
    The evaluation plan should be appropriate to the type of project 
proposed. For example:
    i. Research. An evaluation approach suited to many research 
projects is a review by an advisory panel of the research methodology, 
data collection instruments, preliminary analyses, and products as they 
are drafted. The panel should be comprised of independent researchers 
and practitioners representing the perspectives affected by the 
proposed project.
    ii. Education and Training. The most valuable approaches to 
evaluating educational or training programs will serve to reinforce the 
participants' learning experience while providing useful feedback on 
the impact of the program and possible areas for improvement. One 
appropriate evaluation approach is to assess the acquisition of new 
knowledge, skills, attitudes or understanding through participant 
feedback on the seminar or training event. Such feedback might include 
a self-assessment on what was learned along with the participant's 
response to the quality and effectiveness of faculty presentations, the 
format of sessions, the value or usefulness of the material presented, 
and other relevant factors. Another appropriate approach would be to 
use an independent observer who might request both verbal and written 
responses from participants in the program. When an education project 
involves the development of curricular materials, an advisory panel of 
relevant experts can be coupled with a test of the curriculum to obtain 
the reactions of participants and faculty as indicated above.
    iii. Demonstration. The evaluation plan for a demonstration project 
should encompass an assessment of program effectiveness (e.g., How well 
did it work?); user satisfaction, if appropriate; the cost-
effectiveness of the program; a process analysis of the program (e.g., 
Was the program implemented as designed? Did it provide the services 
intended to the targeted population?); the impact of the program (e.g., 
What effect did the program have on the court? What benefits resulted 
from the program?); and the replicability of the program or components 
of the program.
    iv. Technical Assistance. For technical assistance projects, 
applicants should explain how the quality, timeliness, and impact of 
the assistance provided will be determined, and should develop a 
mechanism for feedback from both the users and providers of the 
technical assistance.
    v. Evaluation plans involving human subjects should include a 
discussion of the procedures for obtaining respondents' informed 
consent, ensuring the respondents' privacy and freedom from risk or 
harm, and the protection of others who are not the subjects of 
evaluation but would be affected by it. Other than the provision of 
confidentiality to respondents, human subject protection issues 
ordinarily are not applicable to participants evaluating an education 
program.
5. Project Management
    The applicant should present a detailed management plan including 
the starting and completion date for each task; the time commitments to 
the project of key staff and their responsibilities regarding each 
project task; and the procedures that will be used to ensure that all 
tasks are performed on time, within budget, and at the highest level of 
quality. In preparing the project time line, Gantt Chart, or schedule, 
applicants should make certain that all project activities, including 
publication or reproduction of project products and their initial 
dissemination will occur within the proposed project period. The 
management plan must also provide for the submission of Quarterly 
Progress and Financial Reports within 30 days after the close of each 
calendar quarter (i.e., no later than January 30, April 30, July 30, 
and October 30).
    Applicants should be aware that the Institute is unlikely to 
approve more than one limited extension of the grant period. Therefore, 
the management plan should be as realistic as possible and fully 
reflect the time commitments of the proposed project staff and 
consultants.
6. Products
    The application should contain a description of the products to be 
developed by the project (e.g., training curricula and materials, 
videotapes, articles, manuals, or handbooks), including when they will 
be submitted to the Institute.
    a. Dissemination Plan. The application must explain how and to whom 
the products will be disseminated; describe how they will benefit the 
State courts, including how they can be used by judges and court 
personnel; identify development, production, and dissemination costs 
covered by the project budget; and present the basis on which products 
and services developed or provided under the grant will be offered to 
the courts community and the public at large (i.e., whether products 
will be distributed at no cost to recipients, or if costs are involved, 
the reason for charging recipients and the estimated price of the

[[Page 55451]]

product). (See section X.V.) Ordinarily, applicants should schedule all 
product preparation and distribution activities within the project 
period.
    A copy of each product must be sent to the library established in 
each State to collect the materials developed with Institute support. 
(A list of these libraries is contained in Appendix II.) To facilitate 
their use, all videotaped products should be distributed in VHS format.
    Twenty copies of all project products must be submitted to the 
Institute. A master copy of each videotape, in addition to 20 copies of 
each videotape product, must also be provided to the Institute.
    b. Types of Products, Abstracts, and Press Releases. The type of 
product to be prepared depends on the nature of the project. For 
example, in most instances, the products of a research, evaluation, or 
demonstration project should include an article summarizing the project 
findings that is publishable in a journal serving the courts community 
nationally, an executive summary that will be disseminated to the 
project's primary audience, or both. Applicants proposing to conduct 
empirical research or evaluation projects with national import should 
describe how they will make their data available for secondary analysis 
after the grant period. (See section X.W.)
    The curricula and other products developed by education and 
training projects should be designed for use outside the classroom so 
that they may be used again by original participants and others in the 
course of their duties.
    However, all grantees must submit a diskette containing a one-page 
abstract summarizing the products resulting from a project in Word or 
ASCII for posting on the Institute's website. In addition, recipients 
of project grants must prepare a press release describing the project 
and announcing the results and distribute the release to a list of 
national and State judicial branch organizations. Both the format for 
the abstract and a list of press release recipients will be provided to 
grantees at least 30 days before the end of the grant period.
    c. Institute Review. Applicants must provide for submitting a final 
draft of all written grant products to the Institute for review and 
approval at least 30 days before the products are submitted for 
publication or reproduction. For products in a videotape or CD-ROM 
format, applicants must provide for incremental Institute review of the 
product at the treatment, script, rough-cut, and final stages of 
development, or their equivalents. 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.
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. The applicant also should identify 
the person who would be responsible for the financial management and 
financial reporting for the proposed project.
9. Organizational Capacity
    Applicants that have not received a grant from the Institute within 
the past two years should include a statement describing the capacity 
of the applicant to administer grant funds including the financial 
systems used to monitor project expenditures (and income, if any), and 
a summary of the applicant's past experience in administering grants, 
as well as any resources or capabilities that the applicant has that 
will particularly assist in the successful completion of the project.
    Unless requested otherwise, an applicant that has received a grant 
from the Institute within the past two years should describe only the 
changes in its organizational capacity, tax status, or financial 
capability that may affect its capacity to administer a grant.
    If the applicant is a non-profit organization (other than a 
university), it must also provide documentation of its 501(c) tax 
exempt status as determined by the Internal Revenue Service and a copy 
of a current certified audit report. For purposes of this requirement, 
``current'' means no earlier than two years prior to the current 
calendar year.
    If a current audit report is not available, the Institute will 
require the organization to complete a financial capability 
questionnaire which must be signed by a Certified Public Accountant. 
Other applicants may be required to provide a current audit report, a 
financial capability questionnaire, or both, if specifically requested 
to do so by the Institute.
10. Statement of Lobbying Activities
    Non-governmental applicants must submit the Institute's Disclosure 
of Lobbying Activities Form that requires them to state whether they, 
or another entity that is a part of the same organization as the 
applicant, have advocated a position before Congress on any issue, and 
identifies the specific subjects of their lobbying efforts.
11. Letters of Cooperation or Support
    If the cooperation of courts, organizations, agencies, or 
individuals other than the applicant is required to conduct the 
project, the applicant should attach written assurances of cooperation 
and availability to the application, or send them under separate cover. 
In order to ensure that there is sufficient time to bring them to the 
Board's attention, letters of support sent under separate cover must be 
received no more than 30 days after the deadline for mailing the 
application.

D. Budget Narrative

    The budget narrative should provide the basis for the computation 
of all project-related costs. When the proposed project would be 
partially supported by grants from other funding sources, applicants 
should make clear what costs would be covered by those other grants. 
Additional background or schedules may be attached if they are 
essential to obtaining a clear understanding of the proposed budget. 
Numerous and lengthy appendices are strongly discouraged.
    The budget narrative should cover the costs of all components of 
the project

[[Page 55452]]

and clearly identify costs attributable to the project evaluation. 
Under OMB grant guidelines incorporated by reference in this Guideline, 
grant funds may not be used to purchase alcoholic beverages.
1. Justification of Personnel Compensation
    The applicant should set forth the percentages of time to be 
devoted by the individuals who will serve as the staff of the proposed 
project, the annual salary of each of those persons, and the number of 
work days per year used for calculating the percentages of time or 
daily rate of those individuals. The applicant should explain any 
deviations from current rates or established written organization 
policies. If grant funds are requested to pay the salary and related 
costs for a current employee of a court or other unit of government, 
the applicant should explain why this would not constitute a 
supplantation of State or local funds in violation of 42 U.S.C. 10706 
(d)(1). An acceptable explanation may be that the position to be filled 
is a new one established in conjunction with the project or that the 
grant funds will be supporting only the portion of the employee's time 
that will be dedicated to new or additional duties related to the 
project.
2. Fringe Benefit Computation
    The applicant should provide a description of the fringe benefits 
provided to employees. If percentages are used, the authority for such 
use should be presented as well as a description of the elements 
included in the determination of the percentage rate.
3. Consultant/Contractual Services and Honoraria
    The applicant should describe the tasks each consultant will 
perform, the estimated total amount to be paid to each consultant, the 
basis for compensation rates (e.g., number of days x the daily 
consultant rates), and the method for selection. Rates for consultant 
services must be set in accordance with section XI.H.2.c. Honorarium 
payments must be justified in the same manner as other consultant 
payments. Prior written Institute approval is required for any 
consultant rate in excess of $300 per day; Institute funds may not be 
used to pay a consultant at a rate in excess of $900 per day.
4. Travel
    Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the 
policies of the applicant organization. If the applicant does not have 
an established travel policy, then travel rates must be consistent with 
those established by the Institute or the Federal Government. (A copy 
of the Institute's travel policy is available upon request.) The budget 
narrative should include an explanation of the rate used, including the 
components of the per diem rate and the basis for the estimated 
transportation expenses. The purpose of the travel should also be 
included in the narrative.
5. Equipment
    Grant funds may be used to purchase only the equipment that is 
necessary to demonstrate a new technological application in a court, or 
that is otherwise essential to accomplishing the objectives of the 
project. Equipment purchases to support basic court operations 
ordinarily will not be approved. The applicant should describe the 
equipment to be purchased or leased and explain why the acquisition of 
that equipment is essential to accomplish the project's goals and 
objectives. The narrative should clearly identify which equipment is to 
be leased and which is to be purchased. The method of procurement 
should also be described. Purchases for automatic data processing 
equipment must comply with section XI.H.2.b.
6. Supplies
    The applicant should provide a general description of the supplies 
necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives of the grant. In 
addition, the applicant should provide the basis for the amount 
requested for this expenditure category.
7. Construction
    Construction expenses are prohibited except for the limited 
purposes set forth in section X.H.2. Any allowable construction or 
renovation expense should be described in detail in the budget 
narrative.
8. Telephone
    Applicants should include anticipated telephone charges, 
distinguishing between monthly charges and long distance charges in the 
budget narrative. Also, applicants should provide the basis used in 
developing the monthly and long distance estimates.
9. Postage
    Anticipated postage costs for project-related mailings should be 
described in the budget narrative. The cost of special mailings, such 
as for a survey or for announcing a workshop, should be distinguished 
from routine operational mailing costs. The bases for all postage 
estimates should be included in the justification material.
10. Printing/Photocopying
    Anticipated costs for printing or photocopying should be included 
in the budget narrative. Applicants should provide the details 
underlying these estimates in support of the request.
11. Indirect Costs
    Applicants should describe the indirect cost rates applicable to 
the grant in detail. If costs often included within an indirect cost 
rate are charged directly (e.g., a percentage of the time of senior 
managers to supervise product activities), the applicant should specify 
that these costs are not included within their approved indirect cost 
rate. These rates must be established in accordance with section 
XI.H.4. If the applicant has an indirect cost rate or allocation plan 
approved by any Federal granting agency, a copy of the approved rate 
agreement should be attached to the application.
12. Match
    The applicant should describe the source of any matching 
contribution and the nature of the match provided. Any additional 
contributions to the project should be described in this section of the 
budget narrative as well. If in-kind match is to be provided, the 
applicant should describe how the amount and value of the time, 
services, or materials actually contributed will be documented 
sufficiently clearly to permit them to be included in an audit of the 
grant. Applicants should be aware that the time spent by participants 
in education courses does not qualify as in-kind match.
    Applicants that do not contemplate making matching contributions 
continuously throughout the course of the project or on a task-by-task 
basis must provide a schedule within 30 days after the beginning of the 
project period indicating at what points during the project period the 
matching contributions will be made. (See sections III.F., VIII.B., 
X.B. and XI.D.1.)

