[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44444-44487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21174]



[[Page 44443]]

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

Part II





State Justice Institute





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



Grant Guideline; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 66 , No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2001 / 
Notices  

[[Page 44444]]


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

STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE


Grant Guideline

AGENCY: State Justice Institute.

ACTION: Proposed Grant Guideline.

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

SUMMARY: This Guideline sets forth the administrative, programmatic, 
and financial requirements attendant to Fiscal Year 2002 State Justice 
Institute grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.

DATES: The Institute invites public comment on the Guideline until 
September 24, 2001.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David I. Tevelin, Executive Director, 
(703) 684-6100, ext. 214, [email protected], or Kathy Schwartz, 
Deputy Director, (703) 684-6100, ext. 215, [email protected], 
State Justice Institute, 1650 King St. (Suite 600), Alexandria, VA 
22314.

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. Complete information about the Institute and its grant 
program, including tutorials, forms, and instructions for all grant 
applications, can be found at http://www.statejustice.org.

Funds Available for Grants

    The House of Representatives has approved a $6.835 million 
appropriation for SJI in FY 2002 (H.R. 2500). The Senate Appropriations 
Committee has approved a $14.85 million appropriation (S. 1215). A 
House-Senate conference this fall will determine the Institute's final 
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 2002 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.C.1. of the Guideline, project grants may ordinarily not exceed 
$200,000 a year; however, grants in excess of $150,000 are likely to be 
rare, and awarded only to support projects likely to have a significant 
national impact.
    SJI also awards ``think piece'' project grants to support the 
development of essays of publishable quality that explore emerging 
issues that could result in significant changes in judicial 
administration. ``Think pieces'' are limited to no more than $10,000. 
See section II.C.
    Section II.D. reserves up to $300,000 for Projects Addressing a 
Critical Need of a Single State or Local Jurisdiction (``Single 
Jurisdiction Grants''). 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. See sections II.D.1. and 2, and VII.A. for Single Jurisdiction 
Grant application procedures.
    To obtain any type of project grant, applicants must submit a 
concept paper (see section VI.) and, ordinarily, an application (see 
section VII.). As indicated in Section VI.C.1., the Board may make an 
``accelerated'' grant of less than $40,000 on the basis of the concept 
paper alone when the need for the project is clear and little 
additional information about the operation of the project would be 
provided in an application.
    The FY 2002 mailing deadline for project grant concept papers is 
November 21, 2001. Papers must be postmarked or bear other evidence of 
submission by that date. The Board of Directors will meet in early 
March 2002 to invite formal applications based on the most promising 
concept papers. Applications must be sent by May 8, 2002 and awards 
will be approved by the Board in late July. See section VII.A. for 
Project Grant application procedures.
    Technical Assistance Grants. Section II.E. reserves up to $400,000 
for Technical Assistance Grants. Under this program, a State or local 
court may receive a grant of up to $30,000 to engage outside experts to 
provide technical assistance to diagnose, develop, and implement a 
response to a jurisdiction's problems.
    Letters of application for a Technical Assistance grant may be 
submitted at any time. Applicants submitting letters between June 11 
and September 28, 2001 will be notified of the Board's decision by 
December 14, 2001; those submitting letters between October 1, 2001 and 
January 11, 2002 will be notified by March 29, 2002; those submitting 
letters between January 14 and March 8, 2002 will be notified by May 
31, 2002; those submitting letters between March 11 and June 7, 2002 
will be notified by August 23, 2002; and those submitting letters 
between June 10 and September 27, 2002 will be notified of the Board's 
decision by December 6, 2002. See section VII.D. for Technical 
Assistance Grant application procedures.
    Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants. The Board of 
Directors seeks comment on a proposed expansion of the Institute's 
current Curriculum Adaptation grant program that would enable State and 
local courts to obtain expert assistance in designing and delivering 
judicial branch education. The expanded program, which would be renamed 
the Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance (JBE TA) grant 
program, would offer grants of up to $20,000 to: (1) Enable a State or 
local court to adapt and deliver an education program that was 
previously developed and evaluated under an SJI project grant (i.e., 
curriculum adaptation); and/or (2) support expert consultation in 
planning, developing, and administering State judicial branch education 
programs.
    The services available through the expanded program could include 
consultant assistance in developing systematic or innovative judicial 
branch education programming, or development of improved methods for 
assessing the need for, or evaluating, judicial branch education 
programs. Letters requesting Judicial Branch Education Technical 
Assistance grants could be submitted at any time throughout the year.
    In particular, the Institute is interested in hearing from the 
field about whether the expanded program would meet important needs of 
State judicial educators and whether the proposed approach is the 
optimal way to meet those needs.
    Scholarships. The Guideline allocates up to $200,000 of FY 2002 
funds for scholarships to enable judges and court managers to attend 
out-of-State education and training programs.

[[Page 44445]]

    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, trial 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 2 and March 31, 2002 must submit their 
applications and any required accompanying documents between October 1 
and December 3, 2001. For programs beginning between April 1 and June 
30, 2002, the applications and documents must be submitted between 
January 4 and March 4, 2002. For programs beginning between July 1 and 
September 30, 2002, the applications and documents must be submitted 
between April 1 and June 3, 2002. For programs beginning between 
October 1 and December 31, 2002, the applications and documents must be 
submitted between July 5 and August 30, 2002. For programs beginning 
between January 1 and March 31, 2003, the applications and documents 
must be submitted between October 1 and December 2, 2002. See section 
VII.F for Scholarship application procedures.
    Continuation and Ongoing Support Grants. Continuation grants are 
intended to enhance the specific program or service begun during the 
initial grant period (see sections III.F, V.B.2., and VII.B.). On-going 
support grants may be awarded for up to a three-year period to support 
national-scope projects that provide the State courts with critically 
needed services, programs, or products (see sections III.Q., V.B.3., 
and VII.C.).
    The Guideline establishes a target for renewal grants of 
approximately 25% of the total amount projected to be available for 
grants in FY 2002. Grantees should accordingly be aware that the award 
of a grant to support a project does not constitute a commitment to 
provide either continuation funding or on-going support.
    An applicant for a continuation or on-going support grant must 
submit a letter notifying the Institute of its intent to seek such 
funding, no later than 120 days before the end of the current grant 
period. The Institute will then notify the applicant of the deadline 
for its renewal grant application.

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 State courts this year. The selection of these 
categories was based on the Board and staff's experience and 
observations over the past year; the recommendations received from 
judges, court managers, lawyers, members of the public, and other 
groups interested in the administration of justice; and the issues 
identified in recent years' concept papers and applications.
    Section II.B. of the Proposed Guideline includes the following 
Special Interest categories:
    Improving Public Confidence in the Courts;
    Education and Training for Judges and Other Key Court Personnel;
    Dispute Resolution and the Courts;
    Application of Technology;
    Enhancing Court Management Through Collaboration;
    Substance Abuse and the Courts;
    Children and Families in Court;
    Improving the Courts' Response to Gender-Related Violent Crime; and
    The Relationship Between State and Federal Courts.
    The Institute also wishes to highlight its interest in supporting a 
National Symposium on the Role of the Judge in the 21st Century that 
would examine how evolving demands, responsibilities, and expectations 
are changing the role of State judges and State courts in American 
society. The Board of Directors contemplates a multidisciplinary, 
interactive forum that would help better define public and political 
expectations of the judiciary, as well as judges' own expectations; 
identify the barriers to fulfillment of those expectations; and propose 
ways to overcome those barriers. See section II.B.2.(b)(4).

Recommendations to Grantwriters

    Recommendations to Grantwriters may be found in Appendix A.
    The following Grant Guideline is proposed by the State Justice 
Institute for FY 2002:

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 Technical Assistance Grants
Appendix F  Illustrative List of Model Curricula
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;

[[Page 44446]]

    B. Provide for the preparation, publication, and dissemination of 
information regarding State judicial systems;
    C. Participate in joint projects with Federal agencies and other 
private grantors;
    D. Evaluate or provide for the evaluation of programs and projects 
funded by the Institute to determine their impact upon the quality of 
criminal, civil, and juvenile justice and the extent to which they have 
contributed to improving the quality of justice in the State courts;
    E. Encourage and assist in furthering judicial education;
    F. Encourage, assist, and serve in a consulting capacity to State 
and local justice system agencies in the development, maintenance, and 
coordination of criminal, civil, and juvenile justice programs and 
services; and
    G. Be responsible for the certification of national programs that 
are intended to aid and improve State judicial systems.

II. Scope of the Program

    During FY 2002, 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 and child sexual assault;
    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;

[[Page 44447]]

    b. Address aspects of the State judicial systems that are in 
special need of serious attention;
    c. Have national significance by developing products, services, and 
techniques that may be used in other States; and
    d. Create and disseminate products that effectively transfer the 
information and ideas developed to relevant audiences in State and 
local judicial systems, or provide technical assistance to facilitate 
the adaptation of effective programs and procedures in other State and 
local jurisdictions.
    A project will be identified as a Special Interest project if it 
meets the four criteria set forth above and (1) it falls within the 
scope of the Special Interest program areas designated below; or (2) 
information coming to the attention of the Institute from the State 
courts, their affiliated organizations, the research literature, or 
other sources demonstrates that the project responds to another special 
need or interest of the State courts.
    Concept papers and applications which address a Special Interest 
category will be accorded a preference in the rating process. (See the 
selection criteria listed in sections VI.C.2. and VIII.B.)
2. Specific Categories
    The Board has designated the areas set forth below as Special 
Interest program categories. The order of listing does not imply any 
ordering of priorities among the categories. For a complete list of 
projects supported in previous years in each of these categories, 
please visit the Institute's Internet homepage at http://www.statejustice.org/ and click on Grants by Category.
    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, accessibility, timeliness, and 
comprehensibility of the court process, and test innovative methods for 
increasing the public's trust and confidence in the State courts.
    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; implement task force 
recommendations at the State and local level; evaluate the impact of 
court strategies to address racial and ethnic bias in jurisdictions in 
which task force recommendations have been implemented; establish 
mentoring relationships with States that have successfully implemented 
recommendations to learn from their experiences; develop products that 
highlight effective model programs and promising practices; and educate 
judges and court personnel about relevant products developed in 
different States (e.g., model judicial education curricula, bench 
books, court conduct handbooks, codes of ethics, and relevant 
legislation);
     Test and evaluate approaches designed to enhance public 
access to the courts, including demonstrations of innovative 
collaborative efforts between courts and community institutions (e.g., 
bar associations, legal service agencies, schools and public libraries) 
to enhance access to the courts by people without lawyers, those who 
are not computer-literate, and people for whom it would be a hardship 
to travel to a courthouse (in this regard, however, Institute funds may 
not be used to directly or indirectly support legal representation of 
individuals in specific cases);
     Develop and test a range of strategies, methodologies, and 
outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of programs established 
to assist people without lawyers;
     Demonstrate and evaluate restorative justice approaches 
that involve the community, victim, and offender in restoring the 
relationship of the offender to the community while ensuring public 
safety;
     Explore the impact of private judging on public confidence 
in the courts, including an examination of whether it diverts certain 
types of cases from the courts, and a comparison of the time and costs 
to parties who choose private judging with those of parties who go 
through the traditional court process;
     Evaluate long-term court-based programs that actively 
involve citizen volunteers in a range of roles, and compile information 
on promising practices with respect to the effective use of volunteers 
in the court environment;
     Educate and clearly communicate information to litigants 
and the public about judicial decisions, the trial and appellate court 
process, alternative dispute resolution, court operations, and the 
standards courts maintain with respect to timeliness, access, and the 
elimination of bias;
     Assure that judges and court employees meet the highest 
ethical standards and that judicial disciplinary procedures are known, 
fair, and effective; and
     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.
    Applicants should be aware that the Institute will not support new 
surveys to determine the sources of the public's dissatisfaction with 
the courts.
    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) Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance 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 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 an assessment of the needs of the target audience; 
include clearly stated learning objectives that delineate the new 
knowledge or skills 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 curriculum as defined in section III.G.
    (a) The Institute is particularly interested in supporting the 
development of education programs that:
     Educate State court judges, law clerks, and staff counsel 
about capital case law, DNA evidence, and other legal and scientific 
issues related to the trial and appeal of capital cases;
     Educate State court judges and court personnel about 
special problems related to the adjudication of capital cases, 
including jury voir dire, jury sequestration, sentencing hearings, 
court security, and media management;
     Examine the concepts of restorative justice and their 
implications for the courts, including (but not limited to) the 
involvement of the community, victim, and offender in restoring the 
relationship of the offender to the community while ensuring public 
safety;

