[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 31, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47610-47647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22418]



[[Page 47609]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





State Justice Institute





_______________________________________________________________________



Grant Guideline; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 31, 1999 / 
Notices  

[[Page 47610]]



STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE


Grant Guideline

AGENCY: State Justice Institute.

ACTION: Proposed grant guideline.

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

SUMMARY: This Guideline sets forth the administrative, programmatic, 
and financial requirements attendant to Fiscal Year 2000 State Justice 
Institute grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.

DATES: The Institute invites public comment on the Guideline until 
September 30, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to the State Justice Institute, 
1650 King St. (Suite 600), Alexandria, VA 22314 or e-mailed to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David I. Tevelin, Executive Director, 
or Kathy Schwartz, 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 2000 Appropriations

    The Senate has approved an FY 2000 appropriation of $6.85 million 
for the Institute. The House of Representatives has recommended no 
funding for SJI in FY 2000. The level of the Institute's appropriation, 
if any, will be determined by a Conference Committee this fall. The 
grant program proposed in this Guideline and the funding targets noted 
for specific programs are based on funding at the level approved by the 
Senate. The Final Grant Guideline may be modified after final 
Congressional action on the appropriation.

Types of Grants Available and Funding Schedules

    The SJI grant program is designed to be responsive to the most 
important needs of the State courts. To meet the full range of the 
courts' diverse needs, the Institute offers five different categories 
of grants. The types of grants available in FY 2000 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.D. (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 for 
15 months; 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 submit a concept paper (see section VI.) and, 
ordinarily, 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.
    With the exception of papers following up on the National 
Conference on Pro Se Litigants Appearing in Court, the FY 2000 mailing 
deadline for project grant concept papers is November 24, 1999. Papers 
must be postmarked or bear other evidence of submission by that date. 
The Board of Directors will meet in early March 2000 to invite formal 
applications based on the most promising concept papers. Applications 
will be due on May 10, 2000, and awards will be approved by the Board 
in July. Papers following up on the National Conference on Pro Se 
Litigants Appearing in Court must be mailed by March 17, 2000. The 
Board of Directors will review these papers in early May 2000 and 
invite applications based on the most promising concept papers. 
Applications will be due by June 10, 2000, and awards will be approved 
by the Board in July. See section VII.A. for Project Grant application 
procedures.
    Single Jurisdiction Project Grants. Section II.D. 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 F. 
See section VII.A for Single Jurisdiction Grant application procedures.
    Technical Assistance Grants. Section II.E. reserves up to $400,000 
for Technical Assistance Grants. Under this program, a State or local 
court may receive a grant of up to $30,000 to engage outside experts to 
provide technical assistance to diagnose, develop, and implement a 
response to a jurisdiction's problems.
    Letters of application for a Technical Assistance grant may be 
submitted at any time. Applicants submitting letters between June 12 
and September 30, 1999 will be notified of the Board's decision by 
December 10, 1999; those submitting letters between October 1, 1999 and 
January 14, 2000 will be notified by March 31, 2000; those submitting 
letters between January 15, 2000 and March 10, 2000 will be notified by 
May 26, 2000; and those submitting letters between March 11, 2000 and 
June 10, 2000 will be notified by August 25, 2000. Applicants 
submitting letters between June 11 and September 29, 2000 will be 
notified of the Board's decision by December 15, 2000. See section 
VII.D. for Technical Assistance Grant application procedures.
    Curriculum Adaptation Grants. A grant of up to $20,000 may be 
awarded to a State or local court to replicate or modify a model 
training program developed with SJI funds. The Guideline allocates up 
to $100,000 for these grants in FY 2000.
    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 VII.E. for Curriculum Adaptation Grant 
application procedures.
    Scholarships. The Guideline allocates up to $200,000 of FY 2000 
funds for scholarships to enable judges and court managers to attend 
out-of-State education and training programs.
    Scholarships for eligible applicants are 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, court administrator). 
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.

[[Page 47611]]

    Applicants interested in obtaining a scholarship for a program 
beginning between January 1 and March 31, 2000 must submit their 
applications and any required accompanying documents between October 1 
and December 1, 1999. For programs beginning between April 1 and June 
30, 2000, the applications and documents must be submitted between 
January 7 and March 7, 2000. For programs beginning between July 1 and 
September 30, 2000, the applications and documents must be submitted 
between April 3 and June 1, 2000. For programs beginning between 
October 1 and December 31, 2000, the applications and documents must be 
submitted between July 5 and September 1, 2000. For programs beginning 
between January 1 and March 31, 2001, the applications and documents 
must be submitted between October 2 and December 1, 2000. See section 
VII.F for Scholarship application procedures.
    Continuation and On-going Support Grants. Continuation grants (see 
sections III.E., V.C. and D., and VII.B) are intended to enhance the 
specific program or service begun during the initial grant period. On-
going support grants (see sections III.O., V.C. and D., and VII.C.) 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 combined target for continuation and 
on-going support of approximately 25% of the total amount projected to 
be available for all grants in FY 2000. 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 application. See section VII.B. and C. for continuation and on-
going support grant application procedures.

Special Interest Categories

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

Conferences

    The Institute is soliciting proposals to conduct a National 
Conference on Improving the Adversary System. See section II.B.2.b.(4).

Recommendations to Grantwriters

    Recommendations to Grantwriters may be found in Appendix A.
    The following Grant Guideline is proposed by the State Justice 
Institute for FY 2000:

State Justice Institute Grant Guideline

Table of Contents

I. The Mission of the State Justice Institute
II. Scope of the Program
III. Definitions
IV. Eligibility for Award
V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of Awards
VI. Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects
VII. Application Requirements for New Projects
VIII. Application Review Procedures
IX. Compliance Requirements
X. Financial Requirements
XI. Grant Adjustments
Appendix A  Recommendations to Grant Writers
Appendix B  Questions Frequently Asked by Grantees
Appendix C  List of State Contacts Regarding Administration of 
Institute Grants to State and Local Courts
Appendix D  SJI Libraries: Designated Sites and Contacts
Appendix E  Illustrative List of Model Curricula
Appendix F  Illustrative List of Replicable Projects
Appendix G  State Justice Institute Scholarship Application Forms 
(Forms S1 and S2)
Appendix H  Line-Item Budget Form (Form E)
Appendix I  Certificate of State Approval Form (Form B)

I. The Mission of the State Justice Institute

    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

[[Page 47612]]

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 2000, the Institute will consider applications for 
funding support that address any of the areas specified in its enabling 
legislation. The Board, however, has designated nine program categories 
as being of special interest. See section II.B.

A. Authorized Program Areas

    The Institute is authorized to fund projects addressing one or more 
of the following program areas listed in the State Justice Institute 
Act, the Battered Women's Testimony Act, the Judicial Training and 
Research for Child Custody Litigation Act, and the International 
Parental Kidnapping Crime Act.
    1. Assistance to State and local court systems in establishing 
appropriate procedures for the selection and removal of judges and 
other court personnel and in determining appropriate levels of 
compensation;
    2. Education and training programs for judges and other court 
personnel for the performance of their general duties and for 
specialized functions, and national and regional conferences and 
seminars for the dissemination of information on new developments and 
innovative techniques;
    3. Research on alternative means for using judicial and nonjudicial 
personnel in court decisionmaking activities, implementation of 
demonstration programs to test such innovative approaches, and 
evaluations of their effectiveness;
    4. Studies of the appropriateness and efficacy of court 
organizations and financing structures in particular States, and 
support to States to implement plans for improved court organization 
and financing;
    5. Support for State court planning and budgeting staffs and the 
provision of technical assistance in resource allocation and service 
forecasting techniques;
    6. Studies of the adequacy of court management systems in State and 
local courts, and implementation and evaluation of innovative responses 
to records management, data processing, court personnel management, 
reporting and transcription of court proceedings, and juror utilization 
and management;
    7. Collection and compilation of statistical data and other 
information on the work of the courts and on the work of other agencies 
which relates to and affects the work of courts;
    8. Studies of the causes of trial and appellate court delay in 
resolving cases, and establishing and evaluating experimental programs 
for reducing case processing time;
    9. Development and testing of methods for measuring the performance 
of judges and courts, and experiments in the use of such measures to 
improve the functioning of judges and the courts;
    10. Studies of court rules and procedures, discovery devices, and 
evidentiary standards to identify problems with the operation of such 
rules, procedures, devices, and standards, and the development of 
alternative approaches to better reconcile the requirements of due 
process with the need for swift and certain justice, and testing of the 
utility of those alternative approaches;
    11. Studies of the outcomes of cases in selected areas to identify 
instances in which the substance of justice meted out by the courts 
diverges from public expectations of fairness, consistency, or equity, 
and the development, testing, and evaluation of alternative approaches 
to resolving cases in such problem areas;
    12. Support for programs to increase court responsiveness to the 
needs of citizens through citizen education, improvement of court 
treatment of witnesses, victims, and jurors, and development of 
procedures for obtaining and using measures of public satisfaction with 
court processes to improve court performance;
    13. Testing and evaluating experimental approaches to provide 
increased citizen access to justice, including processes which reduce 
the cost of litigating common grievances, and alternative techniques 
and mechanisms for resolving disputes between citizens;
    14. Collection and analysis of information regarding the 
admissibility and quality of expert testimony on the experiences of 
battered women offered as part of the defense in criminal cases under 
State law, as well as sources of and methods to obtain funds to pay 
costs incurred to provide such testimony, particularly in cases 
involving indigent women defendants;
    15. Development of training materials to assist battered women, 
operators of domestic violence shelters, battered women's advocates, 
and attorneys to use expert testimony on the experiences of battered 
women in appropriate cases, and individuals with expertise in the 
experiences of battered women to develop skills appropriate to 
providing such testimony;
    16. Research regarding State judicial decisions relating to child 
custody litigation involving domestic violence;
    17. Development of training curricula to assist State courts to 
develop an understanding of, and appropriate responses to child custody 
litigation involving domestic violence;
    18. Dissemination of information and training materials and 
provision of technical assistance regarding the issues listed in 
paragraphs 14-17 above;
    19. Development of national, regional, and in-State training and 
educational programs dealing with criminal and civil aspects of 
interstate and international parental child abduction; and
    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 2000, the Institute is especially interested 
in funding 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

[[Page 47613]]

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.C.2. and VIII.)
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. For a complete list of 
projects supported in previous years in each of these categories, 
please visit the Institute's Internet homepage at http://
www.statejustice.org and click on Awarded Grants List.
    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 trust and confidence in the State courts.
    (1) The Institute is particularly interested in supporting 
innovative projects that demonstrate and test methods to:

     Develop national strategies to promote the progress of 
State court task forces and other court-sponsored programs to 
eliminate race and ethnic bias in the courts, including national 
projects that would support planning and program development at the 
State and local level; develop products that highlight effective 
model programs and best practices; and educate judges and court 
personnel about relevant products developed in different States 
(e.g., model judicial education curricula, bench books, court 
conduct handbooks, codes of ethics, and relevant legislation);
     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 to implement the 
concept of restorative justice, including methods for involving the 
community in the sentencing process;
     Identify and test the elements of successful long-term 
volunteer or other court-community collaborative programs;
     Educate and clearly communicate information to 
litigants and the public about judicial decisions, the trial and 
appellate court process, and court operations, and the standards 
courts maintain with respect to timeliness, access, and the 
elimination of bias; and
     Assure that judges and court employees meet the highest 
ethical standards and that judicial disciplinary procedures are 
known, fair, and effective.