E. Submission Requirements

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

[[Page 55453]]

    All invited must be sent by first class or overnight mail or by 
courier, no later than May 12, 1999. A postmark or courier receipt will 
constitute evidence of the submission date. Please mark APPLICATION on 
all application package envelopes and send to: State Justice Institute, 
1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314.
    Receipt of each proposal will be acknowledged in writing. 
Extensions of the deadline for submission of applications will not be 
granted. See section VII.C.11. for receipt deadlines for letters of 
support.
    2. Applicants submitting more than one application may include 
material that would be identical in each application in a cover letter, 
and incorporate that material by reference in each application. The 
incorporated material will be counted against the 25-page limit for the 
program narrative. A copy of the cover letter should be attached to 
each copy of each application.

VIII. Application Review Procedures

A. Preliminary Inquiries

    The Institute staff will answer inquiries concerning application 
procedures. The staff contact will be named in the Institute's letter 
acknowledging receipt of the application.

B. Selection Criteria

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

C. Review and Approval Process

    Applications will be reviewed competitively by the Board of 
Directors. The Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary of each 
application, and a rating sheet assigning points for each relevant 
selection criterion. When necessary, applications may also be reviewed 
by outside experts. Committees of the Board will review applications 
within assigned program categories and prepare recommendations to the 
full Board. The full Board of Directors will then decide which 
applications to approve for a grant. The decision to award a grant is 
solely that of the Board of Directors.
    Awards approved by the Board will be signed by the Chairman of the 
Board on behalf of the Institute.

D. Return Policy

    Unless a specific request is made, unsuccessful applications will 
not be returned. Applicants are advised that Institute records are 
subject to the provisions of the Federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 
U.S.C. 552.

E. Notification of Board Decision

    The Institute will send written notice to applicants concerning all 
Board decisions to approve, defer, or deny their respective 
applications and the key issues and questions that arose during the 
review process. A decision by the Board to deny an application may not 
be appealed, but does not prohibit resubmission of a proposal based on 
that application in a subsequent round of funding. The Institute will 
also notify the designated State contact listed in Appendix I when 
grants are approved by the Board to support projects that will be 
conducted by or involve courts in their State.

F. Response to Notification of Approval

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

IX. Renewal Funding Procedures and Requirements

    The Institute recognizes two types of renewal funding as described 
below--``continuation grants'' and ``on-going support grants.'' The 
award of an initial grant to support a project does not constitute a 
commitment by the Institute to renew funding. The Board of Directors 
anticipates allocating no more than 25% of available FY 1999 grant 
funds for renewal grants.

A. Continuation Grants

1. Purpose and Scope
    Continuation grants are intended to support projects with a limited 
duration that involve the same type of activities as the previous 
project. They are intended to enhance the specific program or service 
produced or established during the prior grant period. They may be 
used, for example, when a project is divided into two or more 
sequential phases, for secondary analysis of data obtained in an 
Institute-supported research project, or for more extensive testing of 
an innovative technology, procedure, or program developed with SJI 
grant support.
    In order for a project to be considered for continuation funding, 
the grantee must have completed the project tasks and met all grant 
requirements and conditions in a timely manner, absent extenuating 
circumstances or prior Institute approval of changes to the project 
design. Continuation grants are not intended to provide support for a 
project for which the grantee has underestimated the amount of time or 
funds needed to accomplish the project tasks.
2. Application Procedures--Letters of Intent
    In lieu of a concept paper, a grantee seeking a continuation grant 
must inform the Institute, by letter, of its intent to submit an 
application for such funding as soon as the need for renewal funding 
becomes apparent but no less than 120 days before the end of the 
current grant period.

[[Page 55454]]

    a. A letter of intent must be no more than 3 single-spaced pages on 
8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper and must contain a concise but thorough 
explanation of the need for continuation; an estimate of the funds to 
be requested; and a brief description of anticipated changes in the 
scope, focus, or audience of the project.
    b. Within 30 days after receiving a letter of intent, Institute 
staff will review the proposed activities for the next project period 
and inform the grantee of specific issues to be addressed in the 
continuation application and the date by which the application for a 
continuation grant must be submitted.
3. Application Format
    An application for a continuation grant must include an application 
form, budget forms (with appropriate documentation), a project abstract 
conforming to the format set forth in section VII.B., a program 
narrative, a budget narrative, a Certificate of State Approval (FORM B) 
if the applicant is a State or local court, a disclosure of lobbying 
form (from applicants other than units of State or local government), 
and any necessary appendices.
    The program narrative should conform to the length and format 
requirements set forth in section VII.C. However, rather than the 
topics listed in section VII.C., the program narrative of an 
application for a continuation grant should include:
    a. Project Objectives. The applicant should clearly and concisely 
state what the continuation project is intended to accomplish.
    b. Need for Continuation. The applicant should explain why 
continuation of the project is necessary to achieve the goals of the 
project, and how the continuation will benefit the participating courts 
or the courts community generally. That is, to what extent will the 
original goals and objectives of the project be unfulfilled if the 
project is not continued, and conversely, how will the findings or 
results of the project be enhanced by continuing the project?
    c. Report of Current Project Activities. The applicant should 
discuss the status of all activities conducted during the previous 
project period. Applicants should identify any activities that were not 
completed, and explain why.
    d. Evaluation Findings. The applicant should present the key 
findings, impact, or recommendations resulting from the evaluation of 
the project, if they are available, and how they will be addressed 
during the proposed continuation. If the findings are not yet 
available, applicants should provide the date by which they will be 
submitted to the Institute. Ordinarily, the Board will not consider an 
application for continuation funding until the Institute has received 
the evaluator's report.
    e. Tasks, Methods, Staff and Grantee Capability. The applicant 
should fully describe any changes in the tasks to be performed, the 
methods to be used, the products of the project, and how and to whom 
those products will be disseminated, as well as any changes in the 
assigned staff or the grantee's organizational capacity. Applicants 
should include, in addition, the criteria and methods by which the 
proposed continuation project would be evaluated.
    f. Task Schedule. The applicant should present a detailed task 
schedule and timeline for the next project period.
    g. Other Sources of Support. The applicant should indicate why 
other sources of support are inadequate, inappropriate or unavailable.
4. Budget and Budget Narrative
    The applicant should provide a complete budget and budget narrative 
conforming to the requirements set forth in paragraph VII.D. Changes in 
the funding level requested should be discussed in terms of 
corresponding increases or decreases in the scope of activities or 
services to be rendered. In addition, the applicant should estimate the 
amount of grant funds that will remain unobligated at the end of the 
current grant period.
    5. References to Previously Submitted Material
    An application for a continuation grant should not repeat 
information contained in a previously approved application or other 
previously submitted materials, but should provide specific references 
to such materials where appropriate.
6. Submission Requirements, Review and Approval Process, and 
Notification of Decision
    The submission requirements set forth in section VII.E., other than 
the deadline for mailing, apply to applications for a continuation 
grant. Such applications will be rated on the selection criteria set 
forth in section VIII.B. The key findings and recommendations resulting 
from an evaluation of the project and the proposed response to those 
findings and recommendations will also be considered. The review and 
approval process, return policy, and notification procedures are the 
same as those for new projects set forth in sections VIII.C.-VIII.E.

B. On-going Support Grants

1. Purpose and Scope
    On-going support grants are intended to support projects that are 
national in scope and that provide the State courts with services, 
programs or products for which there is a continuing critical need. An 
on-going support grant may also be used to fund longitudinal research 
that directly benefits the State courts. On-going support grants are 
subject to the limits on size and duration set forth in V.C.2. and 
V.D.2. The Board will consider awarding an on-going support grant for a 
period of up to 36 months. The total amount of the grant will be fixed 
at the time of the initial award. Funds ordinarily will be made 
available in annual increments as specified in section V.C.2.
    A project is eligible for consideration for an on-going support 
grant if:
    a. The project is supported by and has been evaluated under a grant 
from the Institute;
    b. The project is national in scope and provides a significant 
benefit to the State courts;
    c. There is a continuing critical need for the services, programs 
or products provided by the project as indicated by the level of use 
and support by members of the court community;
    d. The project is accomplishing its objectives in an effective and 
efficient manner; and
    e. It is likely that the service or program provided by the project 
would be curtailed or significantly reduced without Institute support.
    Each project supported by an on-going support grant must include an 
evaluation component assessing its effectiveness and operation 
throughout the grant period. The evaluation should be independent, but 
may be designed collaboratively by the evaluator and the grantee. The 
design should call for regular feedback from the evaluator to the 
grantee throughout the project period concerning recommendations for 
mid-course corrections or improvement of the project, as well as 
periodic reports to the Institute at relevant points in the project.
    An interim evaluation report must be submitted 18 months into the 
grant period. The decision to obligate Institute funds to support the 
third year of the project will be based on the interim evaluation 
findings and the applicant's response to any deficiencies noted in the 
report.
    A final evaluation assessing the effectiveness, operation of, and 
continuing need for the project must be submitted 90 days before the 
end of the 3-year project period. In addition, a