[[Page 44448]]

     Acquaint judges with the symptoms of mental illnesses 
(i.e., depression, manic depression, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, 
and obsessive-compulsive disorder) that can lead to serious behavioral 
problems that repeatedly bring families or offenders to court, and 
explore meaningful sanctions and referrals to treatment that can 
prevent future crime and delinquency;
     Develop and test orientation programs for new judges that 
emphasize the leadership, team-building, and collaboration skills 
required to preside effectively in problem-solving courts;
     Promote the value of and develop the specific skills 
needed for 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;
     Address 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, and that include materials for appellate, trial, and juvenile 
and family court judges;
     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;
     Develop and test curricula and materials designed to 
familiarize judges and court managers with the need for and key 
elements of effective assistance programs for people without lawyers, 
and the resources required to sustain them;
     Develop and test curricula for judges on the full range of 
court-connected alternative dispute resolution approaches and the 
appropriate context for each of them;
     Test the effectiveness of including a variety of 
experiential instructional approaches in judicial branch education 
programs, such as field studies and interchanges with community 
programs, organizations, and institutions;
     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 innovative 
instructional technology, including methods for presenting information 
through web-based and other distance-learning approaches such as videos 
and satellite teleconferences;
     Develop and test innovative methods to evaluate the 
effectiveness of web-based and distance education programs; and
     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.
    (b) The Institute also continues to be 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 held in St. Louis, Missouri, on October 7-9, 
1999, as well as proposals from other applicants designed to assist in 
implementing and disseminating the findings and strategies discussed at 
the Conference.
    (2) Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Projects. The 
Board is reserving up to $200,000 to support technical assistance and 
on-site consultation in planning, developing, and administering 
comprehensive and specialized State judicial branch education programs, 
as well as the adaptation of model curricula previously developed with 
SJI funds.
    The goals of the Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance 
Program (JBE TA) are to:
    (a) Provide State and local courts with expert assistance in 
developing systematic or innovative judicial branch education 
programming as well as improved methods for assessing the need for and 
evaluating the impact of court education programs; and
    (b) Enable courts to modify a model curriculum, course module, or 
conference program developed with SJI funds to meet a particular 
State's or local jurisdiction's educational needs; train instructors to 
present portions or all of the curriculum; and pilot-test it to 
determine its appropriateness, quality, and effectiveness. An 
illustrative but non-inclusive list of the curricula that may be 
appropriate for adaptation is contained in Appendix G.
    Only State or local courts may apply for JBETA 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 
judges and court managers. The purposes of the 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. The Institute is interested in supporting 
a National Symposium on the Role of the Judge in the 21st Century to 
examine how evolving demands, responsibilities, and expectations are 
changing the role of State judges and State courts in American society. 
The Board of Directors contemplates a multidisciplinary, interactive 
forum that would help better define public and political expectations 
of the judiciary, as well as judges' own expectations; identify the 
barriers to fulfillment of those expectations; and propose ways to 
overcome those barriers.
    The Symposium should address the following issues, among others:
     The extent to which courts should be the source of social 
services to parties in litigation, the approaches by which those 
services can best be provided, and the criteria for determining when 
and which services should be provided;
     The potential evolution of the court into a service 
provider, problem solver, or source of dispute resolution services for 
the public generally, not just parties in litigation;
     The role of judges and the courts as leaders in 
cultivating and sustaining community and restorative approaches to 
justice;
     The participation of judges and court staff in 
intergovernmental, public-private, and court-community partnerships 
aimed at addressing issues such as family violence, drug abuse, and 
child abuse and neglect;
     The role of judges and court personnel in advocacy 
projects, including not only projects aimed at

[[Page 44449]]

improving the administration of justice, but projects seeking to 
improve society's response to other issues, outside the courts;
     The potential impact of increased involvement in the 
community on judicial neutrality;
     Ethical constraints that may affect judges and court 
personnel when they consider whether and how to meet their evolving 
demands, responsibilities, and expectations; and
     The extent to which the changing role of judges and courts 
may impinge on the authority of the executive and legislative branches 
of government.
    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;
     Evaluating innovative court-connected dispute resolution 
programs for resolving complex and multi-party litigation, 
environmental hazards, managed health care, minor criminal cases, 
probate proceedings, and land-use disputes;
     Evaluating innovative alternative dispute resolution 
processes, including on-line approaches that use the Internet and other 
computer-based technologies to facilitate dispute resolution;
     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; and
     Testing innovative approaches involving community 
partnerships, particularly in the context of restorative justice, 
examining the benefits such partnerships offer in ensuring the quality 
of dispute resolution programs, and compiling examples of promising 
practices.
    Applicants should be aware that the Institute will not provide 
operational support for ongoing 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, 
including projects that would:
     Demonstrate and evaluate the delivery of technology to 
rural courts through an Internet-based ``application service provider'' 
approach;
     Test and evaluate the use of Geographic Information System 
(GIS) software as a means of examining and improving courts' outreach 
to particular segments of the communities they serve;
     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;
     Demonstrate and evaluate innovative applications of voice 
recognition technologies in the adjudication process;
     Demonstrate and evaluate the use of expert system 
technology to assist judicial decision-making;
     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);
     Test and evaluate the effectiveness of automated systems 
that would enable courts and other justice agencies to measure their 
performance with respect to internal processes and customer service 
against benchmarks and strategic goals; 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 record-keeping, 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. Enhancing Court Management Through Collaboration. The Institute 
is interested in supporting projects that test innovative and 
collaborative problem-solving approaches for securing, managing, and 
demonstrating the effective use of the resources required to meet the 
responsibilities of the judicial branch, including the 
institutionalization of long-range planning processes. In particular, 
the Institute is interested in demonstration, evaluation, education, 
research, and technical assistance projects to:
     Facilitate collaboration, communication, information-
sharing, and coordination between the juvenile and criminal courts, 
between courts and criminal justice agencies, and between courts and 
court users;
     Identify and assess the effects of collaborative problem-
solving approaches designed to assure quality services to court users;
     Strengthen judge and court manager skills in leadership, 
collaborative planning, case management, facilitation, and human 
resource development;
     Assess the effects of innovative management approaches 
designed to assure quality services to court users;
     Enhance the core competencies required of court managers 
and staff;
     Document and evaluate effective 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;
     Facilitate, demonstrate, and assess the effective use of 
judge-staff teams for implementing change and encouraging excellence in 
court operations; and
     Compile examples of promising practices involving any of 
the management approaches described above.

[[Page 44450]]

    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 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 that would:
     Identify and test innovative methods to provide 
appropriate case docketing, drug treatment, and services for juveniles 
transferred to adult criminal court so that they are dealt with as 
adolescents, document promising practices in this area, and evaluate 
the outcomes of such cases, including recidivism;
     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 court-mandated substance 
abuse treatment provided to all criminal defendants (not just those 
appearing in drug courts);
     Educate judges and court managers about the long-term 
cognitive effects of substance abuse (including alcohol) and their 
implications for compliance with court orders, probation conditions, 
release, visitation orders, etc.; and
     Evaluate the effectiveness of innovative procedures to 
manage persistent misdemeanants who are substance abusers, and 
procedures designed to monitor probationers who have chronic substance 
abuse problems.
    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 that 
would:
     Develop and test guidelines, curricula, and other 
materials for judges that address the implications of sentencing 
juveniles as adults, including the need for age-appropriate services 
like schooling, sentencing alternatives, and pre-trial services;
     Demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness of a ``one 
social worker/one family'' or judge-social worker team approach to 
handling child abuse and neglect cases;
     Develop and test collaborative approaches involving 
community agencies and members of the public to improve services to 
families involved with the courts;
     Develop and test innovative protocols, procedures, 
educational programs, and other measures to address the service needs 
of children exposed to family violence and the methods for mitigating 
those effects when issuing protection, custody, visitation, or other 
orders;
     Develop 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 restorative justice approaches that 
include victims of offenses committed by youthful offenders 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 enhancing 
collaboration, communication, information-sharing, and coordination of 
juvenile and criminal courts and divisions;
     Design or evaluate information systems that enable judges 
and court managers to 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 Gender-Related Violent Crime. 
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 gender-related violent crimes, including projects that 
would:
     Educate judges about the unique characteristics of 
juvenile sex offenders and the specialized array of age-appropriate 
services they require to control their abusive behavior;
     Evaluate the impact of court policies and procedures and 
collaborative community approaches designed to ensure that juvenile sex 
offenders have access to an appropriate array of services;
     Strengthen judges' skills in leadership, collaborative 
planning, and facilitation of community efforts to reduce and prevent 
domestic violence;
     Evaluate the implementation of the Uniform Interstate 
Enforcement of Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act;
     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;
     Educate judges about how to interpret and evaluate 
evidence presented by psychologists, psychiatrists, and other 
professionals appearing in child custody and visitation cases involving 
domestic violence between the parents;
     Develop and test guidelines to assist judges in 
identifying issues and risks to the child(ren) and the battered parent 
when considering whether to order supervised vs. unsupervised 
visitation in custody cases involving domestic violence between the 
parents;
     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;
     Develop guidelines, curricula, or other materials that 
address the appropriate role of probation in monitoring domestic 
violence offenders;
     Assess the effectiveness of including jurisdiction over 
family violence in a unified family court;
     Demonstrate effective ways to encourage collaboration 
among courts, criminal justice agencies, and social services programs 
in responding to domestic violence and gender-related crimes of 
violence, and to assure that the courts are fully accessible to victims 
of domestic violence and other gender-related violent crimes;
     Develop and evaluate educational programs addressing a 
collaborative community approach to reducing and preventing domestic 
violence for a multidisciplinary audience that includes judges, 
prosecutors, defense