    (2) The Institute is interested in supporting projects that 
facilitate implementation of State and local plans developed at or as a 
result of the National Conference on Public Trust and Confidence in the 
Justice System held in Washington, D.C., on May 13-14, 1999. In 
particular, the Institute seeks to support projects that would:

     Compile and disseminate information about practices 
being used by courts around the country that show the promise of 
enhancing public trust and confidence in the justice system;
     Educate the public about the business of the courts and 
their role in the community;
     Examine the role of lawyers and their impact on public 
trust in the courts; and
     Test and evaluate technological approaches designed to 
enhance public access to the courts.

    (3) The Institute also is interested in supporting State and local 
court projects to implement the action plans developed by the teams 
participating in the Institute-supported National Conference on Self-
Represented Litigants Appearing in Court to be held in Scottsdale, 
Arizona, on November 18-21, 1999. Concept papers proposing such 
projects must be mailed by March 17, 2000, for consideration by the 
Institute's Board of Directors in May 2000. Applications based on these 
concept papers will be considered by the Board in July 2000. Applicants 
are advised that Institute funds may not be used to directly or 
indirectly support legal representation of individuals in specific 
cases.
    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: (1) Innovative Educational 
Programs; (2) Curriculum Adaptation Projects; (3) Scholarships; and (4) 
National Conferences.
    (1) Innovative Educational Programs. This category includes support 
for the development and pilot-testing of innovative, high-quality 
educational programs for trial and appellate 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.F.
    (a) The Institute is particularly interested in the development of 
education programs that:

     Include innovative self-directed learning packages for 
use by appellate, trial, juvenile and family court judges and 
personnel, and distance-learning approaches for these audiences 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 computer 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;
     Encourage intergovernmental team-building, 
collaboration, and planning among the judicial, executive, and 
legislative branches of government, or courts within a metropolitan 
area or multi-State region;
     Develop and test curricula on the specific knowledge 
and skills needed to manage drug court programs for adults, 
juveniles, or families;

[[Page 47614]]

     Develop and test innovative curricula designed to 
enhance trial and appellate judges' awareness and understanding of 
Federal and State environmental laws and the effect those laws have 
on court processes in the impacted jurisdictions;
     Develop and test innovative curricula and materials to 
educate appellate, trial, and juvenile and family court judges about 
adolescent and youth development, including the role and impact of 
youth culture (cults and gangs), and the impact that exposure to 
violence at home, in school, and in the community has on children;
     Develop and test innovative training programs to 
enhance the ability of court personnel to protect 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;
     Develop and test innovative short (one-half or one full 
day) educational programs on events or issues of critical importance 
to local courts or courts in a particular region; and
     Develop and test methods to determine the cost-
effectiveness of judicial branch education and training.

    (b) The Institute is also very interested in supporting projects 
that would implement action plans and strategies developed by the State 
teams at the National Symposium on the Future of Judicial Branch 
Education that will be held in St. Louis, Missouri, on October 7-9, 
1999, as well as proposals from other applicants designed to assist in 
implementing and disseminating the findings and strategies discussed at 
the Conference.
    (c) 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.
    (2) Curriculum Adaptation Projects. The Board is reserving up to 
$160,000 to support projects that adapt a model curriculum previously 
developed with SJI funds and to pilot-test it to determine its 
appropriateness, quality, and effectiveness for inclusion in the 
jurisdiction's judicial branch education program. An illustrative but 
non-inclusive list of the curricula that may be appropriate for 
adaptation is contained in Appendix E.
    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 to meet a particular State's or local jurisdiction's 
educational needs; pilot-test it to determine its appropriateness, 
quality, and effectiveness; and train instructors to present portions 
or all 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. Application procedures may be found in Section VII.E.
    (3) Scholarships for Judges and Court Personnel. The Institute is 
reserving up to $200,000 to support a scholarship program for State 
court trial and appellate court managers. 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. 
Application procedures may be found in Section VII.F.
    (4) National Conferences. This category includes support for 
national conferences on topics of major concern to State court trial 
and appellate judges and personnel across the nation. Applicants are 
encouraged to consider the use of videoconferences, the Internet, 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, CD-ROM, or other 
product that would widely disseminate information, findings, and any 
recommendations resulting from the conference.
    This year, the Institute is particularly interested in supporting a 
National Conference on Improvement of the Adversary System that would 
explore the fundamental assumptions underlying the adversary system, 
its strengths and weaknesses, and what steps can be taken to improve 
both the system and the public's perception of the system.
    The many topics that such a conference could address include:

     The types of cases for which the adversary process may 
be the most appropriate and the least appropriate;
     Improving access to justice for poor and middle-income 
litigants;
     Methods for reducing trial length and expediting the 
trial process;
     The best ways of presenting, adjudicating, or otherwise 
resolving complex litigation;
     The education of trial counsel and litigants about 
settlement techniques and methods for determining the value of their 
cases;
     The use of special or blue-ribbon juries; and
     The use of technology to facilitate the resolution of 
disputes.

    The conference should involve the participation of judges, 
attorneys, court managers, legal scholars, researchers, business 
leaders, citizen organizations, dispute resolution specialists, and 
media representatives.
    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:

     Examining the timing for referrals to dispute 
resolution services, and the effect of different referral methods, 
on case outcomes and time to disposition;
     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 procedures that courts can use to assure the 
quality of court-connected dispute resolution programs, including 
methods of establishing and maintaining competency standards, 
training standards, and other techniques for assuring program 
excellence;
     Testing innovative approaches involving community 
partnerships, particularly in the contexts of juvenile and 
restorative justice, and examining the benefits such partnerships 
offer in ensuring the quality of dispute resolution programs;
     Evaluating innovative applications of technology to 
facilitate dispute resolution processes; 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

[[Page 47615]]

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 an applicant to use its own 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.
    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 includes novel applications of technology 
developed for the private sector that have not previously been applied 
to the courts.
    The Institute is particularly interested in supporting efforts to:

     Test and evaluate technologies that, if successfully 
implemented, would significantly re-engineer the way that courts 
currently do business;
     Test and evaluate technological innovations in the jury 
room to enhance jurors' deliberations;
     Develop and test standards governing electronic access 
to court records by the public;
     Evaluate approaches for electronically filing 
pleadings, briefs, and other documents; approaches to integrate 
electronic filing and electronic document management; and the impact 
of electronic court record systems on case management and court 
procedures;
     Develop model rules or standards to govern the use of 
electronic filing and electronic court records;
     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;
     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; and
     Evaluate innovative applications of technology designed 
to prevent courthouse incidents that endanger the lives and property 
of judges, court personnel, and courtroom participants.

    Ordinarily, the Institute will not provide support for the purchase 
of equipment or software 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 X.I.2.b. regarding other limits on the use 
of grant funds to purchase equipment and software.)
    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.
    (1) In particular, the Institute is interested in demonstration, 
evaluation, education, research, and technical assistance projects to:

     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;
     Enhance the core competencies required of court 
managers and staff;
     Facilitate and implement change and encourage 
excellence in court operations;
     Demonstrate and assess the effective use of staff teams 
in court operations; and
     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.

    (2) In addition, the Institute is interested in a research and 
evaluation project that would analyze and assess the impact of the 
``future and the courts'' activities that have been conducted over the 
past decade; identify the reasons why some States have been more 
successful than others in implementing change; assess what steps can be 
taken or methods developed to facilitate the recommended changes that 
are still appropriate; more fully institutionalize long-range planning 
by State court systems and, where appropriate, local courts; and assist 
each State court system or local court in developing the capacity to 
identify future trends that may significantly affect its ability to 
deliver justice.
    f. 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);
     Evaluate the effectiveness of re-entry drug courts on 
the management of drug offenders' behavior following their release 
from incarceration and the impact of this additional responsibility 
on court operation and caseload management;
     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;
     Document public sector and private sector managed care 
programs that effectively provide court-ordered treatment and other 
services to adults and juveniles; and
     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.

    g. 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

[[Page 47616]]

those effects when issuing protection, custody, visitation, or other 
orders;
     Assess the impact of procedures to determine whether 
improper investigatory techniques may have suggested children's 
testimony (e.g., ``taint hearings'') on the speed and fairness of 
child sexual abuse trials;
     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 guidelines and materials to assist judges and 
other court officers and personnel in critically analyzing 
psychological evaluations of children and the credibility of 
clinical experts, their reports, and methods of evaluating children;
     Compile and distribute information about innovative and 
successful approaches to sentencing and treatment alternatives for 
serious youthful offenders;
     Develop and test procedures and programs that 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 also 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 is treated with dignity, respect, and courtesy.

    h. 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:

    Train custody evaluators, guardians ad litem, and other 
independent professionals appearing in custody and visitation cases 
about domestic violence and the impact witnessing such violence has 
on children;
     Coordinate juvenile, family, and criminal court 
management of domestic violence cases;
     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; 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;
     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; and
     Implement and train judges and court personnel on 
recommended protocols and procedures identified at the National 
Summit on Fatality Reviews held on October 25-27, 1998, in Key West, 
Florida. Recommendations from the Summit and an educational module 
are available from your in-state library or from the National 
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' Family Violence 
Department (1-800-527-3223).

    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.)
    i. 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:
    (1) 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
    (2) Develop and test new approaches to:
    (a) Implement the habeas corpus provisions of the Anti-Terrorism 
Act of 1996;
    (b) Handle capital habeas corpus cases fairly and efficiently;
    (c) Coordinate and process mass tort cases fairly and efficiently 
at the trial and appellate levels;
    (d) Coordinate cases in which there is concurrent jurisdiction 
including State and Federal cases brought under the Violence Against 
Women Act;
    (e) 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;
    (f) Exchange information and coordinate calendars among State and 
Federal courts; and
    (g) Share facilities, jury pools, alternative dispute resolution 
programs, information regarding persons on pretrial release or 
probation, and court services.