[[Page 55455]]

detailed annual task schedule must be submitted not later than 45 days 
before the end of the first and second years of the grant period, along 
with an explanation of any necessary revisions in the projected costs 
for the remainder of the project period. (See also section IX.B.3.h.)
2. Letters of Intent
    In lieu of a concept paper, a grantee seeking an on-going support 
grant must inform the Institute, by letter, of its intent to submit an 
application for such funding as soon as the need for renewal funding 
becomes apparent but no less than 120 days before the end of the 
current grant period. The letter of intent should be in the same format 
as that prescribed for continuation grants in section IX.A.2.a.
3. Format
    An application for an on-going support grant must include an 
application form, budget forms (with appropriate documentation), a 
Certificate of State Approval (FORM B) if the applicant is a State or 
local court, a disclosure of lobbying form (from applicants other than 
units of State or local government), a project abstract conforming to 
the format set forth in section VII.B., a program narrative, a budget 
narrative, and any necessary appendices.
    The program narrative should conform to the length and format 
requirements set forth in section VII.C. However, rather than the 
topics listed in section VII.C., the program narrative of applications 
for on-going support grants should address:
    a. Description of Need for and Benefits of the Project. The 
applicant should provide a detailed discussion of the benefits provided 
by the project to the State courts around the country, including the 
degree to which State courts, State court judges, or State court 
managers and personnel are using the services or programs provided by 
the project.
    b. Demonstration of Court Support. The applicant should demonstrate 
support for the continuation of the project from the courts community.
    c. Report on Current Project Activities. The applicant should 
discuss the extent to which the project has met its goals and 
objectives, identify any activities that have not been completed, and 
explain why.
    d. Evaluation Findings. The applicant should attach a copy of the 
final evaluation report regarding the effectiveness, impact, and 
operation of the project, specify the key findings or recommendations 
resulting from the evaluation, and explain how they will be addressed 
during the proposed renewal period. Ordinarily, the Board will not 
consider an application for on-going support until the Institute has 
received the evaluator's report.
    e. Objectives, Tasks, Methods, Staff and Grantee Capability. The 
applicant should describe fully any changes in the objectives; tasks to 
be performed; the methods to be used; the products of the project; how 
and to whom those products will be disseminated; the assigned staff; 
and the grantee's organizational capacity. The grantee also should 
describe the steps it will take to obtain support from other sources 
for the continued operation of the project.
    f. Task Schedule. The applicant should present a general schedule 
for the full proposed project period and a detailed task schedule for 
the first year of the proposed new project period.
    g. Other Sources of Support. The applicant should describe what 
efforts it has taken to secure support for the project from other 
sources and discuss why other sources of support are inadequate, 
inappropriate, or unavailable.
4. Budget and Budget Narrative
    The applicant should provide a complete three-year budget and 
budget narrative conforming to the requirements set forth in paragraph 
VII.D., and estimate the amount of grant funds that will remain 
unobligated at the end of the current grant period. Changes in the 
funding level requested should be discussed in terms of corresponding 
increases or decreases in the scope of activities or services to be 
rendered. A complete budget narrative should be provided for the full 
project as well as for each year, or portion of a year, for which grant 
support is requested. Changes in the funding level requested should be 
discussed in terms of corresponding increases or decreases in the scope 
of activities or services to be rendered. The budget should provide for 
realistic cost-of-living and staff salary increases over the course of 
the requested project period. Applicants should be aware that the 
Institute is unlikely to approve a supplemental budget increase for an 
on-going support grant in the absence of well-documented, unanticipated 
factors that clearly justify the requested increase.
5. References to Previously Submitted Material
    An application for an on-going support grant should not repeat 
information contained in a previously approved application or other 
previously submitted materials, but should provide specific references 
to such materials where appropriate.
6. Submission Requirements, Review and Approval Process, and 
Notification of Decision
    The submission requirements set forth in section VII.E., other than 
the deadline for mailing, apply to applications for an on-going support 
grant. Such applications will be rated on the selection criteria set 
forth in section VIII.B. The key findings and recommendations resulting 
from an evaluation of the project and the proposed response to those 
findings and recommendations will also be considered. The review and 
approval process, return policy, and notification procedures are the 
same as those for new projects set forth in sections VIII.C.-VIII.E.

X. Compliance Requirements

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

A. State and Local Court Systems

    Each application for funding from a State or local court must be 
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court, or 
its designated agency or council. The Supreme Court or its designee 
shall receive, administer, and be accountable for all funds awarded on 
the basis of such an application. 42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(4). Appendix I to 
this Guideline lists the person to contact in each State regarding the 
administration of Institute grants to State and local courts.

B. Matching Requirements

    1. All awards to courts or other units of State or local government 
(not including publicly supported institutions of higher education) 
require a match from private or public sources of not less than 50% of 
the total amount of the Institute's award. For example, if the total 
cost of a project is anticipated to be $150,000, a State court or 
executive branch agency may request up to $100,000 from the Institute 
to implement the project. The remaining $50,000 (50% of the $100,000 
requested from SJI) must be provided as a match. A cash match, non-cash 
match, or both may be provided, but the Institute will

[[Page 55456]]

give preference to those applicants that provide a cash match to the 
Institute's award. (For a further definition of match, see section 
III.F.)
    The requirement to provide match may be waived in exceptionally 
rare circumstances upon the request of the Chief Justice of the highest 
court in the State and approval by the Board of Directors. 42 U.S.C. 
10705(d).
    2. Other eligible recipients of Institute funds are not required to 
provide a match, but are encouraged to contribute to meeting the costs 
of the project. In instances where match is proposed, the grantee is 
responsible for ensuring that the total amount proposed is actually 
contributed. If a proposed contribution is not fully met, the Institute 
may reduce the award amount accordingly, in order to maintain the ratio 
originally provided for in the award agreement (see sections VIII.B. 
above and XI.D.).

C. Conflict of Interest

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

D. Lobbying

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

E. Political Activities

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

F. Advocacy

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

G. Prohibition Against Litigation Support

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

H. Supplantation and Construction

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

I. Confidentiality of Information

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

J. Human Research Protection

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

K. Nondiscrimination

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

[[Page 55457]]

L. Reporting Requirements

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

M. Audit

    Recipients, other than those noted below, must provide for an 
annual fiscal audit which shall include an opinion on whether the 
financial statements of the grantee present fairly its financial 
position and financial operations are in accordance with generally 
accepted accounting principles. (See section XI.J. of the Guideline for 
the requirements of such audits.) Recipients of a scholarship, 
curriculum adaptation, or technical assistance grant are not required 
to submit an audit, but must maintain appropriate documentation to 
support all expenditures.

N. Suspension of Funding

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

O. Title to Property

    At the conclusion of the project, title to all expendable and 
nonexpendable personal property purchased with Institute funds shall 
vest in the recipient court, organization, or individual that purchased 
the property if certification is made to and approved by the Institute 
that the property will continue to be used for the authorized purposes 
of the Institute-funded project or other purposes consistent with the 
State Justice Institute Act. If such certification is not made or the 
Institute disapproves such certification, title to all such property 
with an aggregate or individual value of $1,000 or more shall vest in 
the Institute, which will direct the disposition of the property.

P. Original Material

    All products prepared as the result of Institute-supported projects 
must be originally-developed material unless otherwise specified in the 
award documents. Material not originally developed that is included in 
such products must be properly identified, whether the material is in a 
verbatim or extensive paraphrase format.

Q. Acknowledgment and Disclaimer

    Recipients of Institute funds shall acknowledge prominently on all 
products developed with grant funds that support was received from the 
Institute. The ``SJI'' logo must appear on the front cover of a written 
product, or in the opening frames of a video product, unless another 
placement is approved in writing by the Institute. This includes final 
products printed or otherwise reproduced during the grant period, as 
well as reprintings or reproductions of those materials following the 
end of the grant period. A camera-ready logo sheet is available from 
the Institute upon request.
    Recipients also shall display the following disclaimer on all grant 
products:

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

R. Institute Approval of Grant Products

    No grant funds may be obligated for publication or reproduction of 
a final product developed with grant funds without the written approval 
of the Institute. Grantees shall submit a final draft of each written 
product to the Institute for review and approval. These drafts shall be 
submitted at least 30 days before the product is scheduled to be sent 
for publication or reproduction to permit Institute review and 
incorporation of any appropriate changes agreed upon by the grantee and 
the Institute. Grantees shall provide for timely reviews by the 
Institute of videotape or CD-ROM products at the treatment, script, 
rough cut, and final stages of development or their equivalents, prior 
to initiating the next stage of product development.

S. Distribution of Grant Products

    In addition to the distribution specified in the grant application, 
grantees shall send:
    1. Twenty copies of each final product developed with grant funds 
to the Institute, unless the product was developed under either a 
curriculum adaptation or a technical assistance grant, in which case 
submission of 2 copies is required.
    2. A mastercopy of each videotape produced with grant funds to the 
Institute.
    3. One copy of each final product developed with grant funds to the 
library established in each State to collect materials prepared with 
Institute support. (A list of these libraries is contained in Appendix 
II. Labels for these libraries are available from the Institute upon 
request.) Recipients of curriculum adaptation and technical assistance 
grants are not required to submit final products to State libraries.
    4. A one-page abstract to the Institute summarizing the products 
produced during the project for posting on the Internet together with a 
diskette containing the abstract in Word or ASCII in a format 
prescribed by the Institute for posting on the Institute's website.
    5. In addition, recipients of project grants must prepare a press 
release describing the project and announcing the results and 
distribute the release to a list of national and State judicial branch 
organizations provided by the Institute.

T. Copyrights

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

U. Inventions and Patents

    If any patentable items, patent rights, processes, or inventions 
are produced in the course of Institute-sponsored work, such fact shall 
be promptly and fully reported to the Institute. Unless there is a 
prior agreement between the grantee and the Institute on disposition of 
such items, the Institute shall determine whether protection of the 
invention or

[[Page 55458]]

discovery shall be sought. The Institute will also determine how the 
rights in the invention or discovery, including rights under any patent 
issued thereon, shall be allocated and administered in order to protect 
the public interest consistent with ``Government Patent Policy'' 
(President's Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and 
Agencies, February 18, 1983, and statement of Government Patent 
Policy).

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

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

W. Availability of Research Data for Secondary Analysis

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

X. Approval of Key Staff

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

XI. Financial Requirements

A. Accounting Systems and Financial Records

    All grantees, subgrantees, contractors, and other organizations 
directly or indirectly receiving Institute funds are required to 
establish and maintain accounting systems and financial records to 
accurately account for funds they receive. These records shall include 
total program costs, including Institute funds, State and local 
matching shares, and any other fund sources included in the approved 
project budget.
1. Purpose
    The purpose of this section is to establish accounting system 
requirements and offer guidance on procedures which will assist all 
grantees/subgrantees in:
    a. Complying with the statutory requirements for the awarding, 
disbursement, and accounting of funds;
    b. Complying with regulatory requirements of the Institute for the 
financial management and disposition of funds;
    c. Generating financial data which can be used in the planning, 
management and control of programs; and
    d. Facilitating an effective audit of funded programs and projects.
2. References
    Except where inconsistent with specific provisions of this 
Guideline, the following regulations, directives and reports are 
applicable to Institute grants and cooperative agreements under the 
same terms and conditions that apply to Federal grantees. These 
materials supplement the requirements of this section for accounting 
systems and financial recordkeeping and provide additional guidance on 
how these requirements may be satisfied. (Circulars may be obtained 
from OMB by calling 202-395-7250.)
    a. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-21, Cost 
Principles for Educational Institutions.
    b. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost 
Principles for State and Local Governments.
    c. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-88 (revised), 
Indirect Cost Rates, Audit and Audit Follow-up at Educational 
Institutions.
    d. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102, Uniform 
Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local 
Governments.
    e. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110, Grants and 
Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and other 
Non-Profit Organizations.
    f. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-128, Audits of 
State and Local Governments.
    g. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-122, Cost 
Principles for Non-profit Organizations.
    h. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of 
Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non-profit Institutions.

