[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57556-57602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-24592]



[[Page 57555]]

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

Part III





State Justice Institute





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



Grant Guideline; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2003 / 
Notices  

[[Page 57556]]


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

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 2004 State Justice 
Institute grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.

DATES: The Institute invites public comment on the Guideline until 
November 3, 2003.

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

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

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

Types of Grants Available and Funding Schedules

    SJI proposes to offer five types of grants in FY 2004: Project 
Grants, Technical Assistance (TA) Grants, Judicial Branch Education 
Technical Assistance (JBE TA) grants, Continuation Grants, and 
Scholarships.
    Project Grants. Project Grants are awarded to support innovative 
education, research, demonstration, and technical assistance projects 
that can improve the administration of justice in State courts 
nationwide. As provided in section V.C. of the Guideline, Project 
Grants may ordinarily not exceed $150,000 a year; however, grants in 
excess of $100,000 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 court processes or 
judicial administration. ``Think pieces'' are limited to no more than 
$10,000. See section II.B.
    Special Interest Categories. Project Grants, including ``think 
piece'' grants, would be awarded only for projects that fall within one 
of the Guideline's five Special Interest categories: Access to the 
Courts, Application of Technology in the Courts, Children and Families 
in Court, Judicial Branch Education, and the Relationship Between State 
and Federal Courts. These are the same categories included in last 
year's Guideline; however, specific topics of interest within each 
category have been changed.
    The deadline for submitting a Project Grant application is February 
13, 2004. The Board of Directors will meet in early May 2004 to approve 
grant awards. See section VI.A. for Project Grant application 
procedures.
    Technical Assistance Grants. Section II.D. reserves up to $200,000 
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 by September 26, 
2003 will be notified of the Board's decision by December 5, 2003. 
Those submitting letters between September 27, 2003 and January 9, 2004 
will be notified by April 2, 2004; those submitting letters between 
January 10 and February 27, 2004 will be notified by June 11, 2004; 
those submitting letters between February 28 and June 4, 2004 will be 
notified by August 27, 2004; and those submitting letters between June 
5 and September 24, 2004 will be notified of the Board's decision by 
December 10, 2004. See section VI.D. for Technical Assistance Grant 
application procedures.
    Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants. Up to 
$150,000 would be allocated for grants under the JBE TA grant program 
this year. Grants of up to $20,000 would be available 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 maintaining judicial branch education 
programming during the current budget crisis, or development of 
improved methods for evaluating judicial branch education programs. 
Letters requesting JBE TA Grants may be submitted at any time. The 
grant cycles for JBE TA Grants are the same as the grant cycles for TA 
Grants:
    Applicants submitting letters by September 26, 2003 will be 
notified of the Board's decision by December 5, 2003. Those submitting 
letters between September 27, 2003 and January 9, 2004 will be notified 
by April 2, 2004; those submitting letters between January 10 and 
February 27, 2004 will be notified by June 11, 2004; those submitting 
letters between February 28 and June 4, 2004 will be notified by August 
27, 2004; and those submitting letters between June 5 and September 24, 
2004 will be notified of the Board's decision by December 10, 2004. See 
section VI.E. for JBE TA Grant application procedures.
    Scholarships. The Guideline allocates up to $150,000 of FY 2004 
funds for scholarships to enable judges and court managers to attend 
out-of-State education and training programs.
    Scholarships for eligible applicants are approved largely on a 
``first come, first served'' basis, although the Institute may approve 
or disapprove scholarship requests in order to achieve appropriate 
balances on the basis of geography, program provider, and type of court 
or applicant (e.g., trial judge, appellate judge, 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.A.); (2) enhance the skills of judges and court 
managers; or (3) are part of a graduate degree program for judges or 
court personnel.
    Applicants interested in obtaining a scholarship for a program 
beginning between January 1 and March 31, 2004 must submit their 
applications and documents between October 6 and December 1, 2003. 
Applicants who wish to attend programs beginning between April 1 and 
June 30, 2004 must submit their applications and documents between 
January 5 and March 1, 2004. For programs beginning between July 1 and 
September 30, 2004, the applications and documents must be submitted 
between April 5 and May 31, 2004. For programs beginning between 
October 1 and December 31, 2004, the applications and documents must be 
submitted between July 6 and August 30, 2004. For programs beginning 
between January 1 and March 31, 2005, the applications and documents 
must be submitted between October 4 and November 29, 2004. See section 
VI.F. for Scholarship application procedures.
    Continuation Grants. Continuation Grants (see sections III.D., 
V.B.2., and VI.C.) are intended to enhance the specific program or 
service begun

[[Page 57557]]

during the initial project grant period. The Guideline establishes a 
firm limit for Continuation Grants of 20% of the total amount projected 
to be available for all Project Grants in FY 2004. Grantees should 
accordingly be aware that the award of a grant to support a project 
does not constitute a commitment to provide continuation funding. Under 
the Proposed Guideline, no grant awarded in FY 2004 would be continued 
for more than five years.
    An applicant for a Continuation 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 Continuation 
Grant application.