C. ``Think Pieces''

    This category addresses the development of essays of publishable 
quality directed to the court community. The essays should explore 
emerging issues that could result in significant changes in court 
process or judicial administration and their implications for judges, 
court managers, policy-makers, and the public. Grants supporting such 
projects are limited to no more than $10,000. Applicants should follow 
the procedures for concept papers requesting an accelerated award of a 
grant of less than $40,000, which are explained in Section VI.3.(b) of 
this Guideline.
    Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

     The implications of changing expectations about the 
proper role of judges--from adjudicators to problem-solvers--on 
court procedures, court operations, and judicial selection;
     A re-examination of judicial ethics as they relate to 
the evolving role of the judge as ``off-the-bench'' problem-solver, 
e.g., participating in domestic violence or other local coordinating 
councils, working with State legislatures, and collaborating with 
community groups;
     The potential use of local court advisory councils 
rooted in the community as a method of promoting public trust and 
confidence in the court;
     The implications of increasing commerce via the 
Internet for the State courts, including unique problems that may 
arise and the new rules and procedures that may be needed to address 
them;
     An exploration of issues related to privacy, data 
security, and public access to court records in our increasingly 
technological society; and
     The potential for the creation of ``cyber-courts'' 
through the use of the Internet--a ``courthouse-less court'' instead 
of a paperless court--and how the courts would have to be re-
engineered to accommodate such a development.

[[Page 47617]]

D. Single Jurisdiction Projects

    The Board will set aside up to $300,000 to support projects 
proposed 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, but it need not be innovative. 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 F.) Grants to support replications are subject to 
the same limits on amount and duration as other project grants. (See 
section V.) 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 IX.A.7.a.
    The application procedures for Single Jurisdiction grants are the 
same as the procedures for Project Grants. See Section VII.A.

E. Technical Assistance Grants

    The Board will set aside up to $400,000 to support the provision of 
technical assistance to State and local courts. 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. 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.
    Technical Assistance grants are limited to no more than $30,000 
each, and may cover the cost of obtaining the services of expert 
consultants; travel by a team of officials from one court to examine a 
practice, program, or facility in another jurisdiction that the 
applicant court is interested in replicating; or both. Technical 
assistance grant funds ordinarily may not be used to support production 
of a videotape. Normally, the technical assistance must be completed 
within 12 months after the start-date of the grant.
    Only a State or local court may apply for a Technical Assistance 
grant. The application procedures may be found in section VII.D.

III. Definitions

    The following definitions apply for the purposes of this Guideline:

A. Accelerated Award

    A grant of up to $40,000 awarded on the basis of a concept paper 
(including a budget and budget narrative) when the need for and 
benefits of the proposed project are clear and an application would not 
be needed to provide additional information about the project's 
methodology and budget. See section VI.C.1. for a more complete 
description of the criteria to approve an accelerated award.

B. Acknowledgment of SJI Support

    The prominent display of the SJI logo on the front cover of a 
written product or in the opening frames of a videotape developed with 
Institute support, and inclusion of a brief statement on the inside 
front cover or title page of the document or the opening frames of the 
videotape identifying the grant number. See section IX.A.10. for 
precise wording of the statement.

C. Application

    A formal request for an Institute grant that is invited by the 
Board of Directors after approval of a concept paper. A complete 
application consists of: Form A--Application; Form B--Certificate of 
State Approval (for applications from local trial or appellate courts 
or agencies); Form C--Project Budget/Tabular Format or Form C1--Project 
Budget/Spreadsheet Format; Form D--Assurances; Disclosure of Lobbying 
Activities; a detailed 25-page description of the need for the project 
and all related tasks, including the time frame for completion of each 
task, and staffing requirements; and a detailed budget narrative that 
provides the basis for all costs. See section VII. for a complete 
description of application submission requirements.

D. Concept Paper

    A proposal of no more than eight double-spaced pages that outlines 
the nature and scope of a project that would be supported with State 
Justice Institute funds, accompanied by a preliminary budget. See 
section VI. for a complete description of concept paper submission 
requirements.

E. Continuation Grant

    A grant lasting no longer than 15 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. See 
section VII.B. for a complete description of continuation application 
requirements.

F. 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 relevant 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.

G. Curriculum Adaptation Grant

    A grant of up to $20,000 to support an adaptation and pilot test of 
an educational program previously developed with SJI funds. See section 
VII.E. for a complete description of curriculum grant application 
requirements.

H. 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.

I. Disclaimer

    A brief statement that must be included at the beginning of a 
document or in the opening frames of a videotape produced with State 
Justice Institute funding that specifies that the points of view 
expressed in the document or tape do not necessarily represent the 
official position or policies of the Institute. See section IX.A.10 for 
the precise wording of this statement.

J. Grant Adjustment

    A change in the design or scope of a project from that described in 
the approved application, acknowledged in writing by the Institute. See 
section XI.A for a list of the types of changes requiring a formal 
grant adjustment.

K. 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.

[[Page 47618]]

L. 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.

M. Institute

    The State Justice Institute.

N. 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.

O. On-Going Support Grant

    A grant lasting 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. See section 
VIII.B. for a complete description of on-going support application 
requirements.

P. Products

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

Q. Project Grant

    An initial grant lasting up to 15 months to support an innovative 
education, research, demonstration, or technical assistance project 
that can improve the administration of justice in State courts 
nationwide. Ordinarily, a project grant may not exceed $200,000 a year; 
however, a grant in excess of $150,000 is likely to be rare and awarded 
only to support highly promising projects that will have a significant 
national impact. See section VII.A. for a complete description of 
project grant application requirements.

R. Project-Related Income

    Interest, royalties, registration and tuition fees, proceeds from 
the sale of products, and other earnings generated as a result of a 
State Justice Institute grant. Project-related income may not be 
counted as match. For a more complete description of different types of 
project-related income, see section X.G.

S. Scholarship

    A grant of up to $1,500 awarded to a judge or court employee to 
cover the cost of tuition for and transportation to and from an out-of-
State educational program within the United States. See section VII.F. 
for a complete description of scholarship application requirements.

T. Single Jurisdiction Project Grant

    A grant that addresses a critical but not necessarily innovative 
need of a single State or local jurisdiction that cannot be met solely 
with State and/or local resources within the foreseeable future. See 
section II.D. for a description of single jurisdiction projects and 
section VI. and VII.A. for a complete description of single 
jurisdiction project application requirements.

U. Special Condition

    A requirement attached to a grant award that is unique to a 
particular project.

V. 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.

W. Subgrantee

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

X. Technical Assistance Grant

    A grant, lasting up to 12 months, of up to $30,000 to a State or 
local court to support outside expert assistance in diagnosing a 
problem and developing and implementing a response to that problem. See 
section VII.D. for a complete description of technical assistance grant 
application requirements.

IV. Eligibility for Award

    The Institute is 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 is 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 project can be served better (42 
U.S.C. 10705(b)(2)). In making this judgment, the Institute will 
consider the likely replicability in jurisdictions around the country 
of the methodology and results of the projects proposed by these 
applicants. 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 
X.C.2. of this Guideline. A list of persons to contact

[[Page 47619]]

in each State regarding approval of applications from State and local 
courts and administration of Institute grants to those courts is 
contained in Appendix C.

V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of Awards

A. Types of Projects

    The Institute supports the following general types of projects:
    1. Education and training;
    2. Research and evaluation;
    3. Demonstration; and
    4. Technical assistance.

B. Types of Grants

    The Institute supports the following types of grants:
    1. Project Grants.
    See sections II.B. and D., VI., and VII.A. The Institute places no 
annual limitations on the overall number of project grant awards or the 
number of awards in each special interest category.
    2. Continuation Grants.
    See sections III.E. and VII.B. In FY 2000, the Institute is 
allocating no more than 25% of available grant funds for continuation 
and on-going support grants.
    3. On-going Support Grants.
    See sections III.O. and VII.C. See Continuation Grants above for 
limitations on funding availability in FY 2000.
    4. Technical Assistance Grants
    See section II.E. In FY 2000, the Institute is reserving up to 
$400,000 for these grants.
    5. Curriculum Adaptation Grants.
    See sections II.B.2.b.(2), III.G., and VII.E. In FY 2000, the 
Institute is reserving up to $100,000 for adaptations of curricula 
previously developed with SJI funding.
    6. Scholarships.
    See section II.B.2.b.(3), III.S, and VII.F. In FY 2000, the 
Institute is reserving up to $200,000 for scholarships for judges and 
court employees. The Institute will reserve sufficient funds each 
quarter to assure the availability of scholarships throughout the year.

C. Maximum Size of Awards

    1. Except as specified below, applicants for new project grants and 
continuation grants may request funding in amounts up to $200,000 for 
15 months, 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. Applicants 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. The Institute will ordinarily release 
funds for the second and third years of on-going support grants on the 
following conditions: (1) the project is performing satisfactorily; (2) 
appropriations are available to support the project that fiscal year; 
and (3) the Board of Directors determines that the project continues to 
fall within the Institute's priorities.
    3. Applicants for technical assistance grants may request funding 
in amounts up to $30,000.
    4. Applicants for curriculum adaptation grants may request funding 
in amounts up to $20,000.
    5. Applicants 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 
may not exceed 15 months.
    2. Grant periods for on-going support grants ordinarily may not 
exceed 36 months.
    3. Grant periods for technical assistance grants and curriculum 
adaptation grants ordinarily may not exceed 12 months.

VI. Concept Papers

    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 would 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 would address, why existing 
materials, programs, procedures, services, or other resources cannot 
adequately resolve those problems, and the benefits that would be 
realized from the project by State courts generally.
    b. What would 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 would the effects and quality of the project be determined? 
Applicants should include a summary description of how the project 
would be evaluated, including the criteria that would be used to 
measure its success or impact.
    d. How would others find out about the project and be able to use 
the results? Applicants should describe the

[[Page 47620]]

products that would result, the degree to which they would be 
applicable to courts across the nation, and to whom the products and 
results of the project would be disseminated in addition to the SJI-
designated libraries (e.g., State chief justices, specified groups of 
trial judges, State court administrators, specified groups of trial 
court administrators, State judicial educators, or other audiences).
3. The Budget
    a. Preliminary Budget. A preliminary budget must be attached to the 
narrative that includes the information specified on Form E included in 
Appendix H 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 C. 
in this section must attach to Form E (see Appendix H) 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 (Appendix I) 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 
would be involved in or directly affected by the proposed project. 
Letters of support may be sent under separate cover; however, to ensure 
sufficient time to bring them to the Board's attention, support letters 
sent under separate cover must be received no later than January 5, 
2000.
5. Page Limits
    a. The Institute will not accept concept papers with program 
narratives exceeding eight double-spaced pages (see A.2. of this 
section). This page limit does not include the cover page, budget form, 
the budget narrative (for papers requesting consideration for 
accelerated awards), the task schedule (for papers requesting 
accelerated awards), 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. This material will be incorporated by reference into each paper 
and counted against the eight-page limit for each. 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. Submission Requirements

    With the exception of papers following up on the National 
Conference on Pro Se Litigants Appearing in Court, an original and 
three copies of all concept papers submitted for consideration in 
Fiscal Year 2000--including those proposing projects emanating from the 
National Summit on Fatality Reviews held in October 1998; the National 
Conference on Public Trust and Confidence in the Justice System held in 
May 1999; and the National Symposium on the Future of Judicial Branch 
Education scheduled for October 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, 1999.
    Concept papers following up on the National Conference on Pro Se 
Litigants Appearing in Court must be sent by first class or overnight 
mail or by courier by March 17, 2000.
    A postmark or courier receipt will constitute evidence of the 
submission date. All envelopes containing concept papers should be 
marked CONCEPT PAPER and sent to: State Justice Institute, 1650 King 
Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
    Receipt of each concept paper will be acknowledged by the Institute 
in writing. Extensions of the deadlines for submission of concept 
papers will not be granted.