B. Supervision and Monitoring Responsibilities

1. Grantee Responsibilities
    All grantees receiving direct awards from the Institute are 
responsible for the management and fiscal control of all funds. 
Responsibilities include accounting for receipts and expenditures, 
maintaining adequate financial records, and refunding expenditures 
disallowed by audits.
2. Responsibilities of State Supreme Court
    Each application for funding from a State or local court must be 
approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court, or 
its designated agency or council.
    The State Supreme Court or its designee shall receive all Institute 
funds awarded to such courts; be responsible

[[Page 55459]]

for assuring proper administration of Institute funds; and be 
responsible for all aspects of the project, including proper accounting 
and financial recordkeeping by the subgrantee. These responsibilities 
include:
    a. Reviewing Financial Operations. The State Supreme Court or its 
designee should be familiar with, and periodically monitor, its 
subgrantees' financial operations, records system and procedures. 
Particular attention should be directed to the maintenance of current 
financial data.
    b. Recording Financial Activities. The subgrantee's grant award or 
contract obligation, as well as cash advances and other financial 
activities, should be recorded in the financial records of the State 
Supreme Court or its designee in summary form. Subgrantee expenditures 
should be recorded on the books of the State Supreme Court OR evidenced 
by report forms duly filed by the subgrantee. Non-Institute 
contributions applied to projects by subgrantees should likewise be 
recorded, as should any project income resulting from program 
operations.
    c. Budgeting and Budget Review. The State Supreme Court or its 
designee should ensure that each subgrantee prepares an adequate budget 
as the basis for its award commitment. The detail of each project 
budget should be maintained on file by the State Supreme Court.
    d. Accounting for Non-Institute Contributions. The State Supreme 
Court or its designee will ensure, in those instances where subgrantees 
are required to furnish non-Institute matching funds, that the 
requirements and limitations of the Guideline are applied to such 
funds.
    e. Audit Requirement. The State Supreme Court or its designee is 
required to ensure that subgrantees have met the necessary audit 
requirements set forth by the Institute (see sections X.M. and XI.J).
    f. Reporting Irregularities. The State Supreme Court, its 
designees, and its subgrantees are responsible for promptly reporting 
to the Institute the nature and circumstances surrounding any financial 
irregularities discovered.

C. Accounting System

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

D. Total Cost Budgeting and Accounting

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

E. Maintenance and Retention of Records

    All financial records, supporting documents, statistical records 
and all other records pertinent to grants, subgrants, cooperative 
agreements or contracts under grants shall be retained by each 
organization participating in a project for at least three years for 
purposes of examination and audit. State Supreme Courts may impose 
record retention and maintenance requirements in addition to those 
prescribed in this chapter.
1. Coverage
    The retention requirement extends to books of original entry, 
source documents supporting accounting transactions, the general 
ledger, subsidiary ledgers, personnel and payroll records, canceled 
checks, and related documents and records. Source documents include 
copies of all grant and subgrant awards, applications, and required 
grantee/subgrantee financial and narrative reports. Personnel and 
payroll records shall include the time and attendance reports for all 
individuals reimbursed under a grant, subgrant or contract, whether 
they are employed full-time or part-time. Time and effort reports will 
be required for consultants.
2. Retention Period
    The three-year retention period starts from the date of the 
submission of the final expenditure report or, for grants which are 
renewed annually, from the date of submission of the annual expenditure 
report.
3. Maintenance
    Grantees and subgrantees are expected to see that records of 
different fiscal years are separately identified and maintained so that 
requested

[[Page 55460]]

information can be readily located. Grantees and subgrantees are also 
obligated to protect records adequately against fire or other damage. 
When records are stored away from the grantee's/subgrantee's principal 
office, a written index of the location of stored records should be on 
hand, and ready access should be assured.
4. Access
    Grantees and subgrantees must give any authorized representative of 
the Institute access to and the right to examine all records, books, 
papers, and documents related to an Institute grant.

F. Project-Related Income

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

G. Payments and Financial Reporting Requirements

1. Payment of Grant Funds
    The procedures and regulations set forth below are applicable to 
all Institute grant funds and grantees.
    a. Request for Advance or Reimbursement of Funds. Grantees will 
receive funds on a ``Check-Issued'' basis. Upon receipt, review, and 
approval of a Request for Advance or Reimbursement by the Institute, a 
check will be issued directly to the grantee or its designated fiscal 
agent. A request must be limited to the grantee's immediate cash needs. 
The Request for Advance or Reimbursement, along with the instructions 
for its preparation, will be included in the official Institute award 
package.
    b. Continuation and On-Going Support Awards. For purposes of 
submitting Requests for Advance or Reimbursement, recipients of 
continuation and on-going support grants should treat each grant as a 
new project and number their requests accordingly (i.e. on a grant 
rather than a project basis). For example, the first request for 
payment from a continuation grant or each year of an on-going support 
would be number 1, the second number 2, etc. (See Recommendations to 
Grantees in the Introduction for further guidance.)
    c. Termination of Advance and Reimbursement Funding. When a grantee 
organization receiving cash advances from the Institute:
    i. Demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to attain program or 
project goals, or to establish procedures that will minimize the time 
elapsing between cash advances and disbursements, or cannot adhere to 
guideline requirements or special conditions;
    ii. Engages in the improper award and administration of subgrants 
or contracts; or
    iii. Is unable to submit reliable and/or timely reports; the 
Institute may terminate advance financing and require the grantee 
organization to finance its operations with its own working capital. 
Payments to the grantee shall then be made by check to reimburse the 
grantee for actual cash disbursements. In the event the grantee 
continues to be deficient, the Institute may suspend reimbursement 
payments until the deficiencies are corrected.
    d. Principle of Minimum Cash on Hand. Recipient organizations 
should request funds based upon immediate disbursement requirements. 
Grantees should time their requests to ensure that cash on hand is the 
minimum needed for disbursements to be made immediately or within a few 
days. Idle funds in the hands of subgrantees will impair the goals of 
good cash management.
2. Financial Reporting
    a. General Requirements. In order to obtain financial information 
concerning the use of funds, the Institute requires that grantees/
subgrantees of these funds submit timely reports for review.
    Three copies of the Financial Status Report are required from all 
grantees, other than recipients of scholarships under section 
II.B.2.b.iii., for each active quarter on a calendar-quarter basis. 
This report is due within 30 days after the close of the calendar 
quarter. It is designed to provide financial information relating to 
Institute funds,

[[Page 55461]]

State and local matching shares, project income, and any other sources 
of funds for the project, as well as information on obligations and 
outlays. A copy of the Financial Status Report, along with instructions 
for its preparation, will be included in the official Institute Award 
package. In circumstances where an organization requests substantial 
payments for a project prior to the completion of a given quarter, the 
Institute may request a brief summary of the amount requested, by 
object class, in support of the Request for Advance or Reimbursement.
    b. Additional Requirements for Renewal Grants. Grantees receiving a 
continuation or on-going support grant should number their quarterly 
Financial Status Reports on a grant rather than a project basis. For 
example, the first quarterly report for a continuation grant or each 
year of an on-going support award should be number 1, the second number 
2, etc.
3. Consequences of Non-Compliance With Submission Requirements
    Failure of the grantee organization to submit required financial 
and program reports may result in a suspension or termination of grant 
payments.

H. Allowability of Costs

1. General
    Except as may be otherwise provided in the conditions of a 
particular grant, cost allowability shall be determined in accordance 
with the principles set forth in OMB Circulars A-87, Cost Principles 
for State and Local Governments; A-21, Cost Principles Applicable to 
Grants and Contracts with Educational Institutions; and A-122, Cost 
Principles for Non-Profit Organizations. No costs may be recovered to 
liquidate obligations which are incurred after the approved grant 
period. Copies of these circulars may be obtained from OMB by calling 
(202) 395-7250.
2. Costs Requiring Prior Approval
    a. Pre-agreement Costs. The written prior approval of the Institute 
is required for costs which are considered necessary to the project but 
occur prior to the award date of the grant.
    b. Equipment. Grant funds may be used to purchase or lease only 
that equipment which is essential to accomplishing the goals and 
objectives of the project. The written prior approval of the Institute 
is required when the amount of automated data processing (ADP) 
equipment to be purchased or leased exceeds $10,000 or the software to 
be purchased exceeds $3,000.
    c. Consultants. The written prior approval of the Institute is 
required when the rate of compensation to be paid a consultant exceeds 
$300 a day. Institute funds may not be used to pay a consultant at a 
rate in excess of $900 per day.
3. Travel Costs
    Transportation and per diem rates must comply with the policies of 
the applicant organization. If the applicant does not have an 
established written travel policy, then travel rates shall be 
consistent with those established by the Institute or the Federal 
Government. Institute funds may not be used to cover the transportation 
or per diem costs of a member of a national organization to attend an 
annual or other regular meeting of that organization.
4. Indirect Costs
    These are costs of an organization that are not readily assignable 
to a particular project, but are necessary to the operation of the 
organization and the performance of the project. The cost of operating 
and maintaining facilities, depreciation, and administrative salaries 
are examples of the types of costs that are usually treated as indirect 
costs. It is the policy of the Institute that all costs should be 
budgeted directly; however, if a recipient has an indirect cost rate 
approved by a Federal agency as set forth below, the Institute will 
accept that rate.
    a. Approved Plan Available. i. The Institute will accept an 
indirect cost rate or allocation plan approved for a grantee during the 
preceding two years by any Federal granting agency on the basis of 
allocation methods substantially in accord with those set forth in the 
applicable cost circulars. A copy of the approved rate agreement must 
be submitted to the Institute.
    ii. Where flat rates are accepted in lieu of actual indirect costs, 
grantees may not also charge expenses normally included in overhead 
pools, e.g., accounting services, legal services, building occupancy 
and maintenance, etc., as direct costs.
    iii. Organizations with an approved indirect cost rate, utilizing 
total direct costs as the base, usually exclude contracts under grants 
from any overhead recovery. The negotiated agreement will stipulate 
that contracts are excluded from the base for overhead recovery.
    b. Establishment of Indirect Cost Rates. In order to be reimbursed 
for indirect costs, a grantee or organization must first establish an 
appropriate indirect cost rate. To do this, the grantee must prepare an 
indirect cost rate proposal and submit it to the Institute within three 
months after the start of the grant period to assure recovery of the 
full amount of allowable indirect costs. The rate must be developed in 
accordance with principles and procedures appropriate to the type of 
grantee institution involved as specified in the applicable OMB 
Circular. Copies of OMB Circulars may be obtained directly from OMB by 
calling (202) 395-7250.
    c. No Approved Plan. If an indirect cost proposal for recovery of 
actual indirect costs is not submitted to the Institute within three 
months after the start of the grant period, indirect costs will be 
irrevocably disallowed for all months prior to the month that the 
indirect cost proposal is received. This policy is effective for all 
grant awards.

I. Procurement and Property Management Standards

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

J. Audit Requirements

1. Implementation
    Each recipient of a grant from the Institute other than a 
scholarship, curriculum adaptation, or technical assistance grant 
(including a State or local court receiving a subgrant from the State 
Supreme Court) shall provide for an annual fiscal audit. The audit may 
be of the entire grantee organization (e.g., a university) or of the 
specific project funded by the Institute. Audits conducted in 
accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and OMB Circular A-128, or 
OMB Circular A-133 will satisfy the requirement for an

[[Page 55462]]

annual fiscal audit. The audit shall be conducted by an independent 
Certified Public Accountant, or a State or local agency authorized to 
audit government agencies.
    Grantees who receive funds from a Federal agency and who satisfy 
audit requirements of the cognizant Federal agency should submit a copy 
of the audit report prepared for that Federal agency to the Institute 
in order to satisfy the provisions of this section. Cognizant Federal 
agencies do not send reports to the Institute. Therefore, each grantee 
must send this report directly to the Institute.
2. Resolution and Clearance of Audit Reports
    Timely action on recommendations by responsible management 
officials is an integral part of the effectiveness of an audit. Each 
grant recipient shall have policies and procedures for acting on audit 
recommendations by designating officials responsible for: follow-up, 
maintaining a record of the actions taken on recommendations and time 
schedules, responding to and acting on audit recommendations, and 
submitting periodic reports to the Institute on recommendations and 
actions taken.
3. Consequences of Non-Resolution of Audit Issues
    It is the general policy of the State Justice Institute not to make 
new grant awards to an applicant having an unresolved audit report 
involving Institute awards. Failure of the grantee organization to 
resolve audit questions may also result in the suspension or 
termination of payments for active Institute grants to that 
organization.