[[Page 44451]]

attorneys, victim advocates, doctors, and social services providers;
     Test the effectiveness of innovative sentencing and 
treatment approaches in cases involving domestic violence and other 
gender-related crimes, including sentences that incorporate regular or 
periodic judicial review or restorative justice measures;
     Implement recommendations or action plans addressing the 
co-occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment that stem 
from the conference on Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment--co-
sponsored by SJI, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the 
Ford Foundation--that was held September 29-30, 2000, in Jackson, 
Wyoming; and
     Compile and disseminate information about promising 
practices relating to any of the issues described in this section.
    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.
    (1) The Institute is particularly interested in innovative projects 
that:
     Evaluate State and Federal courts' experiences with 
capital cases in order to identify the reasons for reversals of trial 
court convictions, barriers to timely disposition of capital cases, and 
steps that can be taken to minimize reversals and undue delay;
     Develop, disseminate, and educate judges about model jury 
instructions for capital cases;
     Hire law clerks and staff counsel with special expertise 
in capital case law; and
     Develop new mechanisms for addressing complaints about 
attorney competence and performance in capital cases.
    (2) The Institute also is interested in projects to develop and 
test new approaches to:
     Coordinate and process mass tort cases fairly and 
efficiently at the trial and appellate levels;
     Share facilities, jury pools, alternative dispute 
resolution programs, information regarding persons on pretrial release 
or probation, and court services; 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.

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 the 
future 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 impact of the ``digital divide'' on pro se litigants 
who do not have access to computers, particularly as it relates to 
increasing electronic access to court documents and placing court 
services and processes on-line;
     The implications of increasing commerce via the Internet 
for the State courts, including the new rules and procedures that may 
be needed to address them;
     The implications of voice recognition and other 
identification technologies on the courts;
     An exploration of issues related to privacy, data 
security, and public access to court records in our increasingly 
technological society;
     The potential for the creation of ``cybercourts'' through 
the use of the Internet--a ``courthouseless court'' instead of a 
paperless court--and how the courts would have to be re-engineered to 
accommodate such a development;
     An in-depth articulation of the concept of knowledge 
management and its implications for the courts;
     The burgeoning needs of small and rural courts and 
examples of emerging technological advances that could diminish their 
sense of isolation;
     The likelihood that the courts will experience a major 
shift in the make-up of judicial branch personnel and shortages of 
qualified individuals in the next decade as a result of changing 
demographics and significantly higher salaries available in the private 
sector, and suggestions for ways to prevent or respond to this 
occurrence;
     A preliminary exploration of the prevalence of sexual 
assault in domestic violence cases and the implications for judges with 
respect to the questions they should ask, the services that should be 
provided to victims, and the sanctions that should be imposed on 
offenders;
     The impact of fee-structuring proposals and ``attorney 
auctions'' on controlling litigation costs in class-action lawsuits and 
ensuring that plaintiffs receive adequate counsel;
     The likelihood of the emergence of court-connected 
alternative dispute resolution processes in problem-solving courts and 
what these specialized courts may need to do to prepare for this 
change;
     The implications of generalized vs. specialized social 
services on children and families in court; and
     The potential use of local court advisory councils rooted 
in the community as a method of promoting public trust and confidence 
in the court.

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. 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 sections III.O. and IX.A.8.a.
    The application procedures for Single Jurisdiction grants are the 
same as the procedures 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:

[[Page 44452]]

    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.11.a.(2) for 
the 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--see Appendix I); 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 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 
III.O. defining judicial education branch technical assistance grants. 
See also section VII.E. for a complete description of judicial branch 
education technical assistance 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 
SJI grant 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.11.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. Ordinarily, changes requiring a Grant Adjustment 
(including budget reallocations between direct cost categories that 
individually or cumulatively exceed five percent of the approved 
original budget) should be requested at least 30 days in advance of the 
implementation of the requested change.

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.

[[Page 44453]]

O. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grant

    A grant of up to $20,000 awarded to a State or local court to 
support expert assistance in designing or delivering judicial branch 
education programming, and/or the adaptation of an education program 
based on an SJI-supported curriculum that was previously developed and 
evaluated under an SJI project grant.

P. Match

    The portion of project costs not borne by the Institute. Courts or 
other units of State or local government (not including publicly 
supported institutions of higher education) must provide a match from 
private or public sources of not less than 50% of the total amount of 
the Institute's award. 42 U.S.C. 10705(d). 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.

Q. Ongoing 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 
VII.C. for a complete description of ongoing support application 
requirements.

R. 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.

S. 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.

T. Project-Related Income

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

U. 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.

V. 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 
sections VI. and VII.A. for a complete description of single 
jurisdiction project application requirements.

W. Special Condition

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

X. 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 
means 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.

Y. Subgrantee

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

Z. 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 
X.C.2. of this Guideline. A list of persons to contact in each State 
regarding approval of applications from State and local courts and 
administration of Institute grants to those courts is contained in 
Appendix 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 under section 10705(b)(1)(C) if:
    1. the principal purpose or activity of the applicant is to provide 
education and training to State and local judges and court personnel; 
and
    2. the applicant demonstrates a record of substantial experience in 
the field of judicial education and training.

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

[[Page 44454]]

    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., C., 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.F. and VII.B. In FY 2002, the Institute is 
allocating no more than 25% of available grant funds for continuation 
and ongoing support grants.
    3. Ongoing Support Grants.
    See sections III.Q. and VII.C. See Continuation Grants above for 
limitations on funding availability in FY 2002.
    4. Technical Assistance Grants
    See section II.E. In FY 2002, the Institute is reserving up to 
$400,000 for these grants.
    5. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants.
    See sections II.B.2.b.(2), III.H., III.O., and VII.E. In FY 2002, 
the Institute is reserving up to $200,000 for judicial branch education 
technical assistance grants, which includes adaptations of curricula 
previously developed with SJI funding.
    6. Scholarships.
    See section II.B.2.b.(3), III.U., and VII.F. In FY 2002, 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 ongoing 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 ongoing 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 judicial branch education technical assistance 
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 ongoing 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). The On-Line Tutorials available on the Institute's web site 
(www.statejustice.org) walk potential applicants through the concept 
paper and application requirements for project grants.

A. Format and Content

    All concept papers must include a cover sheet, a program narrative, 
and a preliminary budget.
1. The Cover Sheet
    The cover sheet for all concept papers must contain:
    a. A title that clearly describes the proposed project;
    b. The name and address of the court, organization, or individual 
submitting the paper;
    c. The name, title, address (if different from that in b.), and 
telephone number of a contact person who can provide further 
information about the paper;
    d. The number of the statutory Program Area (see section II.A.) and 
the letter of the Special Interest Category (see section II.B.2.) 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 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

[[Page 44455]]

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). Applicants proposing to 
develop web-based products should provide for sending a hard-copy 
document to the SJI-designated libraries and other appropriate 
audiences to alert them to the availability of the web site or 
electronic product (i.e., a written report with a reference to the web 
site).
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 (see 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 4, 
2002.
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

    An original and three copies of all concept papers submitted for 
consideration in Fiscal Year 2002 must be sent by first class or 
overnight mail or by courier (but not by fax or e-mail) no later than 
November 21, 2001.
    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.
    The Institute will acknowledge receipt of each concept paper in 
writing. Extensions of the deadline for submission of concept papers 
will not be granted without good cause.

C. Institute Review

1. Review Process
    Concept papers will be reviewed competitively by the Institute's 
Board of Directors. Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary 
and a rating sheet assigning points for each relevant selection 
criterion for those concept papers which fall within the scope of the 
Institute's funding program and merit serious consideration by the 
Board. Staff will also prepare a list of those papers that, in the 
judgment of the Executive Director, propose projects that lie outside 
the scope of the Institute's program or are not likely to merit serious 
consideration by the Board. The narrative summaries, rating sheets, and 
list of non-reviewed papers will be presented to the Board for its 
review. Committees of the Board will review concept paper summaries 
within assigned program areas and prepare recommendations for the full 
Board. The full Board of Directors will then decide which concept paper 
applicants will be invited to submit formal applications for funding. 
The decision to invite an application is solely that of the Board of 
Directors.
    The Board may waive the application requirement and approve a grant 
based on a concept paper for a project requiring less than $40,000 when 
the need for and benefits of the project are clear and the methodology 
and budget require little additional explanation. Applicants 
considering whether to request consideration for an accelerated award 
should make certain that the proposed budget is sufficient to 
accomplish the project objectives in a quality manner. Because the 
Institute's experience has been that projects to conduct empirical 
research or a program evaluation ordinarily require a more thorough 
explanation of the methodology to be used than can be provided within 
the space limitations of a concept paper, the Board is unlikely to 
waive the application requirement for such projects.
2. Selection Criteria
    a. All concept papers will be evaluated on the basis of the 
following criteria:
    (1) The demonstration of need for the project;
    (2) The soundness and innovativeness of the approach described;
    (3) The benefits to be derived from the project;
    (4) The reasonableness of the proposed budget;
    (5) The proposed project's relationship to one of the ``Special 
Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B; and
    (6) The degree to which the findings, procedures, training, 
technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other 
jurisdictions.
    Single jurisdiction concept papers will be rated on the proposed 
project's relation to one of the ``Special Interest''

[[Page 44456]]

categories set forth in section II.B. and the special requirements 
listed in sections 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 (see Appendix C) when the Board 
invites applications submitted by courts within that State or that 
specify a participating site within that State.

VII. Applications

    For a summary of the application process, visit the Institute's web 
site (www.statejustice.org) and click on On-Line Tutorials, then 
Project Grant.