C. Institute Review

1. Review Process
    Concept papers will be reviewed competitively by the Institute's 
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 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 will 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.
2. Selection Criteria
    a. All concept papers will be evaluated on the basis of the 
following criteria:
    (1) The demonstration of need for the project;
    (2) The soundness and innovativeness of the approach described;
    (3) The benefits to be derived from the project;
    (4) The reasonableness of the proposed budget;
    (5) The proposed project's relationship to one of the ``Special 
Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B; and
    (6) 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 will be rated on the proposed 
project's relation to one of the ``Special Interest'' categories set 
forth in section II.B. and the special requirements listed in section 
II.D. and VII.A.
    b. 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

[[Page 47621]]

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 of this Grant Guideline); 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.
3. Notification to Applicants
    The Institute will send written notice to all persons submitting 
concept papers, informing them of the Board's decisions regarding their 
papers and of the key issues and questions that arose during the review 
process. A decision by the Board not to invite an application may not 
be appealed, but applicants may resubmit the concept paper or a 
revision thereof in a subsequent funding cycle. The Institute will also 
notify the relevant State contact (all of whom are listed in Appendix 
C) when the Board invites applications submitted by courts within that 
State or that specify a participating site within that State.

VII. Applications

    An application for Institute funding 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. Project Grants

1. Forms
    a. Application Form (FORM A). The application form requests basic 
information regarding the proposed project, the applicant, and the 
total amount of funding 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.
    b. 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.
    c. 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 4. below in this section.)
    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.
    d. Assurances (FORM D). This form lists the statutory, regulatory, 
and policy requirements with which recipients of Institute funds must 
comply.
    e. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. Applicants other than units 
of State or local government are required 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 IX.A.6.)
2. 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.
3. Program Narrative
    The program narrative for an application may 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:
    a. 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).
    b. Program Areas to be Covered. The applicant should note 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.)
    c. 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 cannot 
adequately resolve those problems. The discussion should include 
specific references to the relevant literature and to the experience in 
the field.
    d. Tasks, Methods and Evaluation. (1) 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:
    (a) 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

[[Page 47622]]

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.
    (b) 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 would 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 would attend them; 
the materials to be provided and how they would be developed; and the 
cost to participants.
    (c) 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 would be identified and their 
cooperation obtained; and how the program or procedures would be 
implemented and monitored.
    (d) For technical assistance projects, the applicant should explain 
the types of assistance that would be provided; the particular issues 
and problems for which assistance would be provided; how requests would 
be obtained and the type of assistance determined; how suitable 
providers would be selected and briefed; how reports would be reviewed; 
and the cost to recipients.
    (2) 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 the project in order to promote its 
continuing improvement. The plan should present the qualifications of 
the evaluator(s); describe the criteria that would be used to evaluate 
the project's effectiveness in meeting its objectives; explain how the 
evaluation would be conducted, including the specific data collection 
and analysis techniques to be used; discuss why this approach would be 
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:
    (a) 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.
    (b) Education and Training. The most valuable approaches to 
evaluating educational or training programs 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.
    (c) 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, and/or 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, and/or 
what benefits resulted from the program?); and the replicability of the 
program or components of the program.
    (d) Technical Assistance. For technical assistance projects, 
applicants should explain how the quality, timeliness, and impact of 
the assistance provided would be determined, and develop a mechanism 
for feedback from both the users and providers of the technical 
assistance.
    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.
    e. 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 
would 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, would 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.
    f. Products. The program narrative in the application should 
contain a description of the products to be developed (e.g., training 
curricula and materials, videotapes, articles, manuals, or handbooks), 
including when they would be submitted to the Institute. The budget 
should include the cost of producing and disseminating the product to 
each in-State SJI library, State chief justice, State court

[[Page 47623]]

administrator, and other judges or court personnel.
    (1) Dissemination Plan. The application must explain how and to 
whom the products would be disseminated; describe how they would 
benefit the State courts, including how they could 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 would be offered to the courts community and the public at large 
(i.e., whether products would be distributed at no cost to recipients, 
or if costs are involved, the reason for charging recipients and the 
estimated price of the product). (See section IX.A.10.b.) 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 D.) To facilitate 
their use, all videotaped products should be distributed in VHS format.
    Seventeen (17) copies of all project products must be submitted to 
the Institute. A master copy of each videotape, in addition to 17 
copies of each videotape product, must also be provided to the 
Institute.
    (2) Types of Products 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 would 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 
would make their data available for secondary analysis after the grant 
period. (See section IX.A.13.a.)
    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.
    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. SJI will provide press release guidelines and a list of 
recipients to grantees at least 30 days before the end of the grant 
period.
    (3) Institute Review. Applicants must submit 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. See section IX.A.10e.)
    (4) Acknowledgment, Disclaimer, and Logo. Applicants must also 
include 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 IX.A.10. of the Guideline. The ``SJI'' logo 
must appear on the front cover of a written product, or in the opening 
frames of a video, unless the Institute approves another placement.
    g. 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.
    h. 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 would 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.
    i. Organizational Capacity. Applicants that have not received a 
grant from the Institute within the past two years should include a 
statement describing their capacity to administer grant funds, 
including the financial systems used to monitor project expenditures 
(and income, if any), and a summary of their past experience in 
administering grants, as well as any resources or capabilities that 
they have that would 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.
    j. Statement of Lobbying Activities. Non-governmental applicants 
must submit the Institute's Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Form, 
which documents 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.
    k. 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. To ensure 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.
4. 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

[[Page 47624]]

essential to obtaining a clear understanding of the proposed budget. 
Numerous and lengthy appendices are strongly discouraged.
    The budget narrative should cover the costs of all components of 
the project and clearly identify costs attributable to the project 
evaluation. Under OMB grant guidelines incorporated by reference in 
this Guideline, grant funds may not be used to purchase alcoholic 
beverages.
    a. Justification of Personnel Compensation. The applicant should 
set forth the percentages of time to be devoted by the individuals who 
would staff 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 rates of those individuals. The applicant 
should explain any deviations from current rates or established written 
organizational 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 would support only the portion of the employee's time 
that would be dedicated to new or additional duties related to the 
project.
    b. 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.
    c. Consultant/Contractual Services and Honoraria. The applicant 
should describe the tasks each consultant would perform, the estimated 
total amount to be paid to each consultant, the basis for compensation 
rates (e.g., the number of days multiplied by the daily consultant 
rates), and the method for selection. Rates for consultant services 
must be set in accordance with section X.I.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 more than $900 per day.
    d. 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.
    e. Equipment. Grant funds may be used to purchase only the 
equipment 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 X.I.2.b.
    f. 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.
    g. Construction. Construction expenses are prohibited except for 
the limited purposes set forth in section IX.A.15. Any allowable 
construction or renovation expense should be described in detail in the 
budget narrative.
    h. 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 to calculate the monthly and long distance estimates.
    i. Postage. Anticipated postage costs for project-related mailings, 
including distribution of the final product(s), 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 budget narrative.
    j. Printing/Photocopying. Anticipated costs for printing or 
photocopying project documents, reports, and publications should be 
included in the budget narrative, along with the bases used to 
calculate these estimates.
    k. 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 its approved 
indirect cost rate. These rates must be established in accordance with 
section X.I.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.

    l. 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 would be documented for 
audit purposes. 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 would be made. (See sections III.N., VIII.B., 
IX.A.7., and X.E.1.)
5. Submission Requirements
    a. Every applicant must submit an original and four copies of the 
application package consisting of FORM A; FORM B, if the application is 
from a State or local court, or a Disclosure of Lobbying Form, if the 
applicant is not a unit of State or local government; the Budget Forms 
(either FORM C or C-1); the Application Abstract; Program Narrative; 
Budget Narrative; and any necessary appendices.
    All applications invited by the Institute's Board of Directors must 
be sent by first class or overnight mail or by courier no later than 
May 10, 2000. A postmark or courier receipt will constitute evidence of 
the submission date. Please mark APPLICATION on the application package 
envelope and send it to: State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, 
Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314.
    Receipt of each application will be acknowledged in writing. 
Extensions of the deadline for submission of

[[Page 47625]]

applications will not be granted. See 3.k. above in this section for 
deadlines for letters of support.
    b. Applicants submitting more than one application may include 
material that would be identical in each application in a cover letter. 
This material will be incorporated by reference into each application 
and 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.

B. Continuation Grant Applications

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. Continuation grants should be distinguished from on-
going support grants, which are awarded to support critically needed 
long-term national scope projects. See C. below in this section.
    The award of an initial grant to support a project does not 
constitute a commitment by the Institute to continue funding. For a 
project to be considered for continuation funding, the grantee must 
have completed all 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. 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 continued funding 
becomes apparent but no less than 120 days before the end of the 
current grant period.
    a. A letter of intent must be no more than 3 single-spaced pages on 
8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper and 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 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 A.2. of this section, a program 
narrative, a budget narrative, a Certificate of State Approval--FORM B 
(Appendix I) 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 A.3. of this section. However, rather than 
the topics listed there, the program narrative of a continuation 
application 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 would benefit the participating 
courts or the courts community generally, by explaining, for example, 
how the original goals and objectives of the project would be 
unfulfilled if it were not continued; or how the value of the project 
would be enhanced by its continuation.
    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 available, and how they would be addressed during the 
proposed continuation. If the findings are not yet available, the 
applicant should provide the date by which they would 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 would 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 would be 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 A.4. in this section. 
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 would remain unobligated at the end of the 
current grant period.
5. References to Previously Submitted Material
    A continuation application 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
    The submission requirements set forth in A.5. in this section, 
other than the mailing deadline, apply to continuation applications.