K. Close-Out of Grants

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

XII. Grant Adjustments

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

A. Grant Adjustments Requiring Prior Written Approval

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

B. Request for Grant Adjustments

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

[[Page 55463]]

C. Notification of Approval/Disapproval

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

D. Changes in the Scope of the Grant

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

E. Date Changes

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

F. Temporary Absence of the Project Director

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

G. Withdrawal of/Change in Project Director

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

H. Transferring or Contracting Out of Grant-Supported Activities

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

State Justice Institute Board of Directors

Robert A. Miller, Chairman, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of South 
Dakota, Pierre, SD
Joseph F. Baca, Vice-Chairman, Justice, New Mexico Supreme Court, 
Santa Fe, NM
Sandra A. O'Connor, Secretary, States Attorney of Baltimore County, 
Towson, MD
Terrence B. Adamson, Esq., Executive Committee Member, Senior Vice-
President, The National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C
Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Virginia, Richmond, VA
Carlos R. Garza, Esq., Administrative Judge (ret.), Vienna, VA
Sophia H. Hall, Presiding Judge, Juvenile Court, Circuit Court of 
Cook County, Chicago, IL
Tommy Jewell, District Judge, Albuquerque, NM
Keith McNamara, Esq., McNamara & McNamara, Columbus, OH
Florence K. Murray, Justice (ret.), Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 
Providence, RI
Janie L. Shores, Associate Justice, Alabama Supreme Court, 
Birmingham, AL
David I. Tevelin, Executive Director (ex officio)
David I. Tevelin,
Executive Director.

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

Mr. Frank Gregory, Administrative Director, Administrative Office of 
the Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36130, (205) 834-7990
Ms. Stephanie J. Cole, Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, 
303 K Street, Anchorage, AK 99501, (907) 264-0547
Mr. David K. Byers, Administrative Director, Supreme Court of 
Arizona, 1501 West Washington Street, Suite 411, Phoenix, AZ 85007-
3330, (602) 542-9301
Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, 625 Marshall, Little Rock, AR 72201, (501) 682-9400
Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, 303 Second Street, South Tower, San Francisco, 
CA 94107, (415) 396-9115
Mr. Steven V. Berson, State Court Administrator, Colorado Judicial 
Department, 1301 Pennsylvania Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80203-
2416, (303) 861-1111, ext. 585
Honorable Aaron Ment, Chief Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Connecticut, 231 Capitol Avenue, Drawer N, Station A, Hartford, CT 
06106, (860) 566-4461
Mr. Lawrence P. Webster, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, Carvel State Office Building, 820 N. French Street, 
Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 577-2480
Mr. Ulysses Hammond, Executive Officer, Courts of the District of 
Columbia, 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 
879-1700
Mr. Kenneth Palmer, State Courts Administrator, Florida State Courts 
System, Supreme Court Building, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900, (904) 
922-5081
Mr. Hulett Askew, Interim Director, Administrative Office of the 
Georgia Courts, The Judicial Council of Georgia, 244 Washington 
Street, S.W., Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30334-5900, (404) 656-5171
Daniel J. Tydingco, Administrative Director, Superior Court of Guam, 
Judiciary Building, 120 West O'Brien Drive, Agana, Guam 96910, 011 
(671) 475-3544
Mr. Michael F. Broderick, Administrative Director of the Courts, 417 
S. King Street, Room 206, Honolulu, HI 96813, (808) 539-4900
Ms. Patricia Tobias, Administrative Director of the Courts, Idaho 
Supreme Court, 451 West State Street, Boise, ID 83720-0101, (208) 
334-2246
Honorable Joseph A. Schillaci, Administrative Director of the 
Courts, 222 N. LaSalle Street, 13th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, (312) 
793-8191
Ms. Lilia G. Judson, Executive Director, Supreme Court of Indiana, 
115 W. Washington, Suite 1080, Indianapolis, IN 46204-3417, (317) 
232-2542
Mr. William J. O'Brien, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Iowa, State House, Des Moines, IA 50319, (515) 281-5241
Dr. Howard P. Schwartz, Judicial Administrator, Kansas Judicial 
Center, 301 West 10th Street, Topeka, KS 66612, (913) 296-4873
Mr. Paul F. Isaacs, Administrative Director, Administrative Office 
of the Courts, 100 Mill Creek Park, Frankfort, KY 40601-9230, (502) 
573-2350

[[Page 55464]]

Dr. Hugh M. Collins, Judicial Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Louisiana, 301 Loyola Avenue, Room 109, New Orleans, LA 70112, (504) 
568-5747
Mr. James T. Glessner, State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 4820, Downtown Station, Portland, ME 
04112-4820, (207) 822-0792
Mr. George B. Riggin, Jr., State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, Courts of Appeal Bldg., 361 Rowe Boulevard, 
Annapolis, MD 21401, (410) 974-2141
Honorable John J. Irwin, Jr., Chief Justice for Administration and 
Management, The Trial Court, Administrative Office of the Trial 
Court, Two Center Plaza, Suite 540, Boston, MA 02108, (617) 742-8575
Mr. John D. Ferry, Jr., State Court Administrator, Michigan Supreme 
Court, 309 N. Washington Square, P.O. Box 30048, Lansing, MI 48909, 
(517) 373-0130
Ms. Sue K. Dosal, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Minnesota, 25 Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155, (617) 296-
2474
Mr. Richard Patt, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, 
Supreme Court of Mississippi, P.O. Box 117, Jackson, MS 39205, (601) 
354-7408
Mr. Ron Larkin, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Missouri, P.O. Box 104480, Jefferson City, MO 65110, (314) 751-3585
Mr. Patrick A. Chenovick, State Court Administrator, Montana Supreme 
Court, Justice Building, Room 315, 215 North Sanders, Helena, MT 
59620-3001, (406) 444-2621
Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Nebraska, State Capitol Building, Room 1220, Lincoln, NE 68509, 
(404) 471-3730
Ms. Karen Kavenau, Court Administrator, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, Capitol Complex, Carson City, NV 89710, (702) 687-5076
Mr. Donald Goodnow, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of New 
Hampshire, Frank Rowe Kenison Building, Concord, NH 03301, (603) 
271-2521
Mr. James J. Ciancia, Administrative Director, Administrative Office 
of the Courts, CN-037, RJH Justice Complex, Trenton, NJ 08625, (609) 
984-0275
Honorable Jonathan Lippman, Chief Administrative Judge, Office of 
Court Administration, 270 Broadway, New York, NY 10007, (212) 417-
2007
Mr. John M. Greacen, State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, Supreme Court of New Mexico, Supreme Court 
Building, Room 25, Sante Fe, NM 87503, (505) 827-4800
Mr. Dallas A. Cameron, Jr., Administrative Director, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 2448, Raleigh, NC 27602, (919) 733-
7107
Mr. Keithe E. Nelson, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
North Dakota, State Capitol Building, Bismarck, ND 58505, (701) 328-
4216
Mr. Stephan W. Stover, Administrative Director of the Courts, 
Supreme Court of Ohio, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, 
Columbus, OH 43266-0419, (614) 466-2653
Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Administrative Director, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, 1925 N. Stiles, Suite 305, Oklahoma City, OK 
73105, (405) 521-2450
Ms. Kingsley Click, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Oregon, Supreme Court Building, Salem, OR 97310, (503) 986-5900
Ms. Nancy M. Sobolevitch, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Pennsylvania, 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414, Philadelphia, PA 
19102, (215) 560-6337
Dr. Robert C. Harrall, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, RI 02903, (401) 277-
3263
Ms. Mary Schroeder, Interim Director, South Carolina Court 
Administration, P.O. Box 50447, Columbia, SC 29250, (803) 734-1800
Mr. Michael L. Buenger, State Court Administrator, Unified Judicial 
System, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501, (605) 773-3474
Mr. Charles E. Ferrell, Administrative Director of the Courts, 
Nashville City Center, Suite 600, 511 Union Street, Nashville, TN 
37243-0607, (615) 741-2687
Mr. Jerry L. Benedict, Administrative Director, Office of Court 
Administration of the Texas Judicial System, 205 West 14th Street, 
Suite 600, Austin, TX 78701, (512) 463-1625
Mr. Daniel Becker, State Court Administrator, Administrative Office 
of the Courts, 230 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84102, (801) 
578-3800
Mr. Lee Suskin, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Vermont, 109 
State Street, Montpelier, VT 05602, (802) 828-3278
Ms. Viola E. Smith, Clerk of the Court/Administrator, Territorial 
Court of the Virgin Islands, P.O. Box 70, 25 Charlotte Amalie, St. 
Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801, (809) 774-6680, ext. 248
Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of 
Virginia, 100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor, Richmond, VA 23219, 
(804) 786-6455
Ms. Mary C. McQueen, Administrator for the Courts, Supreme Court of 
Washington, P.O. Box 41174, Olympia, WA 98504, (360) 357-2121
Mr. Ted J. Philyaw, Administrative Director of the Courts, E-400, 
State Capitol Bldg., 1900 Kanawha Blvd., East, Charleston, WV 25305, 
(304) 558-0145
Mr. J. Denis Moran, Director of State Courts, P.O. Box 1688, 
Madison, WI 53701-1688, (608) 266-6828
Ms. Nancy E. Rutledge, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Wyoming, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, WY 82002, (307) 777-7480

Appendix II--SJI Libraries: Designated Sites and Contacts

Alabama

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Timothy A. Lewis, State Law Librarian, Alabama Supreme Court 
Bldg., 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36104, (334) 242-4347

Alaska

Anchorage Law Library

Ms. Cynthia S. Fellows, State Law Librarian, Alaska State Court Law 
Library, 820 W. Fourth Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501, (907) 264-0583

Arizona

State Law Library

Ms. Gladys Ann Wells, Collection Development, Research Division, 
Arizona Dept. of Library, Archives and Public Records, State Law 
Library 1501 W. Washington, Phoenix, AZ 85007, (602) 542-4035

Arkansas

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, Supreme Court of Arkansas, 
Administrative Office of the Courts, Justice Building, 625 Marshall, 
Little Rock, AR 72201-1078, (501) 682-9400

California

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, 303 Second Street, South Tower, San Francisco, 
CA 94107, (415) 396-9100

Colorado

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Lois Calvert, Supreme Court Law Librarian, Colorado State 
Judicial Building, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, (303) 837-
3720

Connecticut

State Library

Ms. Denise D. Jernigan, Head, Law/Legislative Reference Unit, 
Connecticut State Library, Hartford, CT 06106, (860) 566-2516

Delaware

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Michael E. McLaughlin, Deputy Director, Administrative Office of 
the Courts, Carvel State Office Building, 820 North French Street, 
11th Floor, P.O. Box 8911, Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 577-8481