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.
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 section VII.A.4. below.)
    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.7.)
2. Project Abstract
    The abstract should highlight the purposes, goals, methods, and 
anticipated benefits of the proposed project. It should not exceed 1 
single-spaced page on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper.
3. Program Narrative
    The program narrative for an application may not exceed 25 double-
spaced pages on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper. Margins must be at least 1 
inch, and type size must be at least 12-point and 12 cpi. The pages 
should be numbered. This page limit does not include the forms, the 
abstract, the budget narrative, and any appendices containing resumes 
and letters of cooperation or endorsement. Additional background 
material should be attached only if it is essential to impart a clear 
understanding of the proposed project. Numerous and lengthy appendices 
are strongly discouraged.
    The program narrative should address the following topics:
    a. Project Objectives. The applicant should include a clear, 
concise statement of what the proposed project is intended to 
accomplish. In stating the objectives of the project, applicants should 
focus on the overall programmatic objective (e.g., to enhance 
understanding and skills regarding a specific subject, or to determine 
how a certain procedure affects the court and litigants) rather than on 
operational objectives (e.g., provide training for 32 judges and court 
managers, or review data from 300 cases).
    b. Program Areas to be Covered. The applicant should note the 
Special Interest Category or Categories that are addressed by the 
proposed project (see section II.B.). If the proposed project does not 
fall within one of the Institute's Special Interest Categories, the 
applicant should list the Statutory Program Area or Areas that are 
addressed by the proposed project. (See section II.A.)
    c. Need for the Project. If the project is to be conducted in a 
specific location(s), the applicant should discuss the particular needs 
of the project site(s) to be addressed by the project and why those 
needs are not being met through the use of existing materials, 
programs, procedures, services, or other resources.
    If the project is not site-specific, the applicant should discuss 
the problems that the proposed project would address, and why existing 
materials, programs, procedures, services, or other resources cannot 
adequately resolve those problems. The discussion should include 
specific references to the relevant literature and to the experience in 
the field.

[[Page 44457]]

    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 ongoing 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 of what was learned along with the participant's response to 
the quality and effectiveness of faculty presentations, the format of 
sessions, the value or usefulness of the material presented, and other 
relevant factors. Another appropriate approach would be to use an 
independent observer who might request both verbal and written 
responses from participants in the program. When an education project 
involves the development of curricular materials, an advisory panel of 
relevant experts can be coupled with a test of the curriculum to obtain 
the reactions of participants and faculty as indicated above.
    (c) Demonstration. The evaluation plan for a demonstration project 
should encompass an assessment of program effectiveness (e.g., how well 
did it work?); user satisfaction, if appropriate; the cost-
effectiveness of the program; a process analysis of the program (e.g., 
was the program implemented as designed, and/or did it provide the 
services intended to the targeted population?); the impact of the 
program (e.g., what effect did the program have on the court, and/or 
what benefits resulted from the program?); and the replicability of the 
program or components of the program.
    (d) Technical Assistance. For technical assistance projects, 
applicants should explain how the quality, timeliness, and impact of 
the assistance provided would be determined, and develop a mechanism 
for feedback from both the users and providers of the technical 
assistance.
    Evaluation plans involving human subjects should include a 
discussion of the procedures for obtaining respondents' informed 
consent, ensuring the respondents' privacy and freedom from risk or 
harm, and the protection of others who are not the subjects of 
evaluation but would be affected by it. Other than the provision of 
confidentiality to respondents, human subject protection issues 
ordinarily are not applicable to participants evaluating an education 
program.
    e. Project Management. The applicant should present a detailed 
management plan, including the starting and completion date for each 
task; the time commitments to the project of key staff and their 
responsibilities regarding each project task; and the procedures that 
would ensure that all tasks are performed on time, within budget, and 
at the highest level of quality. In preparing the project time line, 
Gantt Chart, or schedule, applicants should make certain that all 
project activities, including publication or reproduction of project 
products and their initial dissemination, would occur within the 
proposed project period. The management plan must also provide for the 
submission of Quarterly Progress and Financial Reports within 30 days 
after the close of each calendar quarter (i.e., no later than January 
30, April 30, July 30, and October 30).
    Applicants should be aware that the Institute is unlikely to 
approve more than one limited extension of the grant period. Therefore, 
the management plan should be as realistic as possible and fully 
reflect the time commitments of the proposed project staff and 
consultants.

[[Page 44458]]

    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 appropriate 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.11.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.) Applicants 
proposing to develop web-based products should provide for sending a 
hard-copy document to the SJI-designated libraries and other 
appropriate audiences to alert them to the availability of the web site 
or electronic product (i.e., a written report with a reference to the 
web site).
    Seventeen (17) copies of all project products must be submitted to 
the Institute, along with an electronic version in .html format. 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.14.a.).
    The curricula and other products developed through education and 
training projects should be designed for use outside the classroom so 
that they may be used again by the 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.11.e.)
    (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.11.a.(2) 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 managing and 
reporting on the finances of the proposed project.
    i. Organizational Capacity. Applicants that have not received a 
grant from the Institute within the past two years should include a 
statement describing their capacity to administer grant funds, 
including the financial systems used to monitor project expenditures 
(and income, if any), and a summary of their past experience in 
administering grants, as well as any resources or capabilities that 
they have that would particularly assist in the successful completion 
of the project.
    Unless requested otherwise, an applicant that has received a grant 
from the Institute within the past two years should describe only the 
changes in its organizational capacity, tax status, or financial 
capability that may affect its capacity to administer a grant.
    If the applicant is a non-profit organization (other than a 
university), it must also provide documentation of its 501(c) tax-
exempt status as determined by the Internal Revenue Service and a copy 
of a current certified audit report. For purposes of this requirement, 
``current'' means no earlier than two years prior to the present 
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

[[Page 44459]]

separate cover. To ensure sufficient time to bring them to the Board's 
attention, letters of support sent under separate cover must be 
received by June 7, 2002.
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 automated 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.16.b. Any allowable 
construction or renovation expense should be described in detail in the 
budget narrative.
    h. Telephone. Applicants should include anticipated telephone 
charges, distinguishing between monthly charges and long distance 
charges in the budget narrative. Also, applicants should provide the 
basis used to calculate the monthly and long distance estimates.
    i. Postage. Anticipated postage costs for project-related mailings, 
including distribution of the final product(s), should be described in 
the budget narrative. The cost of special mailings, such as for a 
survey or for announcing a workshop, should be distinguished from 
routine operational mailing costs. The bases for all postage estimates 
should be included in the budget narrative.
    j. Printing/Photocopying. Anticipated costs for printing or 
photocopying project documents, reports, and publications should be 
included in the budget narrative, along with the bases used to 
calculate these estimates.
    k. Indirect Costs. Applicants should describe the indirect cost 
rates applicable to the grant in detail. If costs often included within 
an indirect cost rate are charged directly (e.g., a percentage of the 
time of senior managers to supervise project 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.O., IX.A.8., 
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);

[[Page 44460]]

the Application Abstract; the Program Narrative; the 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 8, 2002. 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 without good cause.
    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 ongoing 
support grants, which are awarded to support critically needed long-
term national scope projects. See section VII.C. below.
    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 
81/2 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 Activities form (from applicants other than units of State 
or local government), and any necessary appendices.
    The program narrative should conform to the length and format 
requirements set forth in section VII.A.3. However, rather than the 
topics listed there, the program narrative of a continuation 
application should include:
    a. Project Objectives. The applicant should clearly and concisely 
state what the continuation project is intended to accomplish.
    b. Need for Continuation. The applicant should explain why 
continuation of the project is necessary to achieve the goals of the 
project, and how the continuation would benefit the participating 
courts or the courts community generally, by explaining, for example, 
how the original goals and objectives of the project would be 
unfulfilled if it were not continued; or how the value of the project 
would be enhanced by its continuation.
    c. Report of Current Project Activities. The applicant should 
discuss the status of all activities conducted during the previous 
project period. Applicants should identify any activities that were not 
completed, and explain why.
    d. Evaluation Findings. The applicant should present the key 
findings, impact, or recommendations resulting from the evaluation of 
the project, if available, and how they would be addressed during the 
proposed continuation. If the findings are not yet available, the 
applicant should provide the date by which they would be submitted to 
the Institute. Ordinarily, the Board will not consider an application 
for continuation funding until the Institute has received the 
evaluator's report.
    e. Tasks, Methods, Staff, and Grantee Capability. The applicant 
should fully describe any changes in the tasks to be performed, the 
methods to be used, the products of the project, and how and to whom 
those products would be disseminated, as well as any changes in the 
assigned staff or the grantee's organizational capacity. Applicants 
should include, in addition, the criteria and methods by which the 
proposed continuation project would be evaluated.
    f. Task Schedule. The applicant should present a detailed task 
schedule and timeline for the next project period.
    g. Other Sources of Support. The applicant should indicate why 
other sources of support would be inadequate, inappropriate, or 
unavailable.
4. Budget and Budget Narrative
    The applicant should provide a complete budget and budget narrative 
conforming to the requirements set forth in VII.A.4. above. 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 section VII.A.5., other 
than the mailing deadline, apply to continuation applications.

C. Ongoing Support Grants

1. Purpose and Scope
    Ongoing support grants are intended to support projects that are 
national in scope and provide the State courts with services, programs 
or products for

[[Page 44461]]

which there is a continuing critical need. An ongoing support grant may 
also be used to fund longitudinal research that directly benefits the 
State courts. Ongoing 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 ongoing 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 ongoing support at 
the end of the original project period. A project is eligible for 
consideration for an ongoing 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 ongoing 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 ongoing 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 ongoing 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 
ongoing 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 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 ongoing 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 ongoing 
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 ongoing 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.

[[Page 44462]]

6. Submission Requirements
    The submission requirements set forth in section VII.A.5., other 
than the mailing deadline, apply to applications for ongoing 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
    For a summary of the application procedures for Technical 
Assistance grants, visit the Institute's web site 
(www.statejustice.org) and click On-Line Tutorials, then Technical 
Assistance Grant.
    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 specific tasks 
would the consultant(s) and court staff undertake? What is the schedule 
for completion of each required task? What is the time frame for 
completion of the entire project? 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 from Institute funds. In addition, 
the budget should provide for submission of two copies of the 
consultant's final report to the Institute.
    Recipients of Technical Assistance grants do not have to submit an 
audit but must maintain appropriate documentation to support 
expenditures. (See section IX.A.3.)
5. Submission Requirements
    Letters of application may be submitted at any time; however, all 
of the letters received during a calendar quarter will be considered at 
one time. Applicants submitting letters between:
    June 11 and September 28, 2001 will be notified of the Board's 
decision by December 14, 2001;
    October 1, 2001 and January 11, 2002 will be notified by March 29, 
2002;
    January 14, 2002 and March 8, 2002 will be notified by May 31, 
2002;
    March 11, 2002 and June 7, 2002 will be notified by August 23, 
2002; and
    June 10 and September 27, 2002 will be notified of the Board's 
decision by December 6, 2002.
    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 26, 2001, and 
February 8, April 19, July 5, and October 18, 2002).

E. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants

1. Purpose and Scope
    Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance (JBE TA) grants are 
awarded to State and local courts to support: (1) Expert assistance in 
planning, developing, and administering State judicial branch education 
programs; and/or (2) replication or modification of a model training 
program originally developed with Institute funds. Ordinarily, the 
Institute will support the

[[Page 44463]]

adaptation of a curriculum once (i.e., with one grant) in a given 
State.
    JBE TA grants may support consultant assistance in developing 
systematic or innovative judicial branch educational programming. The 
assistance might include development of improved methods for assessing 
the need for, and evaluating the quality and impact of, court education 
programs and their administration by State or local courts; faculty 
development; and/or topical program presentations. Such assistance may 
be tailored to address the needs of a particular State or local court 
or specific categories of court employees throughout a State and, in 
certain cases, in a region, if sponsored by a court.
2. Application Procedures
    For a summary of the application procedures for Judicial Branch 
Education Technical Assistance grants, visit the Institute's web site 
(www.statejustice.org) and click on On-Line Tutorials, then Judicial 
Branch Education Technical Assistance Grant.
    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. For on-site consultant assistance:
    (1) Need for Funding. What is the critical judicial branch 
educational 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?
    (2) 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 specific 
tasks would the consultant(s) and court staff undertake? What is the 
schedule for completion of each required task? What is the time frame 
for completion of the entire project? 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.
    (3) 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?
    (4) 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.
    b. For adaptation of a curriculum:
    (1) Project Description. What is the title of the model curriculum 
to be adapted and who originally developed it with Institute funding? 
Why is this education program needed at the present time? What are the 
project's goals? What are the learning objectives of the adapted 
curriculum? 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)?
    (2) 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 adapted curriculum in the future using State or local funds, once 
it has been successfully adapted and tested?
    (3) Likelihood of Implementation. What is the proposed timeline, 
including the project start and end dates? On what date(s) would the 
judicial branch education program be presented? What process would be 
used to modify and present the program? Who would serve as faculty, and 
how were they selected? What measures would be taken to facilitate 
subsequent 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.)
    (4) 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 branch education personnel 
who are expected to attend? (This may be demonstrated by attaching 
letters of support.)
    (5) 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 percent 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 
of a curriculum adaptation request 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

[[Page 44464]]

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 airfares 
(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 $.345/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 borne by the scholarship recipient. 
Scholarship applicants are encouraged to check other sources of 
financial assistance and to combine aid from various sources whenever 
possible.
    A scholarship is not transferable to another individual. It may be 
used only for the course specified in the application unless attendance 
at a different course that meets the eligibility requirements is 
approved in writing by the Institute. Decisions on such requests will 
be made within 30 days after the receipt of the request letter.
2. Eligibility Requirements
    For a summary of the Scholarship award process, visit the 
Institute's web site at www.statejustice.org and click on On-Line 
Tutorials, then Scholarship.
    a. Recipients. Scholarships can be awarded only to full-time judges 
of State or local trial and appellate courts; full-time professional, 
State, or local court personnel with management responsibilities; and 
supervisory and management probation personnel in judicial branch 
probation offices. Senior judges, part-time judges, quasi-judicial 
hearing officers including referees and commissioners, State 
administrative law judges, staff attorneys, law clerks, line staff, law 
enforcement officers, and other executive branch personnel are not 
eligible to receive a scholarship.
    b. Courses. A Scholarship can be awarded only for a course 
presented in a 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; addresses 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. Scholarship Application--FORM S-1 (Appendix G). The Scholarship 
Application 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. The Scholarship Application must bear 
the original signature of the applicant. Faxed or photocopied 
signatures will not be accepted.
    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 a letter of 
support from their immediate supervisors.
4. Submission Requirements
    Scholarship applications must be submitted during the periods 
specified below:
    October 1 and December 3, 2001, for programs beginning between 
January 1 and March 31, 2002;
    January 4 and March 4, 2002, for programs beginning between April 1 
and June 30, 2002;
    April 1 and June 3, 2002, for programs beginning between July 1 and 
September 30, 2002;
    July 5 and August 30, 2002, for programs beginning between October 
1 and December 31, 2002, and
    October 1 and December 2, 2002, for programs beginning between 
January 1 and March 31, 2003.
    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 Ongoing 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;

[[Page 44465]]

    (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 ongoing 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 projects to support, 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. The court's commitment to act on the consultant's 
recommendations; and
    e. The reasonableness of the proposed budget.
    The Institute also will consider factors such as the level and 
nature of the match that would be provided, diversity of subject 
matter, geographic diversity, the level of appropriations available to 
the Institute in the current year, and the amount expected to be 
available in succeeding fiscal years.
3. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grant Applications
    Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance grant applications 
will be rated on the basis of the following criteria:
    a. For on-site consultant assistance:
    (1) Whether the assistance would address a critical need of the 
court;
    (2) The soundness of the technical assistance approach to the 
problem;
    (3) The qualifications of the consultant(s) to be hired, or the 
specific criteria that will be used to select the consultant(s);
    (4) The court's commitment to act on the consultant's 
recommendations; and
    (5) The reasonableness of the proposed budget.
    b. For curriculum adaptation projects:
    (1) The goals and objectives of the proposed project;
    (2) The need for outside funding to support the program;
    (3) The appropriateness of the approach in achieving the project's 
educational objectives;
    (4) The likelihood of effective implementation and integration of 
the modified curriculum into the State's or local jurisdiction's 
ongoing educational programming; and
    (5) Expressions of interest by the judges and/or court personnel 
who would be directly involved in or affected by the project.
    The Institute will also consider factors such as the reasonableness 
of the amount requested, compliance with match requirements, diversity 
of subject matter, geographic diversity, the level of appropriations 
available in the current year, and the amount expected to be available 
in succeeding fiscal years.
4. Scholarships
    Scholarships will be awarded on the basis of:
    a. The date on which the application and concurrence (and support 
letter, if required) were received;
    b. The unavailability of State or local funds to cover the costs of 
attending the program or scholarship funds from another source;
    c. The absence of educational programs in the applicant's State 
addressing the topic(s) covered by the educational program for which 
the scholarship is being sought;
    d. Geographic balance among the recipients;
    e. The balance of scholarships among educational programs;
    f. The balance of scholarships among the types of courts 
represented; and
    g. The level of appropriations available to the Institute in the 
current year and the amount expected to be available in succeeding 
fiscal years.
    The postmark or courier receipt will be used to determine the date 
on which the application form and other required items were sent.

C. Review and Approval Process

1. Project, Continuation, and Ongoing 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 Judicial Branch Education Technical 
Assistance 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 Judicial 
Branch Education Technical Assistance 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 Inistitute'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 applications (except Scholarships), the Institute 
also will convey the key

[[Page 44466]]

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 Judicial Branch Education 
Technical Assistance grant applications requesting adaptations of 
curricula within 45 days after receipt. Grant funds will be available 
only after Board approval and negotiation of the final terms of the 
grant.
    3. The Institute intends to notify each Scholarship applicant of 
the Board committee's decision within 30 days after the close of the 
relevant application period.

F. Response to Notification of Approval

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

IX. Compliance Requirements

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

A. Recipients of Project Grants

1. Advocacy
    No funds made available by the Institute may be used to support or 
conduct training programs for the purpose of advocating particular 
nonjudicial public policies or encouraging nonjudicial political 
activities. 42 U.S.C. 10706(b).
2. Approval of Key Staff
    If the qualifications of an employee or consultant assigned to a 
key project staff position are not described in the application or if 
there is a change of a person assigned to such a position, the 
recipient must submit a description of the qualifications of the newly 
assigned person to the Institute. Prior written approval of the 
qualifications of the new person assigned to a key staff position must 
be received from the Institute before the salary or consulting fee of 
that person and associated costs may be paid or reimbursed from grant 
funds.
3. Audit
    Recipients of project grants must provide for an annual fiscal 
audit which includes an opinion on whether the financial statements of 
the grantee present fairly its financial position and its 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 judicial branch education 
technical assistance or technical assistance grants are not required to 
submit an audit, but must maintain appropriate documentation to support 
all expenditures.
4. Budget Revisions
    Budget revisions among direct cost categories that individually or 
cumulatively exceed five percent of the approved original budget or the 
most recently approved revised budget require prior Institute approval.
5. 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, 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.
6. 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).
7. 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.
8. 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

[[Page 44467]]

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 match. 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.P.)
    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 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 section X.E).
9. 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.
10. 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).
11. Products
    a. Acknowledgment, Logo, and Disclaimer. (1) Recipients of 
Institute funds must acknowledge prominently on all products developed 
with grant funds that support was received from the Institute. The 
``SJI'' logo must appear on the front cover of a written product, or in 
the opening frames of a video product, unless another placement is 
approved in writing by the Institute. This includes final products 
printed or otherwise reproduced during the grant period, as well as 
reprintings or reproductions of those materials following the end of 
the grant period. A camera-ready logo sheet is available from the 
Institute upon request.
    (2) Recipients also must display the following disclaimer on all 
grant products: ``This (document, film, videotape, etc.) was developed 
under (grant/cooperative agreement) number SJI-(insert number) from the 
State Justice Institute. The points of view expressed are those of the 
(author(s), filmmaker(s), etc.) and do not necessarily represent the 
official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.''
    b. Charges for Grant-Related Products/Recovery of Costs. (1) When 
Institute funds fully cover the cost of developing, producing, and 
disseminating a product (e.g., a report, curriculum, videotape, or 
software), the product should be distributed to the field without 
charge. When Institute funds only partially cover the development, 
production, or dissemination costs, the grantee may, with the 
Institute's prior written approval, recover its costs for developing, 
producing, and disseminating the material to those requesting it, to 
the extent that those costs were not covered by Institute funds or 
grantee matching contributions.
    (2) Applicants should disclose their intent to sell grant-related 
products in both the concept paper and the application. Grantees must 
obtain the written prior approval of the Institute of their plans to 
recover project costs through the sale of grant products. Written 
requests to recover costs ordinarily should be received during the 
grant period and should specify the nature and extent of the costs to 
be recouped, the reason that such costs were not budgeted (if the 
rationale was not disclosed in the approved application), the number of 
copies to be sold, the intended audience for the products to be sold, 
and the proposed sale price. If the product is to be sold for more than 
$25, the written request also should include a detailed itemization of 
costs that will be recovered and a certification that the costs were 
not supported by either Institute grant funds or grantee matching 
contributions.
    (3) In the event that the sale of grant products results in 
revenues that exceed the costs to develop, produce, and disseminate the 
product, the revenue must continue to be used for the authorized 
purposes of the Institute-funded project or other purposes consistent 
with the State Justice Institute Act that have been approved by the 
Institute. See sections III.T. 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 Technical Assistance or a Judicial Branch Education Technical 
Assistance grant, in which case submission of 2 copies is required;
    (2) An electronic version of the product in .html format to the 
Institute;
    (3) A master copy of each videotape produced with grant funds to 
the Institute; and
    (4) One copy of each final product developed with grant funds to 
the library established in each State to collect materials prepared 
with Institute support. (A list of the libraries is contained in 
Appendix D. Labels for these libraries are available on the Institute's 
web site, www.statejustice.org.) Grantees that develop web-based 
electronic products must send a hard-copy document to the SJI-
designated libraries and other appropriate audiences to alert them to 
the availability of the web site or electronic product. Recipients of 
judicial branch education technical assistance and technical assistance 
grants are not required to submit final products to State libraries.
    (5) 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