C. On-Going Support Grants

1. Purpose and Scope
    On-going support grants are intended to support projects that are 
national in scope and 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

[[Page 47626]]

made available in annual increments as specified in section V.C.2.
    The award of an initial grant to support a project does not 
constitute a commitment by the Institute to provide on-going support at 
the end of the original project period. 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, 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 on-going support application 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 
3-year grant period. The decision to release 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, as well as the availability of appropriations and the project's 
consistency with the Institute's priorities.
    A final evaluation assessing the effectiveness, operation of, and 
continuing need for the project must be submitted 90 days before the 
end of the 3-year project period. In addition, a detailed annual task 
schedule must be submitted not later than 45 days before the end of the 
first and second years of the grant period, along with an explanation 
of any necessary revisions in the projected costs for the remainder of 
the project period.
2. Letters of Intent
    In lieu of a concept paper, an applicant 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 
continuing 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 B.2. of 
this section.
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 (Appendix I) if the applicant is 
a State or local court; a Disclosure of Lobbying Activities form (from 
applicants other than units of State or local government); a project 
abstract conforming to the format set forth in A.2. of this section; a 
program narrative; a budget narrative; and any necessary appendices.
    The program narrative should conform to the length and format 
requirements set forth in A.3. of this section; however, rather than 
the topics listed there, 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 they have not been completed.
    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 would be addressed 
during the next three years. 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 would be disseminated; the assigned staff; 
and the grantee's organizational capacity. The grantee also should 
describe the steps it would 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.
4. Budget and Budget Narrative
    The applicant should provide a complete three-year budget and 
budget narrative conforming to the requirements set forth in A.4. of 
this section, and estimate the amount of grant funds that would 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. 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 would 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
    The submission requirements set forth in A.5. of this section, 
other than the mailing deadline, apply to applications for on-going 
support grants.

D. Technical Assistance Grants

1. Purpose and Scope
    Technical assistance grants are awarded to State and local courts 
to obtain the assistance of outside experts in diagnosing, developing, 
and

[[Page 47627]]

implementing a response to a particular problem in a jurisdiction.
2. 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. 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.
3. Application Format
    Although there is no prescribed form for the letter nor a minimum 
or maximum page limit, letters of application should include the 
following information:
    a. Need for Funding. What is the critical need facing the court? 
How would 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?
    b. 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 jurisdictions' 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 frame 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.
    c. Likelihood of Implementation. What steps have been or would 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 would be needed to adopt the changes recommended by the 
consultant and approved by the court, how would they be involved in the 
review of the recommendations and development of the implementation 
plan?
    d. 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 I) 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.
4. Budget and Matching State Contribution
    A completed Form E, Preliminary Budget (see Appendix H) and budget 
narrative must be included with the 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., 
the 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 more than $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 IX.A.3.)
5. Submission Requirements
    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, 1999 will be notified of the Board's decision by December 10, 1999; 
those submitting letters between October 1, 1999 and January 14, 2000 
will be notified by March 31, 2000; notification of the Board's 
decisions concerning letters mailed between January 15 and March 11, 
2000, will be made by May 26, 2000; and notice of decisions regarding 
letters submitted between March 11 and June 10, 2000 will be made by 
August 25, 2000. Subject to the availability of sufficient 
appropriations for fiscal year 2000, applicants submitting letters 
between June 11 and September 29, 2000, will be notified by December 
15, 2000.
    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 21, 1999, and 
February 10, April 13, and July 7, 2000).

E. Curriculum Adaptation Grants

1. Purpose and Scope
    Curriculum Adaptation grants are awarded to State and local courts 
to support replication or modification of a model training program 
originally developed with Institute funds.
2. Application Procedures
    In lieu of concept papers and formal applications, applicants 
should submit an original and three photocopies of a detailed letter.
3. Application Format
    Although there is no prescribed format for the letter, or a minimum 
or maximum page limit, letters of application should include the 
following information:
    a. 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

[[Page 47628]]

for adapting the model curriculum? Who would the participants be, how 
many would there be, how would 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)?
    b. 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?
    c. 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.)
    d. 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.)
    e. 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 I.)
4. Budget and Matching State Contribution
    Applicants should attach a copy of budget Form E (see Appendix H) 
and a budget narrative (see A.4. in this section) that describes the 
basis for the computation of all project-related costs and the source 
of the match offered. 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.
5. Submission Requirements
    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.

F. Scholarships

1. Purpose and Scope
    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. 
An applicant may apply for a scholarship for only one educational 
program during any one application cycle.
    Scholarship funds may be used only to cover the costs of tuition 
and transportation expenses. Transportation expenses may include round-
trip coach airfare or train fare. Recipients who drive to a program 
site may receive $.31/mile up to the amount of the advanced-purchase 
round-trip airfare between their homes and the program sites. 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 program site 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.
    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.
2. Eligibility Requirements
    a. 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.
    b. Courses. A Scholarship can be awarded only for a course 
presented in a U.S. jurisdiction other than the one in which the 
applicant resides that is 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 is offered by a 
recognized graduate program for judges or court managers. The annual or 
mid-year 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.
    Applicants are encouraged not to wait for the decision on a 
scholarship to register for an educational program they wish to attend.
3. Forms
    a. Judicial Education Scholarship Application--FORM S-1 (Appendix 
G). The application form requests basic information about the applicant 
and the educational program the applicant would like to attend. It also 
addresses the applicant's commitment to share the skills and knowledge 
gained with local court colleagues and to submit an evaluation of the 
program the applicant attends.
    b. Scholarship Application Concurrence--FORM S-2 (Appendix G). 
Judges and court managers applying for a scholarship must submit the 
written concurrence of the Chief Justice of the State's Supreme Court 
(or the Chief Justice's designee) on the Institute's Judicial Education 
Scholarship Concurrence form (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 supervisors.
4. Submission Requirements
    Scholarship applications must be submitted during the periods 
specified below:

October 1-December 1, 1999, for programs beginning between January 1 
and March 31, 2000;
January 7-March 7, 2000, for programs beginning between April 1 and 
June 30, 2000;
April 3-June 1, 2000, for programs beginning between July 1 and 
September 30, 2000;
July 5-September 1, 2000, for programs beginning between October 1 and 
December 31, 2000; and
October 2-December 1, 2000, for programs beginning between January 1 
and March 31, 2001.


[[Page 47629]]


    No exceptions or extensions will be granted. Applications sent 
prior to the beginning of an application period will be treated as 
having been sent one week after the beginning of that application 
period. All the required items must be received 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.

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. Project, Continuation, and On-going Support Grant Applications
    a. 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:
    (1) The soundness of the methodology;
    (2) The demonstration of need for the project;
    (3) The appropriateness of the proposed evaluation design;
    (4) The applicant's management plan and organizational 
capabilities;
    (5) The qualifications of the project's staff;
    (6) 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;
    (7) The degree to which the findings, procedures, training, 
technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other 
jurisdictions.
    (8) The reasonableness of the proposed budget;
    (9) The demonstration of cooperation and support of other agencies 
that may be affected by the project; and
    (10) The proposed project's relationship to one of the ``Special 
Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B.
    b. For continuation and on-going support grant applications, the 
key findings and recommendations of evaluations and the proposed 
responses to those findings and recommendations also will be 
considered.
    c. 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.
2. Technical Assistance Grant Applications
    Technical Assistance grant applications will be rated on the basis 
of the following criteria:
    a. Whether the assistance would address a critical need of the 
court;
    b. The soundness of the technical assistance approach to the 
problem;
    c. The qualifications of the consultant(s) to be hired, or the 
specific criteria that will be used to select the consultant(s);
    d. Commitment on the part of the court to act on the consultant's 
recommendations; and
    e. 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.
3. Curriculum Adaptation Grant Applications
    Curriculum Adaptation grant applications will be rated on the basis 
of the following criteria:
    a. The goals and objectives of the proposed project;
    b. The need for outside funding to support the program;
    c. The appropriateness of the approach in achieving the project's 
educational objectives;
    d. The likelihood of effective implementation and integration into 
the State's or local jurisdiction's ongoing educational programming; 
and
    e. Expressions of interest by the judges and/or court personnel who 
would be directly involved in or affected by the project.
    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.
4. Scholarships
    Scholarships will be awarded on the basis of:
    a. The date on which the application and concurrence (and support 
letter, if required) were received;
    b. The unavailability of State or local funds to cover the costs of 
attending the program or scholarship funds from another source;
    c. 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;
    d. Geographic balance among the recipients;
    e. The balance of scholarships among educational programs;
    f. The balance of scholarships among the types of courts 
represented; and
    g. 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

C. Review and Approval Process

1. Project, Continuation, and On-going Support Grant Applications
    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 grants. 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.
2. Technical Assistance and Curriculum Adaptation Grant Applications
    The Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary of each 
application and a rating sheet assigning points for each relevant 
selection criterion.

[[Page 47630]]

Applications will be reviewed competitively by a committee of the Board 
of Directors. The Board of Directors has delegated its authority to 
approve Technical Assistance and Curriculum Adaptation grants to the 
committee established for each program.
    Approved awards will be signed by the Chairman of the Board on 
behalf of the Institute.
3. Scholarships
    Scholarship applications are reviewed quarterly by a committee of 
the Institute's Board of Directors. The Board of Directors has 
delegated its authority to approve Scholarships to the committee 
established for the program.
    Approved awards 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

    1. The Institute will send written notice to applicants concerning 
all Board decisions to approve, defer, or deny their respective 
applications. For all except Scholarship applications, the Institute 
also will convey 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 it does not prohibit resubmission of a proposal based 
on that application in a subsequent funding cycle. With respect to 
awards other than Scholarships, the Institute will also notify the 
designated State contact listed in Appendix C when grants are approved 
by the Board to support projects that will be conducted by or involve 
courts in that State.
    2. The Board anticipates acting upon Curriculum Adaptation grant 
applications within 45 days after receipt. Grant funds will be 
available only after Board approval, and negotiation of the final terms 
of the grant.
    3. The Institute intends to notify each Scholarship applicant of 
the Board committee's decision within 30 days after the close of the 
relevant application period.

F. Response to Notification of Approval

    With the exception of those approved for Scholarships, 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. Compliance Requirements

    The State Justice Institute Act contains limitations and conditions 
on grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements awarded by the 
Institute. The Board of Directors has approved additional policies 
governing the use of Institute grant funds. These statutory and policy 
requirements are set forth below.