District of Columbia

Executive Office, District of Columbia Courts

Mr. Ulysses Hammond, Executive Officer, District of Columbia Courts, 
500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 879-1700

Florida

Administrative Office of the Courts
Mr. Kenneth Palmer, State Court Administrator, Florida State Courts 
System, Supreme Court Building, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900, (904) 
488-8621

Georgia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Hulett H. Askew, Interim Director, AOC, The Judicial Council of 
Georgia, 244 Washington St., S.W., Suite 550, Atlanta, GA 30334-
5900, (404) 656-5171

[[Page 55465]]

Hawaii

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Ann Koto, State Law Librarian, The Supreme Court Law Library, 
417 South King St., Room 119, Honolulu, HI 96813, (808) 539-4965

Idaho

AOC Judicial Education Library / State Law Library

Ms. Beth Peterson, State Law Librarian, Idaho State Law Library, 
Supreme Court Building, 451 West State St., Boise, ID 83720, (208) 
334-3316

Illinois

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Brenda Larison, Supreme Court of Illinois Library, 200 East 
Capitol Avenue, Springfield, IL 62701-1791, (217) 782-2425

Indiana

Supreme Court Library

Dennis Lager, Supreme Court Librarian, Supreme Court Library, State 
House, Room 316, Indianapolis, IN 46204, (317) 232-2557

Iowa

Administrative Office of the Court

Dr. Jerry K. Beatty, Executive Director, Judicial, Education & 
Planning, Administrative Office of the Courts, State Capital 
Building, Des Moines, IA 50319, (515) 281-8279

Kansas

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Fred Knecht, Law Librarian, Kansas Supreme Court Library, 301 
West 10th Street, Topeka, KS 66612, (913) 296-3257

Kentucky

State Law Library

Ms. Sallie Howard, State Law Librarian, State Law Library, State 
Capital, Room 200, Frankfort, KY 40601, (502) 564-4848

Louisiana

State Law Library

Ms. Carol Billings, Director, Louisiana Law Library, 301 Loyola 
Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70112, (504) 568-5705

Maine

State Law and Legislative Reference Library

Ms. Lynn E. Randall, State Law Librarian, 43 State House Station, 
Augusta, ME 04333, (207) 287-1600

Maryland

State Law Library

Mr. Michael S. Miller, Director, Maryland State Law Library, Court 
of Appeal Building, 361 Rowe Boulevard, Annapolis, MD 21401, (410) 
260-1430

Massachusetts

Middlesex Law Library

Ms. Sandra Lindheimer, Librarian, Middlesex Law Library, Superior 
Court House, 40 Thorndike Street, Cambridge, MA 02141, (617) 494-
4148

Michigan

Michigan Judicial Institute

Mr. Kevin Bowling, Director, Michigan Judicial Institute, 222 
Washington Square North, P.O. Box 30205, Lansing, MI 48909, (517) 
334-7804

Minnesota

State Law Library (Minnesota Judicial Center)

Mr. Marvin R. Anderson, State Law Librarian, Supreme Court of 
Minnesota, 25 Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155, (612) 297-
2084

Mississippi

Mississippi Judicial College

Mr. Leslie Johnson, Director, University of Mississippi, P.O. Box 
8850, University, MS 38677, (601) 232-5955

Montana

State Law Library

Ms. Judith Meadows, State Law Librarian, State Law Library of 
Montana, 215 North Sanders, Helena, MT 59620, (406) 444-3660

Nebraska

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Nebraska, Administrative Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 98910, 
Lincoln, NE 68509-8910, (402) 471-3730

Nevada

National Judicial College

Honorable V. Robert Payant, President, National Judicial College, 
Judicial College Building, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89550, 
(702) 784-6747

New Jersey

New Jersey State Library

Marjorie Garwig, Supervising Law Librarian, New Jersey State Law 
Library, 185 West State Street, P.O. Box 520, Trenton, NJ 08625-
0250, (609) 292-6230

New Mexico

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Thaddeus Bejnar, Librarian, Supreme Court Library, Post Office 
Drawer L, Santa Fe, NM 87504, (505) 827-4850

New York

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Colleen Stella, Principal Law Librarian, New York State Supreme, 
Court Law Library, Onondaga County Court House, 401 Montgomery 
Street, Syracuse, NY 13202, (315) 435-2063

North Carolina

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Louise Stafford, Librarian, North Carolina Supreme Court 
Library, P.O. Box 28006, 2 East Morgan Street, Raleigh, NC 27601, 
(919) 733-3425

North Dakota

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Marcella Kramer, Assistant Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law 
Library, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Dept. 182, 2nd Floor, Judicial 
Wing, Bismarck, ND 58505-0540, (701) 328-2229

Northern Mariana Islands

Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands

Honorable Marty W. K. Taylor, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the 
Northern Mariana Islands, P.O. Box 2165, Saipan, MP 96950, (670) 
234-5275

Ohio

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Paul S. Fu, Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law Library, Supreme 
Court of Ohio, 30 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43266-0419, (614) 
466-2044

Oklahoma

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, 1915 North Stiles, Suite 305, Oklahoma City, OK 73105, (405) 
521-2450

Oregon

Administrative Office of the Courts

Ms. Kingsley Click, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Oregon, Supreme Court Building, 1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97310, 
(503) 378-6046

Pennsylvania

State Library of Pennsylvania

Ms. Sharon Anderson, State Justice Depository, State Library of 
Pennsylvania, Collection Management, Room G-48 Forum Building, P.O. 
Box 1601, Harrisburg, PA 17105-1601, (717) 787-5718

Puerto Rico

Office of Court Administration

Alfredo Rivera-Mendoza, Esq., Director, Area of Planning and 
Management, Office of Court Administration, P.O. Box 917, Hato Rey, 
R 00919

Rhode Island

Roger Williams Law School Library,

Mr. Kendall Svengalis, Law Librarian, Licht Judicial Complex, 250 
Benefit Street, Providence, RI, (401) 254-4546

South Carolina

Coleman Karesh Law Library

(University of South Carolina School of Law)
Mr. Bruce S. Johnson, Law Librarian, Associate Professor of Law, 
Coleman Karesh Law Library, U. S. C. Law Center, University of South 
Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, (803) 777-5944

Tennessee

Tennessee State Law Library

Administrative Office of the Courts, State of Tennessee, 511 Union, 
Nashville, TN 37243-0607, (615) 741-2687

[[Page 55466]]

Texas

State Law Library

Ms. Kay Schleuter, Director, State Law Library, P.O. Box 12367, 
Austin, TX 78711, (512) 463-1722

U.S. Virgin Islands

Library of the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands (St. Thomas)

Librarian, The Library, Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands, 
Post Office Box 70, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin 
Islands 00804

Utah

Utah State Judicial Administration Library

Ms. Debbie Christiansen, Utah State Judicial, Administration 
Library, AOC, 450 South State, P.O. Box 140241, Salt Lake City, UT 
84114-0241, (801) 533-6371

Vermont

Supreme Court of Vermont

Mr. Lee Suskin, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Vermont, 109 
State Street c/o Pavilion Office Building, Montpelier, VT 05609, 
(802) 828-3278

Virginia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of 
Virginia, Administrative Offices, 100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor, 
Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786-6455

Washington

Washington State Law Library

Ms. Deborah Norwood, State Law Librarian, Washington State Law 
Library, Temple of Justice, P.O. Box 40751, Olympia, WA 98504-0751, 
(206) 357-2136

West Virginia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Richard H. Rosswurm, Chief Deputy, West Virginia Supreme Court 
of Appeals, State Capitol, 1900 Kanawha, Charleston, WV 25305, (304) 
348-0145

Wisconsin

State Law Library

Ms. Marcia Koslov, State Law Librarian, State Law Library, 310E 
State Capitol, P.O. Box 7881, Madison, WI 53707, (608) 266-1424

Wyoming

Wyoming State Law Library

Ms. Kathy Carlson, Law Librarian, Wyoming State Law Library, Supreme 
Court Building, 2301 Capitol Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82002, (307) 777-
7509

National

American Judicature Society

Ms. Clara Wells, Assistant for Information and Library Services, 25 
East Washington Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60602, (312) 558-
6900

National Center for State Courts

Ms. Peggy Rogers, Acquisitions/Serials Librarian, 300 Newport 
Avenue, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798, (804) 253-2000

JERITT

Ms. Jennae Rozeboom, Project Director, Judicial Education Reference, 
Information and Technical Transfer Project (JERITT), Michigan State 
University, 560 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, (517) 353-8603

Appendix III--Illustrative List of Model Curricula

    The following list includes examples of curricula that have been 
developed with support from SJI, that might be--or in some cases have 
been--successfully adapted for State-based education programs for 
judges and other court personnel. Please refer to Section II.B.2.b.ii. 
for information on submitting a letter application for a Curriculum 
Adaptation Grant. A list of all SJI-supported education projects is 
available from the Institute, and on the SJI website--www.clark.net/
pub/sji. Please also check with the JERITT project (517/353-8603) and 
with your State SJI-designated library (see Appendix II) for 
information on other SJI-supported curricula that may be appropriate 
for your State's needs.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Judicial Settlement Manual (National Judicial College: SJI-89-089)
Improving the Quality of Dispute Resolution (Ohio State University 
College of Law: SJI-93-277)
Comprehensive ADR Curriculum for Judges (American Bar Association: 
SJI-95-002)
Domestic Violence and Custody Mediation (American Bar Association: 
SJI-96-038)

Court Coordination

Adjudication of Farm Credit Issues (Rural Justice Center: SJI-87-
059)
Bankruptcy Issues for State Trial Court Judges (American Bankruptcy 
Institute: SJI-91-027)
Intermediate Sanctions Handbook: Experiences and Tools for 
Policymakers (Center for Effective Public Policy: IAA-88-NIC-001)
Regional Conference Cookbook: A Practical Guide to Planning and 
Presenting a Regional Conference on State-Federal Judicial 
Relationships (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit: SJI-92-
087)
Bankruptcy Issues and Domestic Relations Cases (American Bankruptcy 
Institute: SJI-96-175)

Court Management

Managing Trials Effectively: A Program for State Trial Judges 
(National Center for State Courts/National Judicial College: SJI-87-
066/067, SJI-89-054/055, SJI-91-025/026)
Caseflow Management Principles and Practices (Institute for Court 
Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI-87-056)
Judicial Education Curriculum: Teaching Guides on Court Security, 
and Jury Management and Impanelment (Institute for Court Management/
National Center for State Courts: SJI-88-053)
A Manual for Workshops on Processing Felony Dispositions in Limited 
Jurisdiction Courts (National Center for State Courts: SJI-90-052)
Managerial Budgeting in the Courts; Performance Appraisal in the 
Courts; Managing Change in the Courts; Court Automation Design; Case 
Management for Trial Judges; Trial Court Performance Standards 
(Institute for Court Management/National Center for State Courts: 
SJI-91-043)
Implementing the Court-Related Needs of Older Persons and Persons 
with Disabilities (National Judicial College: SJI-91-054)
Strengthening Rural Courts of Limited Jurisdiction and Team Training 
for Judges and Clerks (Rural Justice Center: SJI-90-014, SJI-91-082)
Interbranch Relations Workshop (Ohio Judicial Conference: SJI-92-
079)
Integrating Trial Management and Caseflow Management (Justice 
Management Institute: SJI-93-214)
Leading Organizational Change (California Administrative Office of 
the Courts: SJI-94-068)
Privacy Issues in Computerized Court Record Keeping: An 
Instructional Guide for Judges and Judicial Educators (National 
Judicial College: SJI-94-015)
Managing Mass Tort Cases (National Judicial College: SJI-94-141)
Employment Responsibilities of State Court Judges (National Judicial 
College: SJI-95-025)
Dealing with the Common Law Courts: A Model Curriculum for Judges 
and Court Staff (Institute for Court Management/ National Center for 
State Courts: SJI-96-159)

