[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56022-56060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26469]
[[Page 56021]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
State Justice Institute
_______________________________________________________________________
Grant Guideline; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 1999 /
Notices
[[Page 56022]]
STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE
Grant Guideline
AGENCY: State Justice Institute.
ACTION: Final grant guideline.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Guideline sets forth the administrative, programmatic,
and financial requirements attendant to Fiscal Year 2000 State Justice
Institute grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 15, 1999.
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 later 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 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 respond to a jurisdiction's
problems.
Letters of application for a Technical Assistance grant may be
submitted at any time. Applicants submitting letters 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; those submitting letters between March 11,
2000 and June 10, 2000 will be notified by August 25, 2000; and those
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 $160,000 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.
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
[[Page 56023]]
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 sections 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 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.
Only grammatical and technical changes were made in the Proposed
Guideline. The following Grant Guideline is adopted 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 Papers
VII. Applications
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 of the United States.
Incorporated in the State of Virginia as a private, nonprofit
corporation, the Institute is charged, by statute, with the
responsibility to:
A. Direct a national program of financial assistance designed to
assure that each citizen of the United States is provided ready access
to a fair and effective system of justice;
B. Foster coordination and cooperation with the Federal judiciary;
C. Promote recognition of the importance of the separation of
powers doctrine to an independent judiciary; and
D. Encourage education for judges and support personnel of State
court systems through national and State organizations, including
universities.
To accomplish these broad objectives, the Institute is authorized
to provide funds to State courts, national organizations which support
and are supported by State courts, national judicial education
organizations, and other organizations that can assist in improving the
quality of justice in the State courts.
The Institute is supervised by an 11-member Board of Directors
appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate. The
Board is statutorily composed of six judges, a State court
administrator, and four members of the public, no more than two of whom
can be of the same political party.
Through the award of grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements,
the Institute is authorized to perform the following activities:
A. Support research, demonstrations, special projects, technical
assistance, and training to improve the administration of justice in
the State courts;
B. Provide for the preparation, publication, and dissemination of
information regarding State judicial systems;
C. Participate in joint projects with Federal agencies and other
private grantors;
D. Evaluate or provide for the evaluation of programs and projects
funded by the Institute to determine their impact upon the quality of
criminal, civil, and juvenile justice and the extent to which they have
contributed to improving the quality of justice in the State courts;
E. Encourage and assist in furthering judicial education;
F. Encourage, assist, and serve in a consulting capacity to State
and local justice system agencies in the development, maintenance, and
coordination of criminal, civil, and
[[Page 56024]]
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.
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 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
[[Page 56025]]
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, 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:
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
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, DC, 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
[[Page 56026]]
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 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 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, and the following:
Materials and curricula for appellate, trial, and juvenile
and family court judges addressing 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;
The specific knowledge and skills needed to manage drug
court programs for adults, juveniles, or families;
Federal and State environmental laws and the effect those
laws have on trial and appellate court processes in the impacted
jurisdictions; and
Training 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.
(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 in order to determine its appropriateness,
quality, and effectiveness for inclusion in the jurisdiction's judicial
branch education program. An illustrative list of the curricula that
may be appropriate for adaptation is contained in Appendix 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; evaluate 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,
[[Page 56027]]
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
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 applications of voice recognition
technology in the adjudication process;
Demonstrate and evaluate the use of technology to assist
judicial decisionmaking;
Evaluate the use of digital audio and video technology in
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; 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;
[[Page 56028]]
Develop and test effective approaches for identifying and
treating substance abuse by judges, lawyers, and court staff, and
determining and lessening the impact of such substance abuse on the
courts;
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 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 the in-state SJI libraries (see Appendix D) 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;
[[Page 56029]]
(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.A.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.
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.) An evaluation component is not required if a
grant is awarded to replicate another successful SJI project; however,
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 those for Project Grants (see Section VII.A.); however, in
addition to the information presented in the program narrative, Single
Jurisdiction grant applicants must also 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.