A. Recipients of Project Grants

1. 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)).
2. 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, the 
recipient must 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.
3. Audit
    Recipients of project grants must provide for an annual fiscal 
audit which includes 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 X.K. of the Guideline for the requirements of 
such audits.) Recipients of scholarships or curriculum adaptation or 
technical assistance grants are not required to submit an audit, but 
must maintain appropriate documentation to support all expenditures.
4. Conflict of Interest
    Personnel and other officials connected with Institute-funded 
programs must adhere to the following requirements:
    a. 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 or her knowledge, he or she or his or her immediate 
family, partners, organization other than a public agency in which he 
or she is serving as officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee 
or any person or organization with whom he or she is negotiating or has 
any arrangement concerning prospective employment, or has a financial 
interest.
    b. 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:
    (1) Using an official position for private gain; or
    (2) Affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the 
integrity of the Institute program.
    c. 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.
5. Inventions and Patents
    If any patentable items, patent rights, processes, or inventions 
are produced in the course of Institute-sponsored work, such fact shall 
be promptly and fully reported to the Institute. Unless there is a 
prior agreement between the grantee and the Institute on disposition of 
such items, the Institute shall determine whether protection of the 
invention or discovery shall be sought. The Institute will also 
determine how the rights in the invention or discovery, including 
rights under any patent issued thereon, shall be allocated and 
administered in order to protect the public interest consistent with 
``Government Patent Policy'' (President's Memorandum for Heads of 
Executive Departments and Agencies, February 18, 1983, and statement of 
Government Patent Policy).
6. Lobbying
    a. Funds awarded to recipients by the Institute shall not be used, 
indirectly or

[[Page 47631]]

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).
    b. 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.
7. Matching Requirements
    a. All awards to courts or other units of State or local government 
(not including publicly supported institutions of higher education) 
require a match from private or public sources of not less than 50% of 
the total amount of the Institute's award. For example, if the total 
cost of a project is anticipated to be $150,000, a State court or 
executive branch agency may request up to $100,000 from the Institute 
to implement the project. The remaining $50,000 (50% of the $100,000 
requested from SJI) must be provided as a match. A cash match, non-cash 
match, or both may be provided, but the Institute will give preference 
to those applicants that provide a cash match to the Institute's award. 
(For a further definition of match, see section III.N.)
    b. 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).
    c. 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. 
and X.E).
8. 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.
9. Political Activities
    No recipient may 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).
10. Products
    a. Acknowledgment, Logo, and Disclaimer. (1) Recipients of 
Institute funds must 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.
    (2) Recipients also must 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.''
    b. Charges for Grant-Related Products/Recovery of Costs. (1) 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.
    (2) 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, 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.
    (3) 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.R. and X.G. for requirements regarding 
project-related income realized during the project period.
    c. 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.
    d. Distribution. In addition to the distribution specified in the 
grant application, grantees shall send:
    (1) Seventeen (17) 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

[[Page 47632]]

library established in each State to collect materials prepared with 
Institute support. (A list of these libraries is contained in Appendix 
D. 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 press release describing the project and announcing the 
results to a list of national and State judicial branch organizations 
provided by the Institute.
    e. Institute Approval. 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.
    f. 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.
11. 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.
12. Reporting Requirements
    a. Recipients of Institute funds other than Scholarships must 
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.
    b. The quarterly financial status report must be submitted in 
accordance with section X.H.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 
X.L.2. of this Guideline.
13. Research
    a. 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.
    b. 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.
    c. Human Subject 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.
14. State and Local Court Applications
    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 C to 
this Guideline lists the person to contact in each State regarding the 
administration of Institute grants to State and local courts.
15. 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:
    a. 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);
    b. 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
    c. Solely to purchase equipment.
16. 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).
17. 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.

B. Recipients of Curriculum Adaptation and Technical Assistance Grants

    In addition to the compliance requirements in A. in this section,

[[Page 47633]]

recipients of Curriculum Adaptation and Technical Assistance grants 
must comply with the following requirements:
1. Curriculum Adaptation Grantees
    Recipients of Curriculum Adaptation grants must:
    a. Comply with the same quarterly reporting requirements as other 
Institute grantees (see A.12. above in this section);
    b. Include in each grant product a prominent acknowledgment that 
support was received from the Institute, along with the ``SJI'' logo 
and a disclaimer paragraph (see A.10.a. above in this section); and
    c. 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.
2. Technical Assistance Grantees
    Technical Assistance grantees are subject to the same quarterly 
reporting requirements as other Institute grantees. (See A.12. above in 
this section.) At the conclusion of the grant period, a Technical 
Assistance grantee 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.
3. Scholarship Recipients
    a. 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.
    b. 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.
    c. Scholarship recipients are encouraged to check with their tax 
advisors to determine whether the scholarship constitutes taxable 
income under Federal and State law.

X. Financial Requirements

A. Purpose

    The purpose of this section is to establish accounting system 
requirements and offer guidance on procedures to assist all grantees, 
subgrantees, contractors, and other organizations in:
    1. Complying with the statutory requirements for the award, 
disbursement, and accounting of funds;
    2. Complying with regulatory requirements of the Institute for the 
financial management and disposition of funds;
    3. Generating financial data to be used in planning, managing, and 
controlling projects; and
    4. Facilitating an effective audit of funded programs and projects.

B. 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. The following 
circulars 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 202-395-3080 or visiting the OMB website at 
www.whitehouse.gov/OMB).
    1. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-21, Cost 
Principles for Educational Institutions.
    2. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost 
Principles for State and Local Governments.
    3. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-88 (revised), 
Indirect Cost Rates, Audit and Audit Follow-up at Educational 
Institutions.
    4. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102, Uniform 
Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local 
Governments.
    5. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110, Grants and 
Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and other 
Non-Profit Organizations.
    6. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-128, Audits of 
State and Local Governments.
    7. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-122, Cost 
Principles for Non-profit Organizations.
    8. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of 
Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non-profit Institutions.

C. Supervision and Monitoring Responsibilities

1. Grantee Responsibilities
    All grantees receiving 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
    a. 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. (See III.H.)
    b. The State Supreme Court or its designee shall receive all 
Institute funds awarded to such courts; be responsible for assuring 
proper administration of Institute funds; and be responsible for all 
aspects of the project, including proper accounting and financial 
recordkeeping by the subgrantee. These responsibilities include:
    (1) 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.
    (2) 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.
    (3) Budgeting and Budget Review. The State Supreme Court or its 
designee should ensure that each subgrantee prepares an adequate budget 
as the basis

[[Page 47634]]

for its award commitment. The detail of each project budget should be 
maintained on file by the State Supreme Court.
    (4) 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 SJI Grant Guideline are applied to 
such funds.
    (5) 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 K. below and 
IX.C.)
    (6) 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.

D. 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:
    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.

E. Total Cost Budgeting and Accounting

    Accounting for all funds awarded by the Institute must 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 serve as 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. Ordinarily, the full matching share must 
be obligated during the award period; however, 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. If a proposed cash match is not fully met, 
the Institute may reduce the award amount accordingly to maintain the 
ratio of grant funds to matching funds stated 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 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 C.2. 
above in this section.)

F. 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 must 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 section.
1. Coverage
    The retention requirement extends to books of original entry, 
source documents supporting accounting transactions, the general 
ledger, subsidiary ledgers, personnel and payroll records, canceled 
checks, and related documents and records. Source documents include 
copies of all grant and subgrant awards, applications, and required 
grantee/subgrantee financial and narrative reports. Personnel and 
payroll records shall include the time and attendance reports for all 
individuals reimbursed under a grant, subgrant or contract, whether 
they are employed full-time or part-time. Time and effort reports will 
be required for consultants.
2. Retention Period
    The three-year retention period starts from the date of the 
submission of the final expenditure report or, for grants which are 
renewed annually, from the date of submission of the annual expenditure 
report.
3. Maintenance
    Grantees and subgrantees are expected to see that records of 
different fiscal years are separately identified and maintained so that 
requested information can be readily located. Grantees and subgrantees 
are also obligated to protect records adequately against fire or other 
damage. When records are stored away from the grantee's/subgrantee's 
principal office, a written index of the location of stored records 
should be on hand, and ready access should be assured.
4. Access
    Grantees and subgrantees must give any authorized representative of 
the Institute access to and the right to examine all records, books, 
papers, and documents related to an Institute grant.

G. 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 H.2. below in this section) 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 
institutions of higher education and hospitals, shall not be held 
accountable for interest earned on advances of project funds. When 
funds are awarded to subgrantees through a State, the

[[Page 47635]]

subgrantees are not held accountable for interest earned on advances of 
project funds. Local units of government and nonprofit organizations 
that are 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
    a. 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 at a reasonable market price, as long 
as the income is applied to court improvement projects consistent with 
the State Justice Institute Act. 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.
    b. 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.A.10.b.
5. Other
    Other project income shall be treated in accordance with 
disposition instructions set forth in the grant's terms and conditions.

H. 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 the 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 Appendix B, Questions 
Frequently Asked by Grantees, for further guidance.)
    c. Termination of Advance and Reimbursement Funding. When a grantee 
organization receiving cash advances from the Institute:
    (1) 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;
    (2) Engages in the improper award and administration of subgrants 
or contracts; or
    (3) 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. Grantees 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 impair the goals of good cash management.
2. Financial Reporting
    a. General Requirements. To obtain financial information concerning 
the use of funds, the Institute requires that grantees/subgrantees 
submit timely reports for review.
    b. Two copies of the Financial Status Report are required from all 
grantees, other than scholarship recipients, for each active quarter on 
a calendar-quarter basis. This report is due within 30 days after the 
close of the calendar quarter. It is designed to provide financial 
information relating to Institute funds, State and local matching 
shares, project income, and any other sources of funds for the project, 
as well as information on obligations and outlays. A copy of the 
Financial Status Report, along with instructions for its preparation, 
is included in each official Institute Award package. If a grantee 
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, to support the Request for Advance 
or Reimbursement.
    c. Additional Requirements for Continuation and On-going Support 
Grants. Grantees receiving continuation or on-going support grants 
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 Requirement
    Failure of the grantee to submit required financial and progress 
reports may result in suspension or termination of grant payments.

I. Allowability of Costs

1. General
    Except as may be otherwise provided in the conditions of a 
particular grant, cost allowability is determined in accordance with 
the principles set forth in OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles

[[Page 47636]]

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 incurred after the approved grant period. 
Circulars may be obtained from OMB by calling 202-395-3080 or visiting 
the OMB website at www.whitehouse.gov/OMB.
2. Costs Requiring Prior Approval
    a. Pre-agreement Costs. The written prior approval of the Institute 
is required for costs considered necessary to the project but which 
occur prior to the award date of the grant.
    b. Equipment. Grant funds may be used to purchase or lease only 
that equipment 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 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 more 
than $900 per day.
3. Travel Costs
    Transportation and per diem rates must comply with the policies of 
the grantee. If the grantee does not have an established written travel 
policy, then travel rates must 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. The Institute's policy requires all costs to be budgeted 
directly; however, if a grantee has an indirect cost rate approved by a 
Federal agency as set forth below, the Institute will accept that rate.
    a. Approved Plan Available. (1) 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.
    (2) 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.
    (3) When utilizing total direct costs as the base, organizations 
with approved indirect cost rates 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. To be reimbursed for 
indirect costs, a grantee 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.
    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.