Courts and Communities

A National Program for Reporting on the Courts and the Law (American 
Judicature Society: SJI-88-014)
Victim Rights and the Judiciary: A Training and Implementation 
Project (National ``Organization for Victim Assistance: SJI-89-083)
National Guardianship Monitoring Project: Trainer and Trainee's 
Manual (American Association of Retired Persons: SJI-91-013)
Access to Justice: The Impartial Jury and the Justice System and 
When Implementing the Court-Related Needs of Older People and 
Persons with Disabilities: An Instructional Guide (National Judicial 
College: SJI-91-054)
You Are the Court System: A Focus on Customer Service (Alaska Court 
System: SJI-94-048)
Serving the Public: A Curriculum for Court Employees (American 
Judicature Society: SJI-96-040)
Courts and Their Communities: Local Planning and the Renewal of 
Public Trust and Confidence: A California Statewide Conference 
(California Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI-98-008)

Criminal Process

Search Warrants: A Curriculum Guide for Magistrates (American Bar 
Association Criminal Justice Section: SJI-88-035)

[[Page 55467]]

Diversity, Values, and Attitudes

Troubled Families, Troubled Judges (Brandeis University: SJI-89-071)
The Crucial Nature of Attitudes and Values in Judicial Education 
(National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-90-058)
Enhancing Diversity in the Court and Community (Institute for Court 
Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI-91-043)
Cultural Diversity Awareness in Nebraska Courts from Native American 
Alternatives to Incarceration Project (Nebraska Urban Indian Health 
Coalition: SJI-93-028)
A Videotape Training Program in Ethics and Professional Conduct for 
Nonjudicial Court Personnel and The Ethics Fieldbook: Tool For 
Trainers (American Judicature Society: SJI-93-068)
Court Interpreter Training Course for Spanish Interpreters 
(International Institute of Buffalo: SJI-93-075)
Doing Justice: Improving Equality Before the Law Through Literature-
Based Seminars for Judges and Court Personnel (Brandeis University: 
SJI-94-019)
Race Fairness and Cultural Awareness Faculty Development Workshop 
(National Judicial College: SJI-93-063)
Indian Welfare Act''; ``Defendants, Victims, and Witnesses with 
Mental Retardation (National Judicial College: SJI-94-142)
Multi-Cultural Training for Judges and Court Personnel (St. 
Petersburg Junior College: SJI-95-006)
Ethical Standards for Judicial Settlement: Developing a Judicial 
Education Module (American Judicature Society: SJI-95-082)
Code of Ethics for the Court Employees of California (California 
Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI-95-245)
Workplace Sexual Harassment Awareness and Prevention (California 
Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI-96-089)
Just Us On Justice: A Dialogue on Diversity Issues Facing Virginia 
Courts (Virginia Supreme Court: SJI-96-150)
When Bias Compounds: Insuring Equal Treatment for Women of Color in 
the Courts (National Judicial Education Program: SJI-96-161)
When Judges Speak Up: Ethics, the Public, and the Media (American 
judicature Society: SJI-96-152)

Family Violence and Gender-Related Violence Crime

National Judicial Response to Domestic Violence: Civil and Criminal 
Curricula (Family Violence Prevention Fund: SJI-87-061, SJI-89-070, 
SJI-91-055).
Domestic Violence: A Curriculum for Rural Courts from A Project to 
Improve Access to Rural Courts for Victims of Domestic Violence 
(Rural Justice Center: SJI-88-081)
Judicial Training Materials on Spousal Support; Judicial Training 
Materials on Child Custody and Visitation from Enhancing Gender 
Fairness in the State Courts (Women Judges' Fund for Justice: SJI-
89-062)
Judicial Response to Stranger and Nonstranger Rape and Sexual 
Assault (National Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality for 
Women and Men: SJI-92-003)
Domestic Violence & Children: Resolving Custody and Visitation 
Disputes (Family Violence Prevention Fund: SJI-93-255)
Adjudicating Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse When Custody Is In 
Dispute (National Judicial Education Program: SJI-95-019)
Handling Cases of Elder Abuse: Interdisciplinary Curricula for 
Judges and Court Staff (American Bar Association: SJI-93-274)

Health and Science

Medicine, Ethics, and the Law: Preconception to Birth (Women Judges 
Fund for Justice: SJI-89-062, SJI-91-019)
``Judicial Educator's Workshop Curriculum Guide: Implementing 
Medical Legal Training'' from Medical Legal Issues in Juvenile and 
Family Courts (National Council for Juvenile and Family Court 
Judges: SJI-91-091)
Environmental Law Resource Handbook (University of New Mexico 
Institute for Public Law: SJI-92-162)

Judicial Education For Appellate Court Judges

Career Writing Program for Appellate Judges (American Academy of 
Judicial Education: SJI-88-086-P92-1)
Civil and Criminal Procedural Innovations for Appellate Courts 
(National Center for State Courts: SJI-94-002)

Judicial Education Faculty, and Program Development

The Leadership Institute in Judicial Education and The Advanced 
Leadership Institute in Judicial Education (University of Memphis: 
SJI-91-021)
``Faculty Development Instructional Program'' from Curriculum Review 
(National Judicial College: SJI-91-039)
Resource Manual and Training for Judicial Education Mentors 
(National Association of State Judicial Educators: SJI-95-233)
Institute for Faculty Excellence in Judicial Education, (National 
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-96-042)

Orientation and Mentoring of Judges and Court Personnel

Manual for Judicial Writing Workshop for Trial Judges (University of 
Georgia/Colorado Judicial Department: SJI-87-018/019)
Legal Institute for Special and Limited Jurisdiction Judges 
(National Judicial College: SJI-89-043, SJI-91-040)
Pre-Bench Training for New Judges (American Judicature Society: SJI-
90-028)
A Unified Orientation and Mentoring Program for New Judges of All 
Arizona Trial Courts (Arizona Supreme Court: SJI-90-078)
Court Organization and Structure (Institute for Court Management/
National Center for State Courts: SJI-91-043)
Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Decisions (National 
Judicial College: SJI-91-080)
New Employee Orientation Facilitators Guide (Minnesota Supreme 
Court: SJI-92-155)
Magistrates Correspondence Course (Alaska Court System: SJI-92-156)
Computer-Assisted Instruction for Court Employees (Utah 
Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI-94-012)
Bench Trial Skills and Demeanor: An Interactive Manual (National 
Judicial College: SJI-94-058)
Ethical Issues in the Election of Judges (National Judicial College: 
SJI-94-142)

Juveniles and Families in Court

Innovative Juvenile and Family Court Training (Youth Law Center: 
SJI-87-060, SJI-89-039)
Fundamental Skills Training Curriculum for Juvenile Probation 
Officers (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-
90-017)
Child Support Across State Lines: The Uniform Interstate Family 
Support Act from Uniform Interstate Family Support Act: Development 
and Delivery of a Judicial Training Curriculum (ABA Center on 
Children and the Law: SJI-94-321)

Strategic and Futures Planning

Minding the Courts into the Twentieth Century (Michigan Judicial 
Institute: SJI-89-029)
An Approach to Long-Range Strategic Planning in the Courts (Center 
for Public Policy Studies: SJI-91-045)

Substance Abuse

Effective Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders: A Review & 
Synthesis for Judges and Court Personnel (Education Development 
Center, Inc.: SJI-90-051)
Good Times, Bad Times: Drugs, Youth, and the Judiciary (Professional 
Development and Training Center, Inc.: SJI-91-095)
Gaining Momentum: A Model Curriculum for Drug Courts (Florida Office 
of the State Courts Administrator: SJI-94-291)
Judicial Response to Substance Abuse: Children, Adolescents, and 
Families (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-
95-030)

Appendix IV--Illustrative List of Replicable Projects

    The following list includes examples of projects undertaken with 
support from SJI that might be--or in some cases have been--
successfully adapted and replicated in other in other jurisdictions. 
Please see Section II.C.1. for information on submitting a concept 
paper requesting a grant to replicate one of these or another SJI-
supported project. A list of all SJI-supported projects is available 
from the Institute and on the Institute's website --www.clark.net/
pub/sji.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Computerized Citizen Intake and Referral Service, Grantee: District 
of Columbia Courts, Contact: Charles Bethell, 500 Indiana Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, DC 20001, (202) 879-1479, Grant No: SJI-93-211

Application of Technology

File Transfer Technology Application in Use of Court Information, 
Grantee: South Carolina Bar, Contact: Yvonne Visser, 950 Taylor 
Street, P.O. Box 608, Columbia, SC 29202-0608, (803) 799-6653, Grant 
Nos: SJI-91-088; SJI-91-088-P93-1; SJI-91-088-P94-1

[[Page 55468]]

Managing Documents with Imaging Technology, Grantee: Alaska Judicial 
Council, Contact: William T. Cotton, 1029 W. Third Avenue, Suite 
201, Anchorage, AK 99501-1917, (907) 279-2526, Grant No: SJI-92-083
Automated Teller Machines for Juror Payment, Grantee: District of 
Columbia Courts, Contact: Philip Braxton, 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20001, (202) 879-1700, Grant No: SJI-92-139
Analytical Judicial Desktop, Grantee: Fund for the City of New York, 
Contact: Michele Sviridoff, Mid-Town Community Court, 314 W. 54th 
Street, New York, New York 10019, (212) 484-2721, Grant No: SJI-94-
323

Children and Families in Court

A Day in Court: A Child's Perspective, Grantee: Massachusetts Trial 
Court, Contact: Hon. John Irwin, 2 Center Plaza, Boston, MA 02108, 
(617) 742-8575, Grant No: SJI-91-079
Parent Education and Custody Effectiveness, (PEACE) Program, 
Grantee: Hofstra University, Contact: Andrew Shephard, 1000 Fulton 
Avenue, Hampstead, NY 11550-1090, (516) 463-5890, Grant No: SJI-93-
265
A Judge's Guide to Culturally Competent Responses to Latino Family 
Violence, Grantee: Center for Public Policy Studies, Contacts: 
Stephen Weller, John Martin, 999 18th Street, Suite 900, Denver, 
Colorado 80202, Grant No: SJI-96-230,