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 implement any needed changes. The Institute 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 more information about
accelerated awards.
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.a.(2) 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. Close-out
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.
E. 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
[[Page 56030]]
budget. See section VI. for a complete description of concept paper
submission requirements.
F. 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.
G. 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.
H. 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.
I. 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.
J. 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.a.(2) for the precise wording of this statement.
K. 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.
L. 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.
M. 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.
N. Institute
The State Justice Institute.
O. 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.
P. 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.
Q. Products
Tangible materials resulting from funded projects including, but
not limited to: Curricula; monographs; reports; books; articles;
manuals; handbooks; benchbooks; guidelines; videotapes; audiotapes;
computer software; and CD-ROM disks.
R. 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.
S. Project-Related Income
Interest, royalties, registration and tuition fees, proceeds from
the sale of products, and other earnings generated as a result of an
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.
T. 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.
U. 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.
V. Special Condition
A requirement attached to a grant award that is unique to a
particular project.
W. 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.
X. Subgrantee
A State or local court which receives Institute funds through the
State Supreme Court.
[[Page 56031]]
Y. 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 the following entities and
types of organizations:
A. State and local courts and their agencies (42 U.S.C.
10705(b)(1)(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. 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 IX.H. of this Guideline. A list of persons to contact in
each State regarding approval of applications from State and local
courts and administration of Institute grants to those courts is
contained in Appendix C.
B. 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)).
C. 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 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.
D. Other eligible grant recipients (42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(2)(A)-(D)).
1. Provided that the objectives of the project can be served
better, the Institute is also authorized to make awards to:
a. Nonprofit organizations with expertise in judicial
administration;
b. Institutions of higher education;
c. Individuals, partnerships, firms, corporations (for-profit
organizations must waive their fees); and
d. Private agencies with expertise in judicial administration.
2. 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 (42 U.S.C.
10705(b)(3)).
E. Inter-agency Agreements. The Institute may enter into inter-
agency agreements with Federal agencies (42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(4)) and
private funders to support projects consistent with the purposes of the
State Justice Institute Act.
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 $160,000 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:
[[Page 56032]]
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 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,
letters of cooperation or support, or, for papers requesting
accelerated awards, the budget narrative and task schedule. 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
[[Page 56033]]
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 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
A. Project Grants
An application for a Project Grant 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 Institute will send the
required application forms to applicants invited to submit a full
application. Applicants may photocopy the forms to make completion
easier.
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.
[[Page 56034]]
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 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
[[Page 56035]]
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
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.
[[Page 56036]]
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
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.
[[Page 56037]]
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 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
[[Page 56038]]
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 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
[[Page 56039]]
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 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.)
[[Page 56040]]
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 available to State and local
courts to support replication or modification of a model training
program originally developed with Institute funds. Ordinarily,
Curriculum Adaptation grants may not be used to support more than two
presentations of a curriculum.
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 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 and
what process would be used for modifying and presenting the program?
Who would serve as faculty, and how were they selected? What measures
would be taken to evaluate and facilitate subsequent improvements in
presentations of the 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 educational program in another State. 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. Scholarship recipients are strongly
encouraged to take advantage of excursion or other special air fares
(e.g., reductions offered when a ticket is purchased 21 days in advance
of the travel date or because the traveler is staying over a Saturday
night) when making their travel arrangements. 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
[[Page 56041]]
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 Scholarships.
b. Courses. A Scholarship can be awarded only for a course
presented in a State other than the one in which the applicant resides
or works 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 Scholarships 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 G). 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 letters 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.
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
[[Page 56042]]
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 sent;
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. 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.
[[Page 56043]]
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 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
[[Page 56044]]
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 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
[[Page 56045]]
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,
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
Recipients of Technical Assistance grants must:
a. Comply with the same quarterly reporting requirements as other
Institute grantees (see A.12. above in this section);
b. Ensure that each technical assistance report prepared by a
consultant includes 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);
c. 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; and
d. Complete a Technical Assistance Evaluation Form at the
conclusion of the grant period.