J. Procurement and Property Management Standards

1. Procurement Standards
    For State and local governments, the Institute has adopted 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 apply to all Institute grantees and 
subgrantees except as provided in section IX.A.17. 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.

K. Audit Requirements

1. Implementation
    Each recipient of a grant from the Institute other than a 
scholarship, curriculum adaptation, or technical assistance grant must 
provide for an annual fiscal audit. This requirement also applies to a 
State or local court receiving a subgrant from the State Supreme 
Court). The audit may be of the entire grantee or subgrantee 
organization or of the specific project funded by the Institute. Audits 
conducted in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and OMB 
Circular A-128, or OMB Circular A-133 will satisfy the requirement for 
an annual fiscal audit. The audit must be conducted by an independent 
Certified Public Accountant, or a State or local agency authorized to 
audit government agencies. Grantees must send two copies of the audit 
report to the Institute. Grantees that receive funds from a Federal 
agency and satisfy audit requirements of the cognizant Federal agency 
must submit two copies 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 copies of 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 
grantee must 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
    Ordinarily, the Institute will not make a new grant award to an 
applicant that has an unresolved audit report involving Institute 
awards. Failure of the grantee to resolve audit questions may also 
result in the suspension or termination of payments for active 
Institute grants to that organization.

[[Page 47637]]

L. Close-Out of Grants

1. Definition
    Close-out is the process by which the Institute determines that all 
applicable administrative and financial actions and all required grant 
work 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 L.3. below in this section), the following 
documents must be submitted to the Institute by grantees (other than 
scholarship recipients):
    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 have been met and, if any of the 
objectives have not been met, explain why not; and discuss what, if 
anything, could have been done differently that might have enhanced the 
impact of the project or improved its operation.
    These reporting requirements apply at the conclusion of any non-
scholarship grant, even when the project will continue under a 
continuation or on-going support grant.
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.

XI. Grant Adjustments

    All requests for programmatic or budgetary 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 that require the prior 
written approval of the Institute. Examples of these adjustments 
include:
    1. Budget revisions among direct cost categories that individually 
or in the aggregate exceed five percent of the approved original budget 
or the most recently approved revised budget. The Institute will view 
budget revisions cumulatively.
    For continuation and on-going support grants, funds from the 
original award may be used during the new grant period and funds 
awarded through 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 D. below in this section).
    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 E. below).
    5. Satisfaction of special conditions, if required.
    6. A change in or temporary absence of the project director (see F. 
and G. below).
    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 IX.A.2.).
    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 H. below).
    11. A transfer of the grant to another recipient.
    12. Preagreement costs (see section X.I.2.a.).
    13. The purchase of automated data processing equipment and 
software (see section X.I.2.b.)
    14. Consultant rates (see section X.I.2.c.).
    15. A change in the nature or number of the products to be prepared 
or the manner in which a product would be distributed.

B. Requests for Grant Adjustments

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

C. Notification of Approval/Disapproval

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

D. Changes in the Scope of the Grant

    Major changes in scope, duration, training methodology, or other 
significant areas must be approved in advance by the Institute. A 
grantee 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.

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 a request 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 X.L.3.).

F. Temporary Absence of the Project Director

    Whenever an 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/

[[Page 47638]]

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

    No principal activity of a grant-supported project may be 
transferred or contracted out to another organization without specific 
prior approval by the Institute. All such arrangements must 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 of the Institute 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, will 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
Arthur A. McGiverin, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Iowa, Des 
Moines, IA Keith McNamara, Esq., McNamara & McNamara, Columbus, OH
Florence K. Murray, Justice (ret.), Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 
Providence, RI
David I. Tevelin, Executive Director (ex officio)
David I. Tevelin,
Executive Director.

Appendix A--Recommendations to Grant Writers

    Over the past 13 years, Institute staff have reviewed 
approximately 3,600 concept papers and 1,700 applications. On the 
basis of those reviews, inquiries from applicants, and the views of 
the Board, the Institute offers the following recommendations to 
help potential applicants present workable, understandable proposals 
that can meet the funding criteria set forth in this Guideline.
    The Institute suggests that applicants make certain that they 
address the questions and issues set forth below when preparing a 
concept paper or application. Concept papers and applications 
should, however, be presented in the formats specified in sections 
VI. and VII. of the Guideline, respectively.

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

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

2. What do you want to do?

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

3. How will you do it?

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

4. How will you know it works?

    Include an evaluation component that will determine whether the 
proposed training, procedure, service, or technology accomplished 
the objectives it was designed to meet. Concept papers and 
applications should present the criteria that will be used to 
evaluate the project's effectiveness; identify program elements 
which will require further modification; and describe how the 
evaluation will be conducted, when it will occur during the project 
period, who will conduct it, and what specific measures will be 
used. In most instances, the evaluation should be conducted by 
persons not connected with the implementation of the procedure, 
training, service, or technique, or the administration of the 
project.
    The Institute has also prepared a more thorough list of 
recommendations to grant writers regarding the development of 
project evaluation plans. Those recommendations are available from 
the Institute upon request.

5. How will others find out about it?

    Include a plan to disseminate the results of the training, 
research, or demonstration beyond the jurisdictions and individuals 
directly affected by the project. The plan should identify the 
specific methods which will be used to inform the field about the 
project, such as the publication of law review or journal articles, 
or the distribution of key materials. A statement that a report or 
research findings ``will be made 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.

[[Page 47639]]

    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.1.c. 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.A.4. of the 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 policies apply to 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.

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 X.I.4. of the 
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.

Appendix B--Questions Frequently Asked by 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 1,000 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.

[[Page 47640]]

    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 continuation and on-going 
support grants?

    Recipients of continuation or on-going support grants 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 are special conditions 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, assure that the 
Institute has an opportunity to offer suggestions at critical stages 
of the project, and provide reminders of some (but not necessarily 
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 Managers 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 IX., X., and XI. of the Grant Guideline contain the 
Institute's administrative and financial requirements. Institute 
Finance Division staff are always available to answer questions and 
provide assistance regarding these provisions.

5. What is a Grant Adjustment?

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

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

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

7. Do procedures for submitting requests for reimbursement or 
advance payment differ for continuation or on-going support 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 continuation and on-going support 
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. Sec. 10704(c)(1). Because SJI receives 
appropriations from Congress, some grantee auditors have reported 
SJI grants funds as ``Other Federal Assistance.'' This 
classification is acceptable to SJI but is not required.

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

    Unless 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 X.K.)
    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

[[Page 47641]]

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 X.K.) Circulars may be obtained from OMB by 
calling 202-395-3080 or visiting the OMB website at 
www.whitehouse.gov/OMB.

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 X.K. of the Grant Guideline.

Appendix C--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 36104, (334) 242-0300
Ms. Stephanie J. Cole, Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, 
303 K Street, Anchorage, AK 99501, (907) 264-0547
Mr. Eliu F. Paopao, Court Administrator, High Court of American 
Samoa, P.O. Box 309, Pago Pago, AS 96799, 011 (684) 633-1150
Mr. David K. Byers, Administrative Director of the Courts, Supreme 
Court of Arizona, 1501 West Washington Street, Suite 411, Phoenix, 
AZ 85007, (602) 542-9301
Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, Supreme Court of Arkansas, Justice Building, Little Rock, AR 
72201, (501) 682-9400
Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 5622, San 
Francisco, CA 94107, (415) 865-4200
Mr. Steven V. Berson, State Court Administrator, Colorado Judicial 
Department, 1301 Pennsylvania Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80203-
5012, (303) 861-1111
Honorable Robert C. Leuba, 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, 11th Floor, 820 N. French 
Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 577-8481
Mr. Ulysses Hammond, Executive Officer, District of Columbia Courts, 
500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 879-1700
Mr. Kenneth Palmer, State Courts Administrator, Supreme Court 
Building, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0156, (850) 
922-5081
Mr. George Lange III, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, 
47 Trinity Avenue, Suite 414, Atlanta, GA 30334, (404) 656-5171
Mr. Daniel J. Tydingco, Executive Officer, Supreme Court of Guam, 
Guam Judicial Center, 120 West O'Brien Drive, Agana, Guam 96910, 011 
(671) 475-3278
Mr. Michael F. Broderick, Administrative Director of the Courts, The 
Judiciary, State of Hawaii, 417 S. King Street, Room 206, Honolulu, 
HI 96813, (808) 539-4900
Ms. Patricia Tobias, Administrative Director of the Courts, Supreme 
Court Building, 451 West State Street, Boise, ID 83702, (208) 334-
2246
Mr. Joseph A. Schillaci, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Illinois Courts, 222 N. LaSalle Street, 13th Floor, Chicago, IL 
60601, (312) 793-3250
Ms. Lilia G. Judson, Executive Director, Division of State Court 
Administration, Indiana Supreme Court, 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, (785) 296-4873
Ms. Cicely Jaracz Lambert, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, 100 Mill Creek Park, Frankfort, KY 40601-9230, (502) 573-
2350
Dr. Hugh M. Collins, Judicial Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Louisiana, 1555 Poydras Street, Suite 1540, New Orleans, LA 70112-
3701, (504) 568-5747
Mr. James T. Glessner, State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 4820, 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) 260-1401
Honorable Barbara A. Dortch-Okara, Chief Justice for Administration 
and Management, Administrative Office of the Trial Courts, Two 
Center Plaza, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02108, (617) 742-8575
Mr. John D. Ferry, Jr., State Court Administrator, 309 N. Washington 
Square, Lansing, MI 48909, (517) 373-2222
Ms. Sue K. Dosal, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Minnesota, 25 Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155, (651) 296-
2474
Mr. Rick D. Patt, Acting Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, Supreme Court of Mississippi, P.O. Box 117, Jackson, MS 
39205, (601) 354-7408
Mr. Ronald L. Larkin, State Courts Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Missouri, P.O. Box 104480, Jefferson City, MO 65110, (573) 751-3585
Mr. Patrick A. Chenovick, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court 
of Montana, Justice Building, Room 315, 215 North Sanders, Helena, 
MT 59620-3002, (406) 444-2621
Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts/Probation, State Capitol Building, Room 1220, 
Lincoln, NE 68509, (404) 471-3730
Ms. Karen Kavenau, State Court Administrator, Administrative Office 
of the Courts, Supreme Court Building, 201 South Carson Street, 
Suite 250, Carson City, NV 89701-4702, (702) 687-5076
Mr. Donald Goodnow, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, 
Two Noble Drive, Concord, NH 03301, (603) 271-2521
Honorable Richard J. Williams, Acting Administrative Director, 
Administrative Office of the Courts, 25 Market Street, Trenton, NJ 
08625, (609) 984-0275
Mr. John M. Greacen, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, 
237 Don Gaspar, Room 25, Sante Fe, NM 87501-2178, (505) 827-4800
Honorable Jonathan Lippman, Chief Administrative Judge, Office of 
Court Administration, 25 Beaver Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 
10004 (212) 428-2100
Honorable Thomas W. Ross, Administrative Director of the Courts, 
North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, 2 East Morgan 
Street, Raleigh, NC 27601, (919) 733-7107
Mr. Keithe E. Nelson, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
North Dakota, State Capitol Building, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, 
Dept. 180, Bismarck, ND 58505-0530, (701) 328-4216,
Ms. Margarita M. Palacios, Acting Director, Supreme Court of the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, P.O. Box 2165 CK, 
Saipan, MP 96950, (670) 236-9800
Mr. Steven C. Hollon, Administrative Director, Supreme Court of 
Ohio, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43266-
0419, (614) 466-2653
Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Administrative Director of the Courts, 
Administrative Office of the Courts, 1925 N. Stiles, Suite 305, 
Oklahoma City, OK 73105, (405) 521-2450
Ms. Kingsley W. Click, State Court Administrator, Office of the 
State Court