Court Management, Coordination and Planning

Tribal Court-State Court Forums: A How To-Do-It guide to Prevent and 
Resolve Jurisdictional Disputes and Improve Cooperation Between 
Tribal and State Courts, Grantee: National Center for State Courts, 
Contact: Frederick Miller, 1331 17th Street, Suite 402, Denver, 
Colorado 80202-1554, (303) 293-3063, Grant No: SJI-91-011)
Measurement of Trial Court Performance, Grantee: Washington 
Administrative Office for the Courts, Contact: Yvonne Pettus, 1206 
S. Quince Street, Olympia, WA 98504, (360) 357-2121, Grant No: SJI-
91-017; SJI-91-017-P92-1
Measurement of Trial Court Performance, Grantee: New Jersey 
Administrative Office of the Courts, Contact: Theodore J. Fetter, 
CN-037, RJH Justice Complex, Trenton, NJ 08625, (609) 984-0275, 
Grant No: SJI-91-023; SJI-91-023-P93-1
Measurement of Trial Court Performance, Grantee: Ohio Supreme Court, 
Contact: Stephan W. Stover, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad 
Street, Columbus, OH 43266-0419, (614) 466-2653, Grant No: SJI-91-
024; SJI-91-024-P93-1
Measurement of Trial Court Performance, Grantee: Supreme Court of 
Virginia, Contact: Beatrice Monahan, 100 North Ninth Street, Third 
Floor, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786-6455, Grant No: SJI-91-042; 
SJI-91-042-P93-1
Probate Caseflow Management Project, Grantee: Ohio Supreme Court/
Trumball County Probate Court, Contact: Susan Lightbody, 160 High 
Street, N.W., DNM/Warren, OH 44481, (216) 675-2566, Grant No: SJI-
92-081; SJI-92-081-P94-1; SJI-92-081-P95-1
Implementing Quality Methods in Court Operations, Grantee: Oregon 
Supreme Court, Contact: Scott Crampton, Supreme Court Building, 
Salem, OR 97310, (503) 378-5845, Grant No: SJI-92-170
Applying TQM Concepts to Systemwide Problems of the Maine Judicial 
Branch, Grantee: Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Contact: James T. 
Glessner, P.O. Box 4820, Portland, Maine 04101, (207) 822-0792, 
Grant No: SJI-93-072
Arizona-Sonora Judicial Relations Project, Grantee: Arizona Supreme 
Court, Contact: Dennis Metrick, 1501 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, 
Arizona 85007-3327, (602) 542-4532, Grant No: SJI-93-202
Implementing Strategic Planning in the Trial Courts, Grantee: Center 
for Public Policy Studies, Contact: David Price, 999 18th Street, 
Suite 900, Denver, CO 80202, (303) 863-0900, Grant No: SJI-94-021
Interstate Compacts and Cooperation in Guardianship Cases, Grantee: 
National College of Probate Judges', Contact: Paula Hannaford, P.O. 
Box 8978, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8798, (757) 253-2000, Grant 
No: SJI-97-241

Courts and Communities

AARP Volunteers: A Resource for Strengthening Guardianship Services, 
Grantee: American Association of Retired Persons, Contact: Wayne 
Moore, 601 E Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20049, (202) 434-2165, 
Grant Nos: SJI-88-033 /SJI-91-013
Establishing a Consumer Research and Service Development Process 
Within the Judicial System, Grantee: Supreme Court of Virginia, 
Contact: Beatrice Monahan, Administrative Offices, Third Floor 100 
North Ninth Street, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786-6455, Grant No: 
SJI-89-068
Housing Court Video Project, Grantee: Association of the Bar of the 
City of New York, Contact: Marilyn Kneeland, 42 West 44th Street, 
New York, NY 10036-6690, (212) 382-6620, Grant No: SJI-90-041
Tele-Court: A Michigan Judicial System Public Information Program, 
Grantee: Michigan Supreme Court, Contact: Judy Bartell, State Court 
Administrative Office, 611 West Ottawa Street, P.O. Box 30048, 
Lansing, MI 48909, (517) 373-0130, Grant No: SJI-91-015
Arizona Pro Per Information System (QuickCourt), Grantee: Arizona 
Supreme Court, Contact: Jeannie Lynch, Administrative Office of the 
Court, 1501 West Washington Street, Suite 411, Phoenix, AZ 85007-
3330, (602) 542-9554, Grant No: SJI-91-084
Automated Public Information System, Grantee: California 
Administrative Office of the Courts, Contact: Mark Greenia, 
Sacramento Superior and Municipal Court, 303 Second Street, South 
Tower, San Francisco, CA 94107, (916) 440-7590, Grant No: SJI-91-093
Using Judges and Court Personnel to Facilitate Access to Courts by 
Limited English Speakers, Grantee: Washington Office of the 
Administrator for the Courts, Contact: Joanne Moore, 1206 South 
Quince Street, P.O. Box 41170, Olympia, WA 98504-1170, (206) 753-
3365, Grant No: SJI-92-147
Pro se Forms and Instructions Packets, Grantee: Michigan Supreme 
Court, Contact: Pamela Creighton, 611 W. Ottawa Street, Lansing, MI 
48909, Grant No: SJI-94-003
Understanding the Judicial Process: A Curriculum and Community 
Service Program, Grantee: Drake University, Contact: Timothy 
Buzzell, Opperman Hall, Des Moines, IA 50311, (515) 271-3205, Grant 
No: SJI-94-022
Court Self-Service Center, Grantee: Maricopa County Superior Court, 
Contact: Bob James, 201 W. Jefferson, 4th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003, 
(602) 506-6314, Grant No: SJI-94-324
Computer-Based Interpreter Test Delivery System, Grantee: Maryland 
Administrative Office of the Courts, Contact: Elizabeth Veronis, 361 
Rowe Boulevard, Annapolis, Maryland 21401, (410) 974-2141, Grant No: 
SJI-96-164
Public Opinion and the Courts, Grantee: New Mexico Administrative 
Office of the Courts, Contact: John M. Greacen, 237 Don Gaspar, Room 
25, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-2178, (505) 827-4800, Grant No: SJI-
97-026

Sentencing

Court Probation Enhancement Through Community Involvement, Grantee: 
Volunteers in Prevention, Probation and Prisons, Inc., Contact: 
Gerald Dash, 163 Madison, Suite 120, Detroit, MI 48226, (313) 964-
1110, Grant No: SJI-91-073
Facilitating the Appropriate Use of Intermediate Sanctions, Grantee: 
Center for Effective Public Policy, Contact: Peggy McGarry, 8403 
Colesville Road, Suite 720, (301) 589-9383, Grant No: SJI-95-078

Substance Abuse

Alabama Alcohol and Drug Abuse Court Referral Officer Program, 
Grantee: Alabama Administrative Office of the Courts, Contact: 
Angelo Trimble, 817 South Court Street, Montgomery, AL 36130-0101, 
(334) 834-7990, Grant Nos: SJI-88-030/SJI-89-080/SJI-90-005
Substance Abuse Assessment and Intervention to Reduce Driving Under 
the Influence of Alcohol Recidivism, Grantee: California 
Administrative Office of the Courts c/o El Cajon Municipal Court, 
Contact: Fred Lear, 250 E. Main Street, El Cajon, CA 92020, (619) 
441-4336, Grant No: SJI-88-029/SJI-90-008
Court Referral Officer Program, Grantee: New Hampshire Supreme 
Court, Contact: Jim Kelley, Supreme Court Building, Concord, NH 
03301, (603) 271-2521, Grant No: SJI-92-142

Appendix V--State Justice Institute

(Form S1)

SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION
    This application does not serve as a registration for the 
course. Please contact the education provider.

[[Page 55469]]

Applicant Information

1. Applicant Name:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Last)        (First)        (M)
2. Position:-----------------------------------------------------------
3. Name of Court:------------------------------------------------------
4. Address:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Street/P.O. Box
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City        State        Zip Code
5. Telephone No.-------------------------------------------------------
6. Congressional District:---------------------------------------------

Program Information

7. Course Name:--------------------------------------------------------
8. Course Dates:-------------------------------------------------------
9. Course Provider:----------------------------------------------------
10. Location Offered:--------------------------------------------------
    Estimated Expenses: (Please note, scholarships are limited to 
tuition and transportation expenses to and from the site of the 
course up to a maximum of $1,500.)
Tuition: $-------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation: $------------------------------------------------------
(Airfare, train fare, or if you plan to drive, an amount equal to 
the approximate distance and mileage rate.)
Amount Requested: $----------------------------------------------------
    Are you seeking/have you received a scholarship for this course 
from another source?
__ Yes __ No. If so, please specify the source(s) and amounts(s) 
______
    ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Please attach a current resume or 
professional summary, and provide the information requested below. 
(You may attach additional pages if necessary.)
    1. Please describe your need to acquire the skills and knowledge 
taught in this course.
    2. Please describe how will taking this course benefit you, your 
court, and the State's courts generally.
    3. Is there an educational program currently available through 
your State on this topic?
    4. Are State or local funds available to support your attendance 
at the proposed course? If so, what amount(s) will be provided?
    5. How long have you served as a judge or court manager? 
________
    6. How long do you anticipate serving as a judge or court 
manager, assuming reelection or reappointment?
0-1 year      2-4 years      5-7 years     
8-10 years      11+years
    7. What continuing professional education programs have you 
attended in the past year? Please indicate which were mandatory (M) 
and which were non-mandatory (V).

Statement of Applicant's Commitment

    If a scholarship is awarded, I will share the skills and 
knowledge I have gained with my court colleagues locally, and if 
possible, Statewide, and I will submit an evaluation of the 
educational program to the State Justice Institute and to the Chief 
Justice of my State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
    Please return this form and Form S-2 to: Scholarship 
Coordinator, State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314

(Form S2)

State Justice Institute

SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION

CONCURRENCE

I,---------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Chief Justice (or Chief Justice's Designee)
have reviewed the application for a scholarship to attend the 
program entitled__________.
prepared by------------------------------------------------------------
            Name of Applicant
and concur in its submission to the State Justice Institute. The 
applicant's participation in the program would benefit the State; 
the applicant's absence to attend the program would not present an 
undue hardship to the court; public funds are not available to 
enable the applicant to attend this course; and receipt of a 
scholarship would not diminish the amount of funds made available by 
the State for judicial branch education.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date

Appendix VI--Line-Item Budget Form

    For Concept Papers, Curriculum Adaptation & Technical Assistance 
Grant Requests

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                        SJI Funds                Cash Match             In-kind match
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel...........................  $________                 $________                $________
Fringe Benefits.....................  $________                 $________                $________
Consultant/Contractual..............  $________                 $________                $________
Travel..............................  $________                 $________                $________
Equipment...........................  $________                 $________                $________
Supplies............................  $________                 $________                $________
Telephone...........................  $________                 $________                $________
Postage.............................  $________                 $________                $________
Printing/Photocopying...............  $________                 $________                $________
Audit...............................  $________                 $________                $________
Other...............................  $________                 $________                $________
Indirect Costs (%)..................  $________                 $________                $________
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................  $________                 $________                $________
                                     ===========================================================================
    Project Total...................  $________                 $________                $________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial assistance has been or will be sought for this project from the following other sources:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Concept papers requesting an acccelerated award, Curriculum Adaptation grant requests, and Technical
  Assistance grant requests should be accompanied by a budget narrative explaining the basis for each line-item
  listed in the proposed budget.

Form B (Instructions on Reverse Side)

Appendix VII--State Justice Institute

Certificate of State Approval

The ________ (Name of State Supreme Court or Designated Agency or 
Council) has reviewed the application entitled ________ prepared by 
________ (Name of Applicant)--approves its submission to the State 
Justice Institute, and
[  ] agrees to receive and administer and be accountable for all 
funds awarded by the Institute pursuant to the application.
[  ] designates ________ (Name of Trial or Appellate Court or 
Agency) as the entity to receive, administer, and be accountable for 
all funds awarded by the Institute pursuant to the application.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
[FR Doc. 98-27234 Filed 10-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-P