C. Scholarship Recipients
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
[[Page 56046]]
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 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
[[Page 56047]]
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 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.
[[Page 56048]]
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 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
[[Page 56049]]
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.
L. Close-Out of Grants
1. 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.
2. 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.
[[Page 56050]]
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/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
[[Page 56051]]
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.
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
[[Page 56052]]
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.
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
[[Page 56053]]
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. 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. 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
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, PO Box 309, Pago Pago, 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, NW, Washington, DC 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
[[Page 56054]]
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, PO 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, PO Box 117, Jackson, MS 39205,
(601) 354-7408
Mr. Ronald L. Larkin, State Courts Administrator, Supreme Court of
Missouri, PO 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, PO 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 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, PO 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
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
[[Page 56055]]
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, PO 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, NW., 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
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, PO Box 30205, Lansing, MI 48909, (517) 334-
7804
Minnesota
State Law Library (Minnesota Judicial Center)
Mr. Marvin R. Anderson, State Law Librarian, Supreme Court of
Minnesota, 25 Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155, (612) 297-
2084
Mississippi
Mississippi Judicial College
Mr. Leslie Johnson, Director, University of Mississippi, PO 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, PO 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, PO 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, PO 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
[[Page 56056]]
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 97810,
(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. Steve Hinckley, Library Director, 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 28219 (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, 2801 Capitol Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82002, (307) 777-
7509
National
American Judicature Society
Ms. Clara Wells, Assistant for Information and Library Services, 25
East Washington Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60602, (312) 558-
6900
National Center for State Courts
Ms. Peggy Rogers, Acquisitions/Serials Librarian, 300 Newport
Avenue, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798, (804) 253-2000
JERITT
Maureen Conner, Project Director, Judicial Education Reference,
Information, and Technical Transfer Project (JERITT), Michigan State
University, 560 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, (517) 353-8608
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
Manage-ment/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)
[[Page 56057]]
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)
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)
[[Page 56058]]
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, NW, 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/Trumbull County Probate Court, Contact:
Hon. Susan Lightbody, 160 High Street, NW, 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,
PO 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, PO 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, NW, Washington, DC 20049, (202) 434-2165, Grant
Nos: SJI-88-033 /SJI-91-013
Establishing a Consumer Research and Service Development Process Within
the Judicial System
Grantee: Supreme Court of Virginia, Contact: Beatrice Monahan,
Administrative Offices, Third Floor, 100 North Ninth Street,
Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786-6455, Grant No: SJI-89-068
Tele-Court: A Michigan Judicial System Public Information Program
Grantee: Michigan Supreme Court, Contact: Judy Bartell, State Court
Administrative Office, 611 West Ottawa Street, PO 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, PO 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
[[Page 56059]]
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, an amount equal to
the approximate distance and mileage rate.)
Amount Requested: $----------------------------------------------------
Are you seeking/have you received a scholarship for this course
from another source? ____ Yes ____ No
If so, please specify the source(s) and amounts(s)---------------------
Additional Inforamtion: 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 and Technical Assistance Grant
Requests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category match SJI funds Cash match In-kind
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel..................... $____ $____ $____
Fringe Benefits............... $____ $____ $____
Consultant/Contractual........ $____ $____ $____
Travel........................ $____ $____ $____
Equipment..................... $____ $____ $____
Supplies...................... $____ $____ $____
Telephone..................... $____ $____ $____
Postage....................... $____ $____ $____
Printing/Photocopying......... $____ $____ $____
Audit......................... $____ $____ $____
Other......................... $____ $____ $____
Indirect Costs (%)............ $____ $____ $____
Total......................... $____ $____ $____
Project Total: $______
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 56060]]
Financial assistance has been or will be sought for this project
from the following other source:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 99-26469 Filed 10-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-P