[[Page 44468]]

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.
12. 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.
13. Reporting Requirements
    a. Recipients of Institute funds other than Scholarships must 
submit Quarterly Progress and Financial Status 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.1. of this Guideline.
14. Research
    a. Availability of Research Data for Secondary Analysis. Upon 
request, grantees must make available for secondary analysis a 
diskette(s) or data tape(s) containing research and evaluation data 
collected under an Institute grant and the accompanying code manual. 
Grantees may recover the actual cost of duplicating and mailing or 
otherwise transmitting the data set and manual from the person or 
organization requesting the data. Grantees may provide the requested 
data set in the format in which it was created and analyzed.
    b. Confidentiality of Information. Except as provided by Federal 
law other than the State Justice Institute Act, no recipient of 
financial assistance from SJI may use or reveal any research or 
statistical information furnished under the Act by any person and 
identifiable to any specific private person for any purpose other than 
the purpose for which the information was obtained. Such information 
and copies thereof shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, 
without the consent of the person furnishing such information, be 
admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or 
other judicial, legislative, or administrative proceedings.
    c. Human Subject Protection. All research involving human subjects 
shall be conducted with the informed consent of those subjects and in a 
manner that will ensure their privacy and freedom from risk or harm and 
the protection of persons who are not subjects of the research but 
would be affected by it, unless such procedures and safeguards would 
make the research impractical. In such instances, the Institute must 
approve procedures designed by the grantee to provide human subjects 
with relevant information about the research after their involvement 
and to minimize or eliminate risk or harm to those subjects due to 
their participation.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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).
18. 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 Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance and 
Technical Assistance Grants

    In addition to the compliance requirements in section IX.A., 
recipients of Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance and 
Technical Assistance grants must comply with the following 
requirements.
1. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grantees
    Recipients of Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance grants 
must:
    a. Submit one copy of the manuals, handbooks, conference packets, 
or consultant's report developed under the grant at the conclusion of 
the grant period, along with a final report that

[[Page 44469]]

includes any evaluation results and explains how the grantee intends to 
present the educational program in the future and/or implement the 
consultant's recommendations, as well as two copies of the consultant's 
report; and
    b. Complete a Technical Assistance Evaluation Form at the 
conclusion of the grant period, if appropriate.
2. Technical Assistance Grantees
    Recipients of Technical Assistance grants must:
    a. 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 
two copies of the consultant's written report; and
    b. 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 the Scholarship recipient's 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.

B. References

    Except where inconsistent with specific provisions of this 
Guideline, the following circulars are applicable to Institute grants 
and cooperative agreements under the same terms and conditions that 
apply to Federal grantees. The circulars supplement the requirements of 
this section for accounting systems and financial record-keeping 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-122, Cost 
Principles for Non-profit Organizations.
    7. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-128, Audits of 
State and Local Governments.
    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 section III.I.)
    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 
record-keeping 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.A.3.)
    (6) Reporting Irregularities. The State Supreme Court, its 
designees, and its

[[Page 44470]]

subgrantees are responsible for promptly reporting to the Institute the 
nature and circumstances surrounding any financial irregularities 
discovered.

D. Accounting System

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

E. Total Cost Budgeting and Accounting

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

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 section X.H.2. below.) 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

[[Page 44471]]

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 
IX.A.11.b.
5. Other
    Other project income shall be treated in accordance with 
disposition instructions set forth in the grant's terms and conditions.

H. Payments and Financial Reporting Requirements

1. Payment of Grant Funds
    The procedures and regulations set forth below are applicable to 
all Institute grant funds and grantees.
    a. Request for Advance or Reimbursement of Funds. Grantees will 
receive funds on a ``check-issued'' basis. Upon receipt, review, and 
approval of a Request for Advance or Reimbursement by the Institute, a 
check will be issued directly to the grantee or its designated fiscal 
agent. A request must be limited to the grantee's immediate cash needs. 
The Request for Advance or Reimbursement, along with the instructions 
for its preparation, will be included in the official Institute award 
package.
    b. Continuation and Ongoing Support Awards. For purposes of 
submitting Requests for Advance or Reimbursement, recipients of 
continuation and ongoing 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 ongoing support 
grant 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 Ongoing Support 
Grants. Grantees receiving continuation or ongoing 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 ongoing 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-21, Cost Principles 
Applicable to Grants and Contracts with Educational Institutions; A-87, 
Cost Principles for State and Local Governments; 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.

[[Page 44472]]

    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.
    d. Budget Revisions. Budget revisions among direct cost categories 
that (i) transfer grant funds to an unbudgeted cost category or (ii) 
individually or cumulatively exceed five percent of the approved 
original budget or the most recently approved revised budget require 
prior Institute approval. See section XI.A.1.
3. Travel Costs
    Transportation and per diem rates must comply with the policies of 
the grantee. If the grantee does not have an established written travel 
policy, then travel rates must be consistent with those established by 
the Institute or the Federal Government. Institute funds may not be 
used to cover the transportation or per diem costs of a member of a 
national organization to attend an annual or other regular meeting of 
that organization.
4. Indirect Costs
    These are costs of an organization that are not readily assignable 
to a particular project but are necessary to the operation of the 
organization and the performance of the project. The cost of operating 
and maintaining facilities, depreciation, and administrative salaries 
are examples of the types of costs that are usually treated as indirect 
costs. The Institute's policy requires all costs to be budgeted 
directly; however, if a grantee has an indirect cost rate approved by a 
Federal agency as set forth below, the Institute will accept that rate.
    a. Approved Plan Available. (1) The Institute will accept an 
indirect cost rate or allocation plan approved for a grantee during the 
preceding two years by any Federal granting agency on the basis of 
allocation methods substantially in accord with those set forth in the 
applicable cost circulars. A copy of the approved rate agreement must 
be submitted to the Institute.
    (2) Where flat rates are accepted in lieu of actual indirect costs, 
grantees may not also charge expenses normally included in overhead 
pools, e.g., accounting services, legal services, building occupancy 
and maintenance, etc., as direct costs.
    (3) When utilizing total direct costs as the base, organizations 
with approved indirect cost rates usually exclude contracts under 
grants from any overhead recovery. The negotiated agreement will 
stipulate that contracts are excluded from the base for overhead 
recovery.
    b. Establishment of Indirect Cost Rates. To be reimbursed for 
indirect costs, a grantee must first establish an appropriate indirect 
cost rate. To do this, the grantee must prepare an indirect cost rate 
proposal and submit it to the Institute within three months after the 
start of the grant period to assure recovery of the full amount of 
allowable indirect costs. The rate must be developed in accordance with 
principles and procedures appropriate to the type of grantee 
institution involved as specified in the applicable OMB Circular.
    c. No Approved Plan. If an indirect cost proposal for recovery of 
actual indirect costs is not submitted to the Institute within three 
months after the start of the grant period, indirect costs will be 
irrevocably disallowed for all months prior to the month that the 
indirect cost proposal is received.

J. Procurement and Property Management Standards

1. Procurement Standards
    For State and local governments, the Institute has adopted the 
standards set forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular A-102. Institutions 
of higher education, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations will 
be governed by the standards set forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular 
A-110.
2. Property Management Standards
    The property management standards as prescribed in Attachment N of 
OMB Circulars A-102 and A-110 apply to all Institute grantees and 
subgrantees except as provided in section IX.A.18. 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, technical assistance grant, or judicial branch education 
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.
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 section X.L.2. below), the following documents 
must be submitted to the Institute by grantees (other than scholarship 
recipients):

[[Page 44473]]

    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 ongoing 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 (ordinarily 30 
days prior to the implementation of the adjustment being requested) 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 (i) transfer 
grant funds to an unbudgeted cost category or (ii) individually or 
cumulatively exceed five percent of the approved original budget or the 
most recently approved revised budget. See section X.I.2.d.
    For continuation and ongoing support grants, funds from the 
original award may be used during the new grant period and funds 
awarded through a continuation or ongoing support grant may be used to 
cover project-related expenditures incurred during the original award 
period, with the prior written approval of the Institute.
    2. A change in the scope of work to be performed or the objectives 
of the project (see D. below in this section).
    3. A change in the project site.
    4. A change in the project period, such as an extension of the 
grant period and/or extension of the final financial or progress report 
deadline (see E. below).
    5. Satisfaction of special conditions, if required.
    6. A change in or temporary absence of the project director (see F. 
and G. below).
    7. The assignment of an employee or consultant to a key staff 
position whose qualifications were not described in the application, or 
a change of a person assigned to a key project staff position (see 
section IX.A.2.).
    8. A change in or temporary absence of the person responsible for 
managing and reporting on the grant's finances.
    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 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.2.).

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

[[Page 44474]]

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
Keith McNamara, Esq., Executive Committee Member, McNamara & 
McNamara, Columbus, OH
Terrence B. Adamson, Esq., Senior Vice-President, The National 
Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
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 (ret.), Supreme Court of Iowa, 
Des Moines, IA
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 15 years, the Institute staff has reviewed 
approximately 4,000 concept papers and 1,750 applications. On the 
basis of those reviews, inquiries from applicants, and the views of 
the Board, the Institute offers the following recommendations to 
help potential applicants present workable, understandable proposals 
that can meet the funding criteria set forth in this Guideline.
    The Institute suggests that applicants make certain that they 
address the questions and issues set forth below when preparing a 
concept paper or application. Concept papers and applications 
should, however, be presented in the formats specified in sections 
VI. and VII. of the Guideline, respectively.

1. What Is The Subject Or Problem You Wish To Address?

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

2. What Do You Want To Do?

    Explain the goal(s) of the project in simple, straightforward 
terms. The goals should describe the intended consequences or 
expected overall effect of the proposed project (e.g., to enable 
judges to sentence drug-abusing offenders more effectively, or to 
dispose of civil cases within 24 months), rather than the tasks or 
activities to be conducted (e.g., hold 3 training sessions, or 
install a new computer system).
    To the greatest extent possible, an applicant should avoid a 
specialized vocabulary that is not readily understood by the general 
public. Technical jargon does not enhance a paper, 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 that 
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

[[Page 44475]]

the sale of project products. Non-cash match refers to in-kind 
contributions by the applicant, or other public or private sources. 
This includes, for example, the monetary value of time contributed 
by existing personnel or members of an advisory committee (but not 
the time spent by participants in an educational program attending 
program sessions). When match is offered, the nature of the match 
(cash or in-kind) should be explained and, at the application stage, 
the tasks and line items for which costs will be covered wholly or 
in part by match should be specified.