Matching Requirements

    With the exception of JBE TA grantees, grantees that can 
demonstrate a financial hardship, and Scholarship recipients, the 
Guideline proposes that all grantees must provide match, including cash 
match, for any Institute grant. The matching requirements are 
summarized below:
    State and local units of government. The Guideline would require 
these grantees to provide matching support equal to 50% of a new SJI-
funded project. For example, if a State court system receives a 
$100,000 grant from the Institute, it would be required to provide a 
$50,000 match. A State or local unit of government would have to 
provide at least 20% of the required match for a new grant ($10,000 in 
the example) in the form of cash rather than in-kind support (e.g., the 
value of staff time contributed to the project).
    All other grantees. The Guideline would require all other grantees 
to contribute a match of 25% to a new SJI-funded project. For example, 
if a non-profit organization receives a $100,000 grant from SJI, it 
would be required to provide a $25,000 match. A non-profit would have 
to provide at least 10% of the required match for a new grant ($2,500 
in the example) in the form of cash.
    The amount and nature of unrequired match contributed by applicants 
would continue to be factors the Board of Directors considers in making 
grant decisions. Like last year, applicants may request a waiver of the 
match requirement, the cash match requirement, or both. See section 
VIII.A.8.c.
    Continuation Grants. Under section VIII.A.8., all grantees would be 
required to assume a greater share of project support over time. State 
and local units of government would be required to provide match 
equaling at least 50% of the amount provided by SJI in the first year 
of the project, 60% in the second year, 75% in the third year, 90% in 
the fourth year, and 100% in the fifth year. For example, if SJI awards 
a State court $100,000 for the first year of a grant, the court would 
be required to provide $50,000 in match. If the second-year grant is 
also $100,000, the court would be required to provide $60,000 in match. 
A court that wished to limit its second-year contribution to $50,000 
could ask SJI for a reduced amount, i.e., $83,333, in order to meet the 
60% requirement.
    All other grantees would be required to provide match equaling at 
least 25% of the amount provided by SJI in the first year of the 
project, 30% in the second year, 37.5% in the third year, 45% in the 
fourth year, and 50% in the fifth year. For example, if SJI awards a 
non-profit organization $100,000 for the first year of a grant, the 
organization would be required to provide $25,000 in match. If the 
second year grant is also $100,000, the court would be required to 
provide $30,000 in match. An organization that wished to limit its 
second-year contribution to $25,000 could ask SJI for a reduced amount, 
i.e., $83,333, in order to meet the 30% requirement.
    Absent extraordinary circumstances, no SJI grant awarded in FY 2004 
would continue for more than five years.

Solutions Project

    In FY 2003, the Institute allocated approximately $800,000 to 
support the Solutions Project, a process that will draw on State and 
local court initiatives to identify and exchange promising solutions to 
the most critical problems facing the courts, and define a national 
agenda to improve the quality of justice in State courts nationwide.
    Nearly $400,000 of the allocation was awarded in amounts up to 
$20,000 to 20 States. A list of the States receiving those grants and a 
description of their projects may be found on the Institute's web site 
(www.statejustice.org). The remaining FY 2003 money, and an additional 
$400,000 of FY 2004 money, is reserved for the National Solutions 
Project that will be carried out under a cooperative agreement among 
SJI, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), and the Center for 
Effective Public Policy (CEPP). The Board of Directors has approved 
planning grants to both organizations and anticipates making the next 
awards to carry out the national aspects of the Project at its meeting 
in early November.

Issues Highlighted for Public Comment

    The Proposed Guideline would make four significant changes from 
last year's grant program. Three of those changes would reduce the 
allocations reserved for the Institute's three small grant programs: 
JBE TA Grants, Technical Assistance Grants, and Scholarships. In order 
to make the most money possible available for Project Grants, which are 
designed to have nationwide impact, the Institute would reduce the pool 
of money available for JBE TA Grants from $300,000 to $150,000; the 
pool available for Technical Assistance Grants from $300,000 to 
$200,000; and the amount available for scholarships from $200,000 to 
$150,000. The reduced amounts to be reserved for each program in FY 
2004 still exceed the amounts awarded under each program in FY 2003.
    In addition, the Proposed Guideline would not require recipients of 
JBE TA Grants to provide cash match. The Board of Directors recognizes 
that the serious budget problems affecting State courts nationwide have 
sharply reduced the amount of State funds available for judicial branch 
education. The Board hopes that, by eliminating the cash match 
requirement for JBE TA grants, more States will seek these grants next 
fiscal year.

Recommendations to Grantwriters

    Recommendations to Grantwriters may be found in Appendix A.
    The State Justice Institute proposes the following Grant Guideline 
for FY 2004:

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. Applications
VII. Application Review Procedures
VIII. Compliance Requirements
IX. Financial Requirements
X. Grant Adjustments
Appendix A Recommendations to Grant Writers
Appendix B Answers to Grantees' Frequently Asked Questions
Appendix C SJI Libraries: Designated Sites and Contacts
Appendix D Illustrative List of Technical Assistance Grants
Appendix E Illustrative List of Model Curricula
Appendix F Project Grant Application Forms (Forms A, B, C, C1, D, 
and Disclosure of Lobbying Activities)
Appendix G Line-Item Budget Form (Form E)
Appendix H Scholarship Application Forms (Forms S1 and S2)

[[Page 57558]]

I. The Mission of the State Justice Institute

    The Institute was established by Public Law 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:
    [sbull] 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;
    [sbull] Foster coordination and cooperation with the Federal 
judiciary;
    [sbull] Promote recognition of the importance of the separation of 
powers doctrine to an independent judiciary; and
    [sbull] 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, with the consent of the Senate. The Board 
is statutorily composed of six judges, a State court administrator, and 
four members of the public, no more than two of whom can be of the same 
political party.
    Through the award of grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements, 
the Institute is authorized to perform the following activities:
    A. Support research, demonstrations, special projects, technical 
assistance, and training to improve the administration of justice in 
the State courts;
    B. Provide for the preparation, publication, and dissemination of 
information regarding State judicial systems;
    C. Participate in joint projects with Federal agencies and other 
private grantors;
    D. Evaluate or provide for the evaluation of programs and projects 
funded by the Institute to determine their impact upon the quality of 
criminal, civil, and juvenile justice and the extent to which they have 
contributed to improving the quality of justice in the State courts;
    E. Encourage and assist in furthering judicial education;
    F. Encourage, assist, and serve in a consulting capacity to State 
and local justice system agencies in the development, maintenance, and 
coordination of criminal, civil, and juvenile justice programs and 
services; and
    G. Be responsible for the certification of national programs that 
are intended to aid and improve State judicial systems.

II. Scope of the Program

    As set forth in section I., the Institute is authorized to fund 
projects addressing a broad range of program areas. However, during FY 
2004, the Institute will consider applications for funding support that 
address only the topics included in the following five program 
categories designated by the Board as being of special interest. Funds 
will not be made available for the ordinary, routine operation of court 
systems or programs in any of these areas.

A. Special Interest Program Categories

    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:
    [sbull] Formulate new procedures and techniques, or creatively 
enhance existing procedures and techniques;
    [sbull] Address aspects of the State judicial systems that are in 
special need of serious attention;
    [sbull] Have national significance by developing products, 
services, and techniques that may be used in other States; and
    [sbull] 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 it falls within the scope 
of the Special Interest program categories designated below.
    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.
1. Access to 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.
    The Institute is particularly interested in supporting innovative 
projects that:
    [sbull] Test and evaluate approaches permitting self-represented 
litigants to file pleadings, responses, and other forms electronically;
    [sbull] Test and evaluate new approaches 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 (in this regard, 
however, Institute funds may not be used to directly or indirectly 
support legal representation of individuals in specific cases); and
    [sbull] Develop and test a range of strategies, methodologies, 
guidelines, and outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of 
programs established to assist people without lawyers.
2. Application of Technology in the Courts
    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 
in the courts.
    The Institute is particularly interested in supporting efforts to 
test and evaluate technologies that would:
    [sbull] Test and evaluate approaches permitting self-represented 
litigants to file pleadings, responses, and other forms electronically;
    [sbull] Demonstrate and evaluate the delivery of technology to 
rural courts through an Internet-based ``application service provider'' 
approach;
    [sbull] Evaluate approaches for electronically filing pleadings, 
briefs,

[[Page 57559]]

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;
    [sbull] 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;
    [sbull] Demonstrate and evaluate the use of expert system 
technology to assist judicial decision-making; and
    [sbull] Evaluate innovative applications of technology designed to 
ensure the safety of all who use and work in the courts.
3. 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:
    [sbull] Test and evaluate different approaches to managing and 
adjudicating domestic violence cases, including domestic violence 
courts; integrated case management information systems; collaborations 
among courts, law enforcement agencies, social service agencies, 
women's shelters, victims support and advocacy organizations, and 
others; and other innovative practices intended to improve the courts' 
response to domestic violence.
    [sbull] Demonstrate and evaluate innovative approaches to manage 
and coordinate cases and proceedings involving multiple members of the 
same family;
    [sbull] 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;
    [sbull] 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;
    [sbull] 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;
    [sbull] Develop and test the implementation of a differentiated 
case management system for handling child custody disputes;
    [sbull] 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 attorneys, victim advocates, doctors, and social 
services providers;
    [sbull] 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; and
    [sbull] 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.
    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.)
4. Judicial Branch Education
    The Institute is interested in supporting 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 three subsections: (a) Innovative Educational Programs; 
(b) Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Projects; and (c) 
Scholarships.
    a. 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.E.
    The Institute is particularly interested in supporting the 
development of programs that:
    [sbull] Educate judges and court personnel about how to design and 
sustain problem-solving courts;
    [sbull] 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;
    [sbull] 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; and
    [sbull] 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.
    b. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Projects. The 
Board is reserving up to $150,000 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) in FY 2004 are to:
    (1) Provide State and local courts with the opportunity to access 
expert strategic assistance to enable them to maintain judicial branch 
education programming during the current budget crisis; and
    (2) 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 E.
    Only State or local courts may apply for JBE TA funding. 
Application procedures may be found in section VI.E. State and local 
courts are not required to contribute cash match to JBE TA grants.
    c. Scholarships for Judges and Court Managers. The Institute is 
reserving up to $150,000 to support a scholarship program for State 
judges and court managers. The purposes of the scholarship program are 
to:
    [sbull] Enhance the skills, knowledge, and abilities of judges and 
court managers;
    [sbull] Enable State court judges and court managers to attend out-
of-State

[[Page 57560]]

educational programs sponsored by national and State providers that 
they could not otherwise attend because of limited State, local, and 
personal budgets; and
    [sbull] 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 VI.F.
5. The Relationship Between State and Federal Courts
    This category includes education, research, demonstration, and 
evaluation projects designed to facilitate appropriate and effective 
communication, cooperation, and coordination between State and Federal 
courts.
    The Institute is particularly interested in innovative projects 
that:
    [sbull] Evaluate State and Federal courts' experiences with capital 
cases to identify reasons for reversals of trial court convictions, 
barriers to timely disposition, and steps that can be taken to minimize 
reversals and undue delay;
    [sbull] Educate judges about capital case law, DNA evidence, and 
judicial administration issues arising from death penalty cases, e.g., 
court security, jury sequestration, and media management;
    [sbull] Establish standards for selecting qualified appointed 
defense counsel in capital cases, and evaluating different appointment 
approaches;
    [sbull] Support commissions that involve members of the judiciary 
in reviewing and remedying errors that led to wrongful convictions in 
death penalty cases;
    [sbull] Coordinate and process mass tort cases fairly and 
efficiently at the trial and appellate levels;
    [sbull] Provide assistance to courts in developing plans to 
continue operations in the wake of a catastrophic incident, including 
establishing lines of succession; and
    [sbull] Develop effective emergency responses to acts of terrorism.

B. ``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 explained in section VI.B. of 
this Guideline.
    Think piece topics are limited to the five Special Interest 
categories listed in section II.A. of this Guideline. In particular, 
the Institute is interested in supporting the development of essays on:
    [sbull] Issues related to the institutionalization and maintenance 
of drug and other problem-solving courts, e.g., maintaining budgets in 
fiscally constrained times, finding new sources of money, identifying 
and selecting new judges while still maintaining the focus of the court 
and enthusiasm for the concept;
    [sbull] What the courts have learned from problem-solving 
approaches that can be applied throughout the court system to enhance 
public trust and confidence; and
    [sbull] The advantages, disadvantages, and appropriate use of 
anonymous juries.

C. The Solutions Project

    The Solutions Project is a process intended to infuse the State 
courts with the ability to develop innovative and creative ways to 
address the problems they face and provide a mechanism to transfer 
these ideas throughout the nation. In addition to providing State 
courts with an array of promising solutions to their most pressing 
problems, the Solutions Project will generate consensus on projects, 
ideas, and programs that merit additional Federal funding support 
because of their broad appeal and promise.
    In FY 2003, the Institute awarded close to $400,000 to support 
Solutions Project grants in 20 States. The grants support events and 
activities such as town hall meetings, focus groups, surveys, and other 
initiatives designed to (a) collect information about the problems 
facing the courts in a particular State, (b) assess the effectiveness 
of the solutions the court system has developed to respond to those 
problems, and (c) solicit the public's recommendations about other 
potential solutions.
    The Board of Directors also awarded planning grants to the National 
Center for State Courts and the Center for Effective Public Policy to 
design the tasks required to carry out the national aspects of the 
Project. The Institute has reserved up to $400,000 in FY 03 funds and 
up to $400,000 in FY 04 funds to support the national phase of The 
Solutions Project. Visit the SJI Web site (www.statejustice.org) for 
continuing updates on the Project.

D. Technical Assistance Grants

    The Board will set aside up to $200,000 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. 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 VI.D.

III. Definitions

    The following definitions apply for the purposes of this Guideline:

A. 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 VIII.A.11.a.(2) for 
the precise wording of the statement.

B. Application

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

[[Page 57561]]

C. 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.

D. 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 VI.C. for a complete description of continuation application 
requirements.

E. 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.

F. 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.

G. Disclaimer

    A brief statement that must be included at the beginning of a 
document or in the opening frames of a videotape produced with 
Institute support 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 VIII.A.11.a.(2) for the 
precise wording of this statement.

H. 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 X.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.

I. 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.

J. 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.

K. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance (JBE TA) 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. See section VI.E. for a complete 
description of JBE TA Grant application requirements.

L. Match

    The portion of project costs not borne by the Institute. Match 
includes both in-kind and cash contributions. Cash match is the direct 
outlay of funds by the grantee to support the project. Examples of cash 
match are the dedication of funds to support a new employee or purchase 
new equipment to carry out the project; that portion of the grantee's 
Federally approved indirect cost rate that exceeds the Guideline's 
limit of permitted charges (75% of salaries and benefits); any other 
reduction in the indirect cost rate to be charged to the grant; and the 
application of project income (e.g., tuition or the proceeds of sales 
of grant products) generated during the grant period to grant costs.
    In-kind match consists of contributions of time and/or services of 
current staff members, 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 the 
time of participants attending an education program.
    See section VIII.A.8. for the Institute's matching requirements.

M. 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.

N. 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 $150,000 a year; 
however, a grant in excess of $100,000 is likely to be rare and awarded 
only to support highly promising projects that will have a significant 
national impact. See section VI.A. for a complete description of 
Project Grant application requirements.

O. Project-Related Income

    Interest, royalties, registration and tuition fees, proceeds from 
the sale of products, and other earnings generated as a result of an 
Institute grant. Registration and tuition fees, and proceeds from the 
sale of products generated during the grant period may be counted as 
match. For a more complete description of different types of project-
related income, see section IX.G.

P. 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 VI.F. 
for a complete description of scholarship application requirements.

Q. Special Condition

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

R. 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

[[Page 57562]]

Court also includes the office of the court or council, if any, it 
designates to perform the functions described in this Guideline.

S. Subgrantee

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

T. 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 VI.D. for a complete description of technical assistance grant 
application requirements.

IV. Eligibility for Award

    The Institute is authorized by Congress to award grants, 
cooperative agreements, and contracts to the following entities and 
types of organizations:
    A. State and local courts and their agencies (42 
U.S.C.10705(b)(1)(A)). Each application for funding from a State or 
local court must be approved, consistent with State law, by the State's 
Supreme Court or its designated agency or council. The latter shall 
receive all Institute funds awarded to such courts and be responsible 
for assuring proper administration of Institute funds, in accordance 
with section IX.C.2. of this Guideline.
    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
    d. private agencies with expertise in judicial administration.
    2. The Institute may also make awards to 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.A. and B., and VI.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.D. and VI.C. In FY 2004, the Institute is 
allocating no more than 20% of available Project Grant funds for 
continuation grants.
3. Technical Assistance Grants
    See sections II.D. and VI.D. In FY 2004, the Institute is reserving 
up to $200,000 for these grants.
4. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants
    See sections II.A.4.b., III.K., and VI.E. In FY 2004, the Institute 
is reserving up to $150,000 for Judicial Branch Education Technical 
Assistance Grants, which includes adaptations of curricula previously 
developed with SJI funding.
5. Scholarships
    See sections II.A.4.c., III.P., and VI.F. In FY 2004, the Institute 
is reserving up to $150,000 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 $150,000 for 
15 months, although new and continuation awards in excess of $100,000 
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 Technical Assistance Grants may request funding 
in amounts up to $30,000.
    3. Applicants for Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance 
Grants may request funding in amounts up to $20,000.
    4. 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. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no grant 
will continue for more than five years.
    2. Grant periods for Technical Assistance Grants and Judicial 
Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants ordinarily may not exceed 
12 months.

VI. Applications

A. Project Grants

    An application for a Project Grant must include an application 
form; budget forms (with appropriate documentation); a project abstract 
and program narrative; a disclosure of lobbying form, when applicable; 
and certain certifications and assurances (see below). See appendix F 
for the Project Grant application forms. 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.
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

[[Page 57563]]

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 the Institute approved funding for the project, 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 VI.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 
VIII.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.A.).
    c. Need for the Project. If the project is to be conducted in any 
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 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 
programs, procedures, services, or other resources cannot adequately 
resolve those problems. The discussion should include specific 
references to the relevant literature and to the experience in the 
field.
    d. Tasks, Methods and Evaluation. (1) Tasks and Methods. The 
applicant should delineate the tasks to be performed in achieving the 
project objectives and the methods to be used for accomplishing each 
task. For example:
    (a) For research and evaluation projects, the applicant should 
include the data sources, data collection strategies, variables to be 
examined, and analytic procedures to be used for conducting the 
research or evaluation and ensuring the validity and general 
applicability of the results. For projects involving human subjects, 
the discussion of methods should address the procedures for obtaining 
respondents' informed consent, ensuring the respondents' privacy and 
freedom from risk or harm, and protecting others who are not the 
subjects of research but would be affected by the research. If the 
potential exists for risk or harm to 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 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.

[[Page 57564]]

    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 protecting others who are not the subjects of the evaluation 
but would be affected by it. Other than the provision of 
confidentiality to respondents, human subject protection issues 
ordinarily are not applicable to participants evaluating an education 
program.
    e. Project Management. The applicant should present a detailed 
management plan, including the starting and completion date for each 
task; the time commitments to the project of key staff and their 
responsibilities regarding each project task; and the procedures that 
would ensure that all tasks are performed on time, within budget, and 
at the highest level of quality. In preparing the project time line, 
Gantt Chart, or schedule, applicants should make certain that all 
project activities, including publication or reproduction of project 
products and their initial dissemination, would occur within the 
proposed project period. The management plan must also provide for the 
submission of Quarterly Progress and Financial Reports within 30 days 
after the close of each calendar quarter (i.e., no later than January 
30, April 30, July 30, and October 30).
    Applicants should be aware that the Institute is unlikely to 
approve more than one limited extension of the grant period. Therefore, 
the management plan should be as realistic as possible and fully 
reflect the time commitments of the proposed project staff and 
consultants.
    f. Products. The program narrative in the application should 
contain a description of the products to be developed (e.g., training 
curricula and materials, videotapes, articles, manuals, or handbooks), 
including when they would be submitted to the Institute. The budget 
should include the cost of producing and disseminating the product to 
each in-State SJI library (See appendix C), 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 VIII.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 C.) 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).
    Fifteen (15) copies of all project products must be submitted to 
the Institute, along with an electronic version in .html or .pdf 
format.
    (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 VIII.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 Institute review of the product at the treatment, 
script, rough-cut, and final stages of

[[Page 57565]]

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 VIII.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 VIII.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 
three 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 financial aspects of the proposed project.
    i. Organizational Capacity. Applicants that have not received a 
grant from the Institute within the past three 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 three 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. See appendix F.
    k. Letters of Cooperation or Support. If the cooperation of courts, 
organizations, agencies, or individuals other than the applicant is 
required to conduct the project, the applicant should attach written 
assurances of cooperation and availability to the application, or send 
them under separate cover. To ensure sufficient time to bring them to 
the Board's attention, letters of support sent under separate cover 
must be received by March 15, 2004.
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 IX.I.2.c. 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. Honorarium payments must be justified in the same 
manner as consultant payments.
    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.

[[Page 57566]]

    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 of automated data processing 
equipment must comply with section IX.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 VIII.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. Recoverable indirect costs are limited to no 
more than 75% of a grantee's direct personnel costs (salaries plus 
fringe benefits). Grantees may apply unrecoverable indirect costs to 
meet their required matching contributions, including the required 
level of cash match. See sections III.L. and IX.I.4.
    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 
IX.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.
    1. Match. 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). At least 
20% of the required match for a new grant to a court or other unit of 
State or local government (other than a Judicial Branch Education 
Technical Assistance grant) must be cash. All other grantees (except 
scholarship recipients and individuals receiving ``think piece'' 
grants) must contribute a match of 25% to a new grant; at least 10% of 
the required match must be cash.
    The applicant should describe the source of the matching 
contribution and the nature of the match provided. Any additional cash 
and in-kind 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.L., VIII.A.8., 
and IX.E.1.)
    The Institute may waive the match and cash match requirements in 
certain circumstances. See section VIII.A.8.c.
5. Submission Requirements
    a. Every applicant must submit an original and four copies of the 
application package consisting of FORM A; FORM B, if the application is 
from a State or local court, or a Disclosure of Lobbying Form, if the 
applicant is not a unit of State or local government; the Budget Forms 
(either FORM C or C-1); the Application Abstract; the Program 
Narrative; the Budget Narrative; and any necessary appendices.
    All applications must be sent by first class or overnight mail or 
by courier no later than February 13, 2004. 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. ``Think Piece'' Applications

1. Purpose and Scope
    ``Think pieces'' are essays of publishable quality directed to the 
court community. They are intended to 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.
2. Forms
    An application for a ``think piece'' must include the same forms 
required for a project grant. See A.1. above in this section.
3. Program Narrative
    The program narrative 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:
    a. Identify the specific Special Interest category into which the 
``think piece'' would fall;
    b. describe the subject it would address;
    c. explain how the essay would advance the current state of the art 
or knowledge about the subject;
    d. discuss the benefits that would accrue to the State courts 
generally as a result of the essay's publication; and

[[Page 57567]]

    e. outline plans for the publication of the ``think piece,'' e.g., 
the intended audience, and the types or titles of periodicals or 
journals to which it would be submitted.
4. Budget and Budget Narrative
    The applicant should provide a complete budget and budget narrative 
conforming to the requirements set forth in A.4. above in this section; 
however, individuals proposing to develop ``think pieces'' are not 
required to provide match.
5. Submission Requirements
    The submission requirements set forth in section VI.A.5 apply to 
all ``think piece'' applications.

C. Continuation Grant Applications

1. Purpose
    Continuation grants are intended to support projects that carry out 
the same type of activities carried out under a previous grant. 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.
2. Limitations
    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. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no 
grant will continue for more than five years.
3. Letters of Intent
    A grantee seeking a continuation grant must inform the Institute, 
by letter, of its intent to submit an application for such funding as 
soon as the need for continued funding becomes apparent but no less 
than 120 days before the end of the current grant period.
    a. A letter of intent must be no more than 3 single-spaced pages on 
8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper and contain a concise but thorough explanation 
of the need for continuation; an estimate of the funds to be requested; 
and a brief description of anticipated changes in the scope, focus, or 
audience of the project.
    b. Within 30 days after receiving a letter of intent, Institute 
staff will review the proposed activities for the next project period 
and inform the grantee of specific issues to be addressed in the 
continuation application and the date by which the application must be 
submitted.
4. 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 
(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. See appendix F for the 
application forms.
    The program narrative should conform to the length and format 
requirements set forth in section VI.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.
5. Budget and Budget Narrative
    a. Institute Funds. The applicant should provide a complete budget 
and budget narrative conforming to the requirements set forth in 
VI.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.
    b. Matching Contribution.
    i. State and local units of government must provide match equaling 
at least 50% of the amount provided by the Institute in the first year 
of the project, 60% in the second year, 75% in the third year, 90% in 
the fourth year, and 100% in the fifth year.
    For example, if the Institute awards a State court $100,000 for the 
first year of a grant, the court would be required to provide $50,000 
in match. If the second-year grant is also $100,000, the court would be 
required to provide $60,000 in match. A State or local unit of 
government would have to provide at least 20% of the required match in 
the form of cash rather than in-kind support (e.g., the value of staff 
time contributed to the project).
    ii. All other grantees must provide match equaling at least 25% of 
the amount provided by the Institute in the first year of the project, 
30% in the second year, 37.5% in the third year, 45% in the fourth 
year, and 50% in the fifth year. For example, if the Institute awards a 
non-profit organization $100,000 for the first year of a grant, the 
organization would be required to provide $25,000 in match. If the 
second year grant is also $100,000, the court would be required to 
provide $30,000 in

[[Page 57568]]

match. A non-profit organization must provide at least 10% of the 
required match in the form of cash.
    iii. The Institute may waive the match and cash match requirements 
in certain circumstances. See section VIII.A.8.c.
6. 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.
7. Submission Requirements
    The submission requirements set forth in section VI.A.5., other 
than the mailing deadline, apply to continuation applications.

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 and 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 F) 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, Line-Item Budget Form (see appendix G), 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.
    As with other awards to State or local courts, match must be 
provided in an amount equal to at least 50% of the grant amount 
requested, and 20% of the match provided must be cash. The Institute 
may waive the match and cash match requirements in certain 
circumstances. See section VIII.A.8.c.
    Recipients of Technical Assistance Grants do not have to submit an 
audit but must maintain appropriate documentation to support 
expenditures. (See section VIII.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 by September 26, 2003 will be 
notified of the Board's decision by December 5, 2003. Those submitting 
letters between September 27, 2003 and January 9, 2004 will be notified 
of the Institute's decision by April 2, 2004; those submitting letters 
between January 10 and February 27, 2004 will be notified by June 11, 
2004; those submitting letters between February 28 and June 4, 2004 
will be notified by August 27, 2004; and those submitting letters 
between June 5 and September 24, 2004 will be notified by December 10, 
2004.
    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

[[Page 57569]]

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 15, 2003; and February 12, April 8, July 
2, and October 14, 2004).

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) The provision of 
expert strategic assistance designed to enable them to maintain 
judicial branch education programming during the current budget crisis; 
and/or (2) replication or modification of a model training program 
originally developed with Institute funds. Ordinarily, the Institute 
will support the adaptation of a curriculum once (i.e., with one grant) 
in a given State.
    JBE TA Grants may support consultant assistance in maintaining or 
developing systematic or innovative judicial branch educational 
programming. The assistance might include expert consultation in 
developing strategic plans to ensure the continued provision of 
judicial branch education programming despite fiscal constraints; 
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 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 and 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 F) 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? (Applicants may demonstrate this 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

[[Page 57570]]

or his or her designee. (See Form B, appendix F.)
4. Budget and Matching State Contribution
    Applicants should attach a copy of budget Form E (see appendix G) 
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, 
match must be provided in an amount equal to at least 50% of the grant 
amount requested. Recipients of JBE TA grants are not required to 
provide a cash match. The Institute may waive the match requirements in 
certain circumstances. See section VIII.A.8.c.
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 by September 26, 2003 will be 
notified of the Board's decision by December 5, 2003. Those submitting 
letters between September 27, 2003, and January 9, 2004 will be 
notified of the Institute's decision by April 2, 2004; those submitting 
letters between January 10 and February 27, 2004 will be notified by 
June 11, 2004; those submitting letters between March 1 and June 4, 
2004 will be notified by August 27, 2004; and those submitting letters 
between June 5 and September 24, 2004 will be notified by December 10, 
2004.
    For curriculum adaptation requests, applicants should allow at 
least 60 days between the notification deadline and the date of the 
proposed program to allow sufficient time for needed planning. For 
example, a court that plans to conduct an education program in June 
2004 should submit its application no later than January 9, 2004, in 
time for the Board's decision by April 2, 2004.

F. Scholarships

1. Purpose and Scope
    The purposes of the Institute scholarship program are to enhance 
the skills, knowledge, and abilities of judges and court managers; 
enable State court judges and court managers to attend out-of-State 
educational programs sponsored by national and State providers that 
they could not otherwise attend because of limited State, local, and 
personal budgets; and provide States, judicial educators, and the 
Institute with evaluative information on a range of judicial and court-
related education programs.
    Scholarships will be granted to individuals only for the purpose of 
attending an educational program in another State. An applicant may 
apply for a scholarship for only one educational program during any one 
application cycle.
    Scholarship funds may be used only to cover the costs of tuition 
and transportation expenses. Transportation expenses may include round-
trip coach airfare or train fare. Scholarship recipients are strongly 
encouraged to take advantage of excursion or other special airfares 
(e.g., reductions offered when a ticket is purchased 21 days in advance 
of the travel date) when making their travel arrangements. Recipients 
who drive to a program site may receive $.36/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 the 
applicant's request to attend 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, 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. The course must be designed to enhance the skills of new or 
experienced judges and court managers; address any of the topics listed 
in the Institute's Special Interest categories; or be 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 H). 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 H). 
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 H). 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 6 and December 1, 2003, for programs beginning between 
January 1 and March 31, 2004;
    January 5 and March 1, 2004 for programs beginning between April 1 
and June 30, 2004;
    April 5 and May 31, 2004 for programs beginning between July 1 and 
September 30, 2004;
    July 6 and August 30, 2004 for programs beginning between October 1 
and December 31, 2004; and

[[Page 57571]]

    October 4 and November 29, 2004 for programs beginning between 
January 1 and March 31, 2005.
    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.

VII. 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 Grant and Continuation Grant Applications
    a. All applications will be rated on the basis of the criteria set 
forth below. The Institute will accord the greatest weight to the 
following criteria:
    (1) The soundness of the methodology;
    (2) The demonstration of need for the project;
    (3) The appropriateness of the proposed evaluation design;
    (4) The applicant's management plan and organizational 
capabilities;
    (5) The qualifications of the project's staff;
    (6) The products and benefits resulting from the project, including 
the extent to which the project will have long-term benefits for State 
courts across the nation;
    (7) The degree to which the findings, procedures, training, 
technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other 
jurisdictions;
    (8) The reasonableness of the proposed budget;
    (9) The demonstration of cooperation and support of other agencies 
that may be affected by the project; and
    (10) The proposed project's relationship to one of the Special 
Interest categories set forth in section II.A.
    b. For continuation 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 section IV.); the availability of financial 
assistance from other sources for the project; the amount and nature 
(cash and 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 sent;
    b. The unavailability of State or local funds to cover the costs of 
attending the program or scholarship funds from another source;
    c. The absence of educational programs in the applicant's State 
addressing the topic(s) covered by the educational program for which 
the scholarship is being sought;
    d. Geographic balance among the recipients;
    e. The balance of scholarships among educational programs;
    f. The balance of scholarships among the types of courts 
represented; and
    g. The level of appropriations available to the Institute in the 
current year and the amount expected to be available in succeeding 
fiscal years.
    The postmark or courier receipt will be used to determine the date 
on which the application form and other required items were sent.

C. Review and Approval Process

1. Project and Continuation Grant Applications
    The Institute's Board of Directors will review the applications 
competitively. The Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary and 
a rating sheet assigning points for each relevant selection criterion 
for applications that fall within the scope of the Institute's grant 
program and merit serious consideration by the Board. The staff

[[Page 57572]]

will also prepare a list of those applications 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 staff will present the narrative 
summaries, rating sheets, and list of non-reviewed papers to the Board 
for its review. Board committees will review application summaries 
within assigned program areas and prepare recommendations for the full 
Board. The full Board of Directors will then decide which projects it 
will fund. The decision to fund a project is solely that of the Board 
of Directors.
    The Chairman of the Board will sign approved awards 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. A committee of the Board of Directors will review 
the applications competitively. 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.
    The Chairman of the Board will sign approved awards on behalf of 
the Institute.
3. Scholarships
    A committee of the Institute's Board of Directors will review 
Scholarship applications quarterly. The Board of Directors has 
delegated its authority to approve Scholarships to the committee 
established for the program.
    The Chairman of the Board will sign approved awards 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 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. The Institute will 
also notify the State court administrator when grants are approved by 
the Board to support projects that will be conducted by or involve 
courts in that State.
    2. 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 rescinded and 
the application presented to the Board for reconsideration.

VIII. 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 IX.K. of the Guideline for the requirements of 
such audits.) Scholarship recipients and recipients of Solutions 
Project State Court Information Collection Grants, Judicial Branch 
Education Technical Assistance Grants, and Technical Assistance Grants 
are not required to submit an audit, but they must maintain appropriate 
documentation to support all expenditures.
4. 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.
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,

[[Page 57573]]

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
    All grantees other than scholarship recipients and individuals who 
receive ``think piece'' grants are required to provide match. See 
section III.L. for the definition of match. The amount and nature of 
required match depends on the type of organization receiving the grant 
and the duration of the Institute's support.
    The grantee is responsible for ensuring that the total amount of 
match 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 IX.E.1.).
    The Board of Directors considers the amount and nature of 
unrequired match contributed by applicants in making grant decisions. 
Cash match and non-cash match may be provided, subject to the 
requirements of subsections a. and b. below.
    a. New Project Grants.
    (1) State and local units of government. All awards to courts or 
other units of State or local government (not including publicly 
supported institutions of higher education) require a match from 
private or public sources of not less than 50% of the total amount of 
the Institute's award. For example, if a State court or executive 
branch agency receives a $100,000 grant from the Institute, it must 
provide a $50,000 match (50% of the $100,000 awarded by SJI). With the 
exception of Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants, at 
least 20% of the required match for a new grant ($10,000 in the 
example) must be provided in the form of cash rather than in-kind 
support (e.g., the value of staff time contributed to the project).
    (2) All other grantees. All other grantees are required to 
contribute a match of 25% to a new SJI-funded project. For example, if 
a non-profit organization receives a $100,000 grant from SJI, it must 
provide a $25,000 match. A non-profit organization must provide at 
least 10% of the required match for a new grant ($2,500 in the example) 
in the form of cash.
    b. Continuation Grants. All grantees are required to assume a 
greater share of project support over time.
    (1) State and local units of government. State and local units of 
government are required to provide match equaling at least 50% of the 
amount provided by SJI in the first year of the project, 60% in the 
second year, 75% in the third year, 90% in the fourth year, and 100% in 
the fifth year. For example, if SJI awards a State court $100,000 for 
the first year of a grant, the court would be required to provide 
$50,000 in match. If the second-year grant is also $100,000, the court 
is required to provide $60,000 in match. A court that wishes to limit 
its second-year contribution to $50,000 may ask the Institute for a 
reduced amount, i.e., $83,333, in order to meet the 60% requirement.
    (1) All other grantees. All other grantees are required to provide 
match equaling at least 25% of the amount provided by the Institute in 
the first year of the project, 30% in the second year, 37.5% in the 
third year, 45% in the fourth year, and 50% in the fifth year. For 
example, if the Institute awards a non-profit organization $100,000 for 
the first year of a grant, the organization must provide $25,000 in 
match. If the second-year grant is also $100,000, the grantee is 
required to provide $30,000 in match. An organization that wishes to 
limit its second-year contribution to $25,000 may ask the Institute for 
a reduced amount, i.e., $83,333, in order to meet the 30% requirement.
    c. Waiver.
    (1) Match generally.
    (a) The match requirement for State and local units of government 
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).
    (b) The match requirement for all other grantees required to 
provide match may be waived in exceptionally rare circumstances upon 
the request of an appropriate official and approval by the Board of 
Directors
    (2) Cash match. For all grantees required to provide cash match, 
the requirement may be waived upon the applicant's demonstration that 
providing the required cash match will cause the applicant a financial 
hardship.
    (3) The Board of Directors encourages all applicants to provide the 
maximum amount of in-kind and cash match possible, even if a waiver is 
approved. The amount and nature of match are criteria in the grant 
selection process. See section VII.B.1.c.
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

[[Page 57574]]

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 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.O. and IX.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) Fifteen (15) 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 or .pdf format to 
the Institute; and
    (3) One copy of each final product developed with grant funds to 
the library established in each State to collect materials prepared 
with Institute support. (A list of the libraries is contained in 
appendix C. 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 written approval of the Institute. Grantees shall 
submit a final draft of each written product to the Institute for 
review and approval. The draft must 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 required by the Institute. Grantees must 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.
    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 IX.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 
IX.L.1. of this Guideline.

[[Page 57575]]

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).
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

    Recipients of Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance and 
Technical Assistance Grants must comply with the requirements listed in 
section VIII.A. (except the requirements pertaining to audits in 
section VIII.A.3. and product dissemination in section VIII.A.11.d. and 
e.) and the reporting requirements below:
1. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grant Reporting 
Requirements
    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 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 Grant Reporting Requirements
    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.

[[Page 57576]]

IX. 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 Web site 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.F.)
    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. Matching contributions 
provided 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 State Supreme Court maintain 
the detail of each project budget on file.
    (4) Accounting for Match. The State Supreme Court or its designee 
will ensure that subgrantees comply with the match requirements 
specified in this Guideline (see section VIII.A.8.).
    (5) Audit Requirement. The State Supreme Court or its designee is 
required to ensure that subgrantees meet the necessary audit 
requirements set forth by the Institute (see sections K. below and 
VIII.A.3.)
    (6) Reporting Irregularities. The State Supreme Court, its 
designees, and its subgrantees are responsible for promptly reporting 
to the Institute the nature and circumstances surrounding any financial 
irregularities discovered.

D. Accounting System

    The grantee is responsible for establishing and maintaining an 
adequate system of accounting and internal controls 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 written 
permission of

[[Page 57577]]

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 or in-kind 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 IX.C.2. above.)

F. Maintenance and Retention of Records

    All financial records, including supporting documents, statistical 
records, and all other information 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 are 
required for consultants.
2. Retention Period
    The three-year retention period starts from the date of the 
submission of the final 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 IX.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 may be considered as cash match 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
    If the sale of products occurs during the project period, the 
income may be treated as cash match with the prior written approval of 
the Institute. The costs and income generated by the sales must be 
reported on the Quarterly Financial Status Reports and documented in an 
auditable manner. Whenever possible, the intent to sell a product 
should be disclosed in the application or reported to the Institute in 
writing once a decision to sell products has been made. The grantee 
must request approval to recover its product development, reproduction, 
and dissemination costs as specified in section VIII.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 Awards. For purposes of submitting Requests for 
Advance or Reimbursement, recipients of continuation 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 would be number 1, the 
second number 2, etc. (See Appendix B, Answers to Grantees' Frequently 
Asked Questions, for further guidance.)
    c. Termination of Advance and Reimbursement Funding. When a grantee 
organization receiving cash advances from the Institute:

[[Page 57578]]

    (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.
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 Grants. Grantees 
receiving continuation 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 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 Circulars 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 Web site 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 but which occur prior to the 
start date of the project period.
    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 (5%) of the approved 
original budget or the most recently approved revised budget require 
prior Institute approval. See section X.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. Although the Institute's policy requires all costs to be 
budgeted directly, it will accept indirect costs if a grantee has an 
indirect cost rate approved by a Federal agency as set forth below. 
However, recoverable indirect costs are limited to no more than 75% of 
a grantee's direct personnel costs (salaries plus fringe benefits). 
Grantees may apply unrecoverable indirect costs to meet their required 
matching contributions, including the required level of cash match. See 
sections III.L. and VI.A.4.k.
    a. Approved Plan Available.
    (1) A copy of an indirect cost rate agreement 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 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.
    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 
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.

[[Page 57579]]

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 VIII.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 Project Grant (other than a State court 
receiving an information collection grant in connection with the 
Solutions Project) 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 IX.L.2. below), the following documents 
must be submitted to the Institute by grantees (other than scholarship 
recipients):
    a. Financial Status Report. The final report of expenditures must 
have no unliquidated obligations and must indicate the exact balance of 
unobligated funds. Any unobligated/unexpended funds will be deobligated 
from the award by the Institute. Final payment requests for obligations 
incurred during the award period must be submitted to the Institute 
prior to the end of the 90-day close-out period. Grantees on a check-
issued basis, who have drawn down funds in excess of their obligations/
expenditures, must return any unused funds as soon as it is determined 
that the funds are not required. In no case should any unused funds 
remain with the grantee beyond the submission date of the final 
Financial Status Report.
    b. Final Progress Report. This report should describe the project 
activities during the final calendar quarter of the project and the 
close-out period, including to whom project products have been 
disseminated; provide a summary of activities during the entire 
project; specify whether all the objectives set forth in the approved 
application or an approved adjustment have been met and, if any of the 
objectives have not been met, explain why not; and discuss what, if 
anything, could have been done differently that might have enhanced the 
impact of the project or improved its operation.
    These reporting requirements apply at the conclusion of every grant 
other than a scholarship, even when the project will continue under a 
continuation 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.

X. Grant Adjustments

    All requests for programmatic or budgetary adjustments requiring 
Institute approval must be submitted by the project director in a 
timely manner (ordinarily 30 days prior to the implementation of the 
adjustment being requested). 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 (a) transfer 
grant funds to an unbudgeted cost category or (b) individually or 
cumulatively exceed five percent (5%) of the approved original budget 
or the most recently approved revised budget. See section IX.I.2.d.
    For continuation grants, funds from the original award may be used 
during the new grant period and funds awarded through a continuation 
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 VIII.A.2.).

[[Page 57580]]

    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 IX.I.2.a.).
    13. The purchase of automated data processing equipment and 
software (see section IX.I.2.b.).
    14. Consultant rates (see section IX.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 