[[Page 47642]]

Administrator, Supreme Court Building, Salem, OR 97310, (503) 986-
5900
Ms. Nancy M. Sobolevitch, Court Administrator, Administrative Office 
of Pennsylvania Courts, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1515 Market 
Street, Suite 1414, Philadelphia, PA 19102, (215) 560-6337
Ms. Mercedes M. Bauermeister, Administrative Director of the Courts, 
General Court of Justice, Office of Court Administration, 6 Vela 
Street, Hato Rey, PR 00919, (787) 763-3358
Dr. Robert C. Harrall, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, RI 02903, (401) 277-
3263
Ms. Rosalyn Woodson Frierson, Director, South Carolina Court 
Administration, 1015 Sumter Street, Suite 200, Columbia, SC 29201, 
(803) 734-1800
Mr. Michael L. Buenger, State Court Administrator, Unified Judicial 
System, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501, (605) 773-3474
Ms. Cornelia A. Clark, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, Tennessee Supreme Court, 511 Union Street, Suite 600, 
Nashville, TN 37243-0607, (615) 741-2687
Mr. Jerry L. Benedict, Administrative Director, Office of Court 
Administration, Tom C. Clark State Courts Building 205 West 14th 
Street, Suite 600, Austin, TX 78701, (512) 463-1625
Mr. Daniel Becker, State Court Administrator 450 South State, Salt 
Lake City, UT 84114-0241, (801) 578-3806
Mr. Lee Suskin, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Vermont, 109 
State Street, Montpelier, VT 05609-0701, (802) 828-3278
Ms. Viola E. Smith, Court Administrator, Territorial Court of the 
Virgin Islands, P.O. Box 70, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin 
Islands 00804, (340) 774-6680
Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Virginia, 100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor, Richmond, VA 23219, 
(804) 786-6455
Ms. Mary Campbell McQueen, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court 
of Washington, Temple of Justice, P.O. Box 41174, Olympia, WA 98504-
1174, (360) 357-2121
Mr. James M. Albert, Acting Administrative Director, West Virginia 
Supreme Court of Appeals, E-100, State Capitol Bldg., 1900 Kanawha 
Blvd. East, Charleston, WV 25305-0833, (304) 558-0145
Mr. J. Denis Moran, Director of State Courts, 213 Northeast State 
Capitol, Madison, WI 53702, (608) 266-6828
Ms. Holly A. Hansen, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Wyoming, Supreme Court Building, 2301 Capital Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 
82002, (307) 777-7480

Appendix D--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, 
(602) 542-4035

Arkansas

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, Supreme Court of Arkansas, Justice 
Building, 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, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 5622, San 
Francisco, CA 94107, (415) 865-4200

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, Supreme Court 
Building, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900, (850) 
922-5081

Georgia

Administrative Office of the Courts

George Lange III, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, 47 
Trinity Avenue, Suite 414, Atlanta, GA 30334, (404) 656-5171

Hawaii

Supreme Court Library

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

Idaho

AOC Judicial Education Library/State Law Library

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

Illinois

Supreme Court Library

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

Indiana

Supreme Court Library

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

Iowa

Administrative Office of the Court

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

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

[[Page 47643]]

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) 2972084

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, Administrative 
Office of the Courts/Probation, State Capitol Building, Room 1220, 
Lincoln, NE 68509, (402) 471-3730

Nevada

National Judicial College

Clara Kelly, Law Librarian, 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, Administrative Director, 1915 North Stiles, 
Suite 305, Oklahoma City, OK 73105, (405) 521-2450

Oregon

Administrative Office of the Courts

Ms. Kingsley W. Click, State Court Administrator, Office of the 
State Court Administrator, Supreme Court Building, Salem, OR 97310, 
(503) 986-5900

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

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

Texas

State Law Library

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

U.S. Virgin Islands

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

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

Utah

Utah State Judicial Administration Library

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

Vermont

Supreme Court of Vermont

Mr. Lee Suskin, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Vermont, 109 
State Street, Montpelier, VT 05609-0701, (802) 828-3278

Virginia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, State Court Administrator, 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,

[[Page 47644]]

National Center for State Courts

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

JERITT

Maureen Conner, 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 E--Illustrative List of Model Curricula

    The following list includes examples of model SJI-supported 
curricula that State judicial educators may wish to adapt for 
presentation in education programs for judges and other court 
personnel with the assistance of a Curriculum Adaptation Grant. 
Please refer to section VII.E. for information on submitting a 
letter application for a Curriculum Adaptation Grant. A list of all 
SJI-supported education projects is available on the SJI website 
(http://www.statejustice.org). Please also check with the JERITT 
project (517/353-8603) and with your State SJI-designated library 
(see Appendix D) for information on other SJI-supported curricula 
that may be appropriate for in-State adaptation.

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

    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)
    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)
    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)
    Caseflow Management (Justice Management Institute: SJI-98-041)

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 Systemand 
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)
    Public Trust and Confidence in the Courts (Mid-Atlantic 
Association for Court Management: SJI-98-208)
    ACA National Conference: Public Trust and Confidence (Arizona 
Courts Association: SJI-99-063)

Criminal Process

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

Diversity, Values, and Attitudes

    Troubled Families, Troubled Judges (Brandeis University: SJI-89-
071)
    The Crucial Nature of Attitudes and Values in Judicial Education 
(National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-90-058)
    Enhancing Diversity in the Court and Community (Institute for 
Court Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI-91-043)
    Cultural Diversity Awareness in Nebraska Courts from Native 
American Alternatives to Incarceration Project (Nebraska Urban 
Indian Health Coalition: SJI-93-028)
    Race Fairness and Cultural Awareness Faculty Development 
Workshop (National Judicial College: SJI-93-063)
    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)
    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 Violent 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 (Rural Justice 
Center: SJI-88-081)
    Judicial Training Materials on Spousal Support; Judicial 
Training Materials on Child Custody and Visitation (Women Judges' 
Fund for Justice: SJI-89-062)
    Judicial Response to Stranger and Nonstranger Rape and Sexual 
Assault (National Judicial Education Program: 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)

[[Page 47645]]

Health and Science

    Environmental Law Resource Handbook (University of New Mexico 
Institute for Public Law: SJI-92-162)
    A Judge's Deskbook on the Basic Philosophies and Methods of 
Science: Model Curriculum (University of Nevada, Reno: SJI-97-030)

Judicial Education For Appellate Court Judges

    Career Writing Program for Appellate Judges (American Academy of 
Judicial Education: SJI-88-086)
    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

    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

    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 F--Illustrative List of Replicable Projects

    The following list includes examples of SJI-supported projects 
that might successfully adapted and replicated in other in other 
jurisdictions. Please see section VI. 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 on the Institute's website (http://
www.statejustice.org).

Application of Technology

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

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: Supreme Court of Virginia
Contact: Beatrice Monahan, 100 North Ninth Street, Third Floor, 
Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786-6455
Grant No: SJI-91-042

Probate Caseflow Management Project

Grantee: Ohio Supreme Court/Trumball County Probate Court
Contact: Hon. Susan Lightbody, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 
44481, (216) 675-2566
Grant No: SJI-92-081; SJI-92-081-P94-1; SJI-92-081-P95-1

Implementing Quality Methods in Court Operations

Grantee: Oregon Supreme Court
Contact: Scott Crampton, Supreme Court Building, Salem, OR 97310, 
(503) 378-5845
Grant No: SJI-92-170

Applying TQM Concepts to Systemwide Problems of the Maine Judicial 
Branch

Grantee: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Contact: James T. Glessner, P.O. Box 4820, Portland, Maine 04101, 
(207) 822-0792
Grant No: SJI-93-072

Arizona-Sonora Judicial Relations Project

Grantee: Arizona Supreme Court
Contact: Dennis Metrick, 1501 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, 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

[[Page 47646]]

Contact: Beatrice Monahan, Administrative Offices, Third Floor, 100 
North Ninth Street, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786-6455
Grant No: SJI-89-068

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

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

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 G--State Justice Institute Scholarship Application

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

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

2. Position:-----------------------------------------------------------
3. Name of Court:------------------------------------------------------
4. Address:------------------------------------------------------------
            (Street/P.O. Box)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(City  state  zip code)

5. Telephone No.-------------------------------------------------------
6. Congressional District:---------------------------------------------

Program Information:
7. Course Name:--------------------------------------------------------
8. Course Dates:-------------------------------------------------------
9. Course Provider:----------------------------------------------------
10. Location Offered:--------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Expenses: (Please note, scholarships are limited to 
tuition and transportation expenses to and from the site of the 
course up to a maximum of $1,500.)
Tuition: $-------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation: $------------------------------------------------------
(Airfare, train fare, or if you plan to drive)

Amount Requested: $----------------------------------------------------
    Are you seeking/have you received a scholarship for this course 
from another source? ____ Yes ____ No.
If so, please specify the source(s) and amounts(s)---------------------

    Additional Information: Please attach a current resume or 
professional summary, and provide the information requested below. 
(You may attach additional pages if necessary.)
    1. Please describe your need to acquire the skills and knowledge 
taught in this course.
    2. Please describe how will taking this course benefit you, your 
court, and the State's courts generally.
    3. Is there an educational program currently available through 
your State on this topic?
    4. Are State or local funds available to support your attendance 
at the proposed course? If so, what amount(s) will be provided?
    5. How long have you served as a judge or court manager?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
    6. How long do you anticipate serving as a judge or court 
manager, assuming reelection or reappointment?
    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 H--Line-Item Budget Form

    For Concept Papers, Curriculum Adaptation & Technical Assistance 
Grant Requests

 
 
                                                       Cash
             Category match              SJI funds    match     In-kind
 
Personnel..............................    $______    $______    $______
Fringe Benefits........................    $______    $______    $______
Consultant/Contractual.................    $______    $______    $______

[[Page 47647]]

 
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.

Appendix I-- 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

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title

[FR Doc. 99-22418 Filed 8-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-P