8. Which of the Two Budget Forms Should Be Used?

    Section VII.A.1.c. of the SJI Grant Guideline encourages use of 
the spreadsheet format of Form C1 if the application requests 
$100,000 or more. Form C1 also works well for projects with discrete 
tasks, regardless of the dollar value of the project. Form C, the 
tabular format, is preferred for projects lacking a number of 
discrete tasks, or for projects requiring less than $100,000 of 
Institute funding. Generally, use the form that best lends itself to 
representing most accurately the budget estimates for the project.

9. How Much Detail Should Be Included in the Budget Narrative?

    The budget narrative of an application should provide the basis 
for computing all project-related costs, as indicated in section 
VII.A.4. of the Guideline. To avoid common shortcomings of 
application budget narratives, applicants should include the 
following information:
    Personnel estimates that accurately provide the amount of time 
to be spent by personnel involved with the project and the total 
associated costs, including current salaries for the designated 
personnel (e.g., Project Director, 50% for one year, annual salary 
of $50,000 = $25,000). If salary costs are computed using an hourly 
or daily rate, the annual salary and number of hours or days in a 
work-year should be shown.
    Estimates for supplies and expenses supported by a complete 
description of the supplies to be used, the nature and extent of 
printing to be done, anticipated telephone charges, and other common 
expenditures, with the basis for computing the estimates included 
(e.g., 100 reports x 75 pages each x .05/page = $375.00). Supply and 
expense estimates offered simply as ``based on experience'' are not 
sufficient.
    In order to expedite Institute review of the budget, make a 
final comparison of the amounts listed in the budget narrative with 
those listed on the budget form. In the rush to complete all parts 
of the application on time, there may be many last-minute changes; 
unfortunately, when there are discrepancies between the budget 
narrative and the budget form or the amount listed on the 
application cover sheet, it is not possible for the Institute to 
verify the amount of the request. A final check of the numbers on 
the form against those in the narrative will preclude such 
confusion.

10. What Travel Regulations Apply to the Budget Estimates?

    Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the 
policies of the applicant organization, and a copy of the 
applicant's travel policy should be submitted as an appendix to the 
application. If the applicant does not have a travel policy 
established in writing, then travel rates must be consistent with 
those established by the Institute or the Federal Government (a copy 
of the Institute's travel policy is available upon request). The 
budget narrative should state which policies apply to the project.
    The budget narrative also should include the estimated fare, the 
number of persons traveling, the number of trips to be taken, and 
the length of stay. The estimated costs of travel, lodging, ground 
transportation, and other subsistence should be listed and explained 
separately. It is preferable for the budget to be based on the 
actual costs of traveling to and from the project or meeting sites. 
If the points of origin or destination are not known at the time the 
budget is prepared, an average airfare may be used to estimate the 
travel costs. For example, if it is anticipated that a project 
advisory committee will include members from around the country, a 
reasonable airfare from a central point to the meeting site, or the 
average of airfares from each coast to the meeting site, may be 
used. Applicants should arrange travel so as to be able to take 
advantage of advanced-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. The 
Institute's 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 $3,000.

12. To What Extent May Indirect Costs Be Included in the Budget 
Estimates?

    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 1,500 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 progress 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 Ongoing 
Support Grants?

    Recipients of continuation or ongoing support grants are 
required to submit quarterly progress and Financial Status Reports 
on the same schedule and with the same information as recipients of 
grants for single new projects.

[[Page 44476]]

    A continuation grant and each yearly grant under an ongoing 
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 ongoing 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, quarterly financial reporting, or 
payment requests should be addressed to the Institute's 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?

    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 Ongoing Support Grants?

    The basic procedures are the same for any grant. A continuation 
grant or the yearly grant under an ongoing support award should be 
considered as a separate phase of the project. Payment requests 
should be numbered on a grant rather than a project basis. The first 
request for funds from a continuation grant or a yearly increment 
under an ongoing 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 is 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 
prior Institute approval.
    The same standard applies to continuation and ongoing 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 grant 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 to satisfy 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

[[Page 44477]]

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 1999 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 
or 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. Rich Hobson, Administrative Director of the Courts, 
Administrative Office of the Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, 
AL 36104, (334) 242-0825
Ms. Stephanie J. Cole, Administrative Director of the Courts, Alaska 
Court System, 303 K Street, Anchorage, AK 99501, (907) 264-0547
Mr. Eliu F. Paopao, Court Administrator, High Court of American 
Samoa, P.O. Box 309, Pago Pago, AS 96799, 011 (684) 633-1150
Mr. David K. Byers, Administrative Director of the Courts, Supreme 
Court of Arizona, 1501 West Washington Street, Suite 411, Phoenix, 
AZ 85007, (602) 542-9301
Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, Supreme Court of Arkansas, Justice Building, Little Rock, AR 
72201, (501) 682-9400
Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 
94102, (415) 865-4235
Honorable Gerald (Jerry) A. Marroney, State Court Administrator, 
Office of the State Court Administrator, Colorado Judicial 
Department, 1301 Pennsylvania Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80203, 
(303) 837-3668
Honorable Joseph H. Pellegrino, Chief Court Administrator, Supreme 
Court of Connecticut, 231 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106, (860) 
757-2100
Dennis B. Jones, State Court Administrator, Administrative Office of 
the Courts, 820 N. French Street, 11th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801, 
(302) 577-8271
Ms. Anne B. Wicks, Executive Officer, District of Columbia Courts, 
500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 1500, Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 
879-1700,
State Courts Administrator, Florida Supreme Court Building, 500 
South Duval Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900, (850) 922-5081
Mr. David L. Ratley, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, 
244 Washington Street, S.W., Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30334, (404) 
656-5171
Mr. Daniel J. Tydingco, Executive Officer, Supreme Court of Guam, 
Guam Judicial Center, 120 West O'Brien Drive, Hagatna, Guam 96910-
5174, 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 (Zip Code 83702), Post Office 
Box 83720, Boise, ID 83720-0101, (208) 334-2246,
Mr. Joseph A. Schillaci, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Illinois Courts, 222 N. LaSalle Street, 13th Floor, Chicago, IL 
60601, (312) 793-3250
Ms. Lilia G. Judson, Executive Director, Division of State Court 
Administration, Indiana Supreme Court, 115 W. Washington, Suite 
1080, Indianapolis, IN 46204-3417, (317) 232-2542
Mr. William J. O'Brien, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Iowa, State House, Des Moines, IA 50319, (515) 281-5241
Dr. Howard P. Schwartz, Judicial Administrator, Kansas Judicial 
Center, 301 S.W. Tenth Street, Topeka, KS 66612, (785) 296-4873
Ms. Cicely Jaracz Lambert, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, 100 Millcreek Park, Frankfort, KY 40601, (502) 573-2350
Dr. Hugh M. Collins, Judicial Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Louisiana, 1555 Poydras Street, Suite 1540, New Orleans, LA 70112-
3701, (504) 568-5747
Mr. James T. Glessner, State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 4820, 62 Elm Street, Portland, ME 
04112-4820, (207) 822-0792
Mr. Frank Broccolina, State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts, Maryland Judicial Center, 580 Taylor Avenue, 
Annapolis, MD 21401, (410) 260-1290
Honorable Barbara A. Dortch-Okara, Chief Justice for Administration 
and Management, Administrative Office of the Trial Courts, Two 
Center Plaza, Fifth Floor, Room 540, Boston, MA 02108, (617) 742-
8575
Mr. John D. Ferry, Jr., State Court Administrator, State Court 
Administrative Office, 309 N. Washington Square, P.O. Box 30048, 
Lansing, MI 48909, (517) 373-2222
Ms. Sue K. Dosal, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Minnesota, 135 Minnesota Judicial Center, 25 Constitution Avenue, 
St. Paul, MN 55155, (651) 296-2474
Mr. Stephen J. Kirchmayr, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, 450 High Street, 4th Floor, Gartin Building (Zip Code 
39201), P.O. Box 117, Jackson, MS 39205-0117, (601) 359-3697
Mr. Michael L. Buenger, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Missouri, P.O. Box 104480, Jefferson City, MO 65110, (573) 751-4377
Ms. Lisa D. Smith, Acting Supreme Court Administrator, Supreme Court 
of Montana, 215 North Sanders, Room 315, Post Office Box 203002, 
Helena, MT 59620, (406) 444-2621
Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts/Probation, State Capitol Building, Room 1220, 
Post Office Box 98910, Lincoln, NE 68509-8910, (404) 471-3730
Ms. Karen Kavanau, State Court Administrator, Administrative Office 
of the Courts, Supreme Court Building, 201 South Carson Street, 
Suite 250, Carson City, NV 89701-4702, (775) 684-1717
Mr. Donald Goodnow, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, 
Two Noble Drive, Concord, NH 03301, (603) 271-2521
Honorable Richard J. Williams, Administrative Director, 
Administrative Office of the Courts, Post Office Box 037 RJH Justice 
Complex, 25 Market Street, Trenton, NJ 08625, (609) 292-1747
Mr. Michael Hall, Interim 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, New York 
State Unified Court System, Office of Court Administration, 25 
Beaver Street, New York, NY 10004, (212) 428-2100
Honorable Robert Hobgood, Director, North Carolina Administrative 
Office of the Courts, 2 East Morgan Street (Zip Code 27601), Post 
Office Box 2448, Raleigh, NC 27602, (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, Director of Courts, Supreme Court of the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guma Hustisia, First 
Floor, Susupe, Saipan, MP 96950, P.O. Box 502165, Saipan, MP 96950, 
(670) 236-9807
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, 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 97301-
2563, (503) 986-5500
Mr. Zygmont A. Pines, 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, Post Office Box 190917, San Juan, PR 00919-0917, 
(787) 641-6623

[[Page 44478]]

John Barrette, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Rhode 
Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, RI 02903, (401) 222-3263
Ms. Rosalyn Woodson Frierson, Director, South Carolina Court 
Administration, 1015 Sumter Street, Suite 200, Columbia, SC 29201, 
(803) 734-1800
Mr. D. J. Hanson, State Court Administrator, Unified Judicial 
System, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501-5070, (605) 773-
3474
Ms. Cornelia A. Clark, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, Tennessee Supreme Court, 511 Union Street, Suite 600, 
Nashville, TN 37219, (615) 741-2687
Mr. Jerry L. Benedict, Director, Office of Court Administration, Tom 
C. Clark State Courts Building, Post Office Box 12066 (Zip Code 
78711-2066), 205 West 14th Street, Suite 600, Austin, TX 78701, 
(512) 463-1625
Mr. Daniel Becker, State Court Administrator, 450 South State, Post 
Office Box 140241, 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. Glenda L. Lake, Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands, 
Alexander A. Farrelly Justice Center, P.O. Box 70, Charlotte Amalie, 
St. Thomas, VI 00804, (340) 774-6680
Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Virginia, 100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor, Richmond, VA 23219, 
(804) 786-6455
Ms. Mary Campbell McQueen, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court 
of Washington, Temple of Justice, P.O. Box 41174, Olympia, WA 98504-
1174, (360) 357-2120
Ms. Barbara H. Allen, Administrative Director, West Virginia Supreme 
Court of Appeals, Building 1, Room E-100, State Capitol, 1900 
Kanawha Boulevard East, Charleston, WV 25305, (304) 558-0145
Mr. J. Denis Moran, Director of State Courts, 119 Martin Luther King 
Jr. Blvd., Room LL2 (Zip Code 53703), P.O. Box 1688, Madison, WI 
53701-1688b, (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 Court Libraries, 
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, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, Supreme Court of Arkansas, Justice Building, Little Rock, AR 
72201, (501) 682-9400

California

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. William C. Vickrey, Administrative Director of the Courts, 
Administrative Office of the Courts, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, 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, State Librarian, Connecticut State Library, 
231 Capital Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106, (860) 566-2516

Delaware

Administrative Office of the Courts

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

District of Columbia

Executive Office, District of Columbia Courts

Ms. Anne B. Wicks, Executive Officer, District of Columbia Courts, 
500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 1500, Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 
879-1700

Florida

Administrative Office of the Courts

Dee Beranek, Deputy State Courts Administrator, Florida Supreme 
Court Building, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900, 
(850) 922-5081

Georgia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Ms. Terry Cobb, Administrative Assistant to the 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

Mr. 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, Office of the State Court Administrator, State Capital 
Building, Des Moines, IA 50319-0001, (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. Marge Jones, State Law Librarian, State Law Library, State 
Capital, Room 200-A, 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

[[Page 44479]]

Michigan

Michigan Judicial Institute

Mr. Kevin Bowling, Director, Michigan Judicial Institute, 222 
Washington Square North, P.O. Box 30205, Lansing, MI 48909, (517) 
334-7805

Minnesota

State Law Library (Minnesota Judicial Center)

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

Mississippi

Mississippi Judicial College

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

Montana

State Law Library

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

Nebraska

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court Administrator, Administrative 
Office of the Courts/Probation, State Capitol Building, Room 1220, 
Post Office Box 98910, Lincoln, NE 68509-8910, (402) 471-3730

Nevada

National Judicial College

Mr. Randy Snyder, Law Librarian, National Judicial College, Judicial 
College Building, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89550, (775) 784-
6747

New Jersey

New Jersey State Library

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

New Mexico

Supreme Court Library

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

New York

Supreme Court Library

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

North Carolina

Supreme Court Library

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

North Dakota

Supreme Court Library

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

Northern Mariana Islands

Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands

Honorable Miguel Sablan Demapan, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, P.O. Box 2165 CK, 
Saipan, MP 96950, (670) 236-9700

Ohio

Supreme Court Library

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

Oklahoma

Administrative Office of the Courts

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

Oregon

Administrative Office of the Courts

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

Pennsylvania

State Library of Pennsylvania

Ms. Kathy Hale, 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, 
PR 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

South Dakota

State Law Library

Librarian, 500 East Capitol, Pierre, South Dakota 57501, (605) 773-
4898

Tennessee

Tennessee State Law Library

Honorable Cornelia A. Clark, Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts, Tennessee Supreme Court, 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, 
Administrative Office of the Courts, 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, 100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor, Richmond, VA 23219, 
(804) 786-6455

Washington

Washington State Law Library

Ms. Deborah Norwood, State Law Librarian, Washington State Law 
Library, Temple of Justice, P.O. Box 40751, Olympia, WA 98504-0751, 
(360) 357-2136

West Virginia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Ms. Kathleen Gross, Deputy Director of Judicial Education, West 
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, State Capitol, 1900 Kanawha 
Boulevard East, Building 1, Room E-100, Charleston, WV 25305, (304) 
558-0145

Wisconsin

State Law Library

Ms. Jane Colwin, Director of Public Services, State Law Library, 310 
E. State Capitol, P.O. Box 7881, Madison, WI 53707, (608) 261-2340

Wyoming

Wyoming State Law Library

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

National

American Judicature Society

Ms. Clara Wells, Assistant for Information and Library Services, 180 
North Michigan Avenue, #600, Chicago, IL 60601, (312) 558-6900

[[Page 44480]]

National Center for State Courts

Ms. Peggy Rogers, Acquisitions/Serials Librarian, 300 Newport 
Avenue, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798, (757) 259-1857

JERITT

Dr. Maureen E. Conner, Executive Director, The JERITT Project, 1407 
S. Harrison, Suite 330 Nisbet, East Lansing, MI 48823-5239, (517) 
353-8603, (517) 432-3965 (fax), e-mail: [email protected], website: 
http://jeritt.msu.edu

Appendix E--Illustrative List of Technical Assistance Grants

    The following list presents examples of the types of technical 
assistance for which State and local courts can request Institute 
funding. Please check with the JERITT project (517/353-8603 or 
[email protected] for information about other SJI-supported technical 
assistance projects.

Application of Technology

Technology Plan (Office of the South Dakota State Court 
Administrator: SJI-99-066)

Children and Families in Court

Expanded Unified Family Court (Ventura County, CA, Superior Court: 
SJI-01-122)
Trial Court Performance Standards for the Unified Family Court of 
Delaware (Family Court of Delaware: SJI-98-205)

Court Planning, Management, and Financing

Job Classification and Pay Study of the New Hampshire Courts (New 
Hampshire Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI-98-011)
A Model for Building and Institutionalizing Judicial Branch 
Strategic Planning (12th Judicial Circuit, Sarasota, FL: SJI-98-266)
Strategic Planning (Fourth Judicial District Court, Hennepin County, 
MN: SJI-99-221)
Differentiated Case Management for the Improvement of Civil Case 
Processing in the Trial Courts of Texas (Texas Office of Court 
Administration: SJI-99-222)

Dispute Resolution and the Courts

Evaluating the New Mexico Court of Appeals Mediation Program (New 
Mexico Supreme Court: SJI-00-122)

Improving Public Confidence in the Courts

Mississippi Task Force on Gender Fairness in the Courts (Mississippi 
Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI-00-108)
Analysis of the Juror Debriefing Project (King County, WA, Superior 
Court: SJI-00-049)

Improving the Court's Response to Family Violence

New Hampshire Fatality Reviews (New Hampshire Administrative Office 
of the Courts: SJI-99-142)

Education and Training for Judges and Other Court Personnel

Iowa Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Branch Education 
(Iowa State Court Administrator's Office: SJI-01-200)

Appendix F--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 Judicial Branch Education 
Technical Assistance Grant. Please refer to section VII.E. for 
information on submitting a letter application for a Judicial Branch 
Education Technical Assistance Grant. A list of all SJI-supported 
education projects is available on the SJI web site (http://www.statejustice.org). Please also check with the JERITT project 
(517/353-8603 or http://jeritt.msu.edu) and 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)
Managing Mass Tort Cases (National Judicial College: SJI-94-141)
Employment Responsibilities of State Court Judges (National Judicial 
College: SJI-95-025)
Caseflow Management; Resources, Budget, and Finance; Visioning and 
Strategic Planning; Leadership; Purposes and Responsibilities of 
Courts; Information Management Technology; Human Resources 
Management; Education, Training, and Development; Public Information 
and the Media from ``NACM Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines'' 
(National Association for Court Management: SJI-96-148)
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 from ``Innovative Educational Programs for 
Judges and Court Managers'' (Justice Management Institute: SJI-98-
041)

Courts and Communities

Reporting on the Courts and the Law (American Judicature Society: 
SJI-88-014)
Victim Rights and the Judiciary: A Training and Implementation 
Project (National Organization for Victim Assistance: SJI-89-083)
National Guardianship Monitoring Project: Trainer and Trainee's 
Manual (American Association of Retired Persons: SJI-91-013)
Access to Justice: The Impartial Jury and the Justice System and 
When Implementing the Court-Related Needs of Older People and 
Persons with Disabilities: An Instructional Guide (National Judicial 
College: SJI-91-054)
You Are the Court System: A Focus on Customer Service (Alaska Court 
System: SJI-94-048)
Serving the Public: A Curriculum for Court Employees (American 
Judicature Society: SJI-96-040)
Courts and Their Communities: Local Planning and the Renewal of 
Public Trust and Confidence: A California Statewide Conference 
(California Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI-98-008)
Charting the Course of Public Trust and Confidence in Our Courts 
(Mid-Atlantic Association for Court Management: SJI-98-208)
Trial Court Judicial Leadership Program: Judges and Court 
Administrators Serving the Courts and Community (National Center for 
State Courts: SJI-98-268)
Public Trust and Confidence (Arizona Courts

[[Page 44481]]

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)
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)
Understanding Sexual Violence: The Judicial Response to Stranger and 
Nonstranger Rape and Sexual Assault (National Judicial Education 
Program: SJI-92-003, SJI-98-133 [video curriculum])
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 Branch 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; University 
of Memphis: SJI-01-202)

Orientation, Mentoring, and Continuing Professional Education 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)
Caseflow Management; Resources, Budget, and Finance; Visioning and 
Strategic Planning; Leadership; Purposes and Responsibilities of 
Courts; Information Management Technology; Human Resources 
Management; Education, Training, and Development; Public Information 
and the Media from ``NACM Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines'' 
(National Association for Court Management: SJI-96-148)
Innovative Approaches to Improving Competencies of General 
Jurisdiction Judges (National Judicial College: SJI-98-001)
Caseflow Management from ``Innovative Educational Programs for 
Judges and Court Managers'' (Justice Management Institute: SJI-98-
041

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)
Juvenile Justice at the Crossroads: Literature-Based Seminars for 
Judges, Court Personnel, and Community Leaders (Brandeis University: 
SJI-99-150)

Strategic and Futures Planning

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

Substance Abuse

Effective Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders: A Review & 
Synthesis for Judges and Court Personnel (Education Development 
Center, Inc.: SJI-90-051)
Good Times, Bad Times: Drugs, Youth, and the Judiciary (Professional 
Development and Training Center, Inc.: SJI-91-095)
Gaining Momentum: A Model Curriculum for Drug Courts (Florida Office 
of the State Courts Administrator: SJI-94-291)
Judicial Response to Substance Abuse: Children, Adolescents, and 
Families (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI-
95-030)
BILLING CODE-6820-SC-P

[[Page 44482]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23AU01.001


[[Page 44483]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23AU01.002


[[Page 44484]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23AU01.003


[[Page 44485]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23AU01.004


[[Page 44486]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23AU01.005


[[Page 44487]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23AU01.006

[FR Doc. 01-21174 Filed 8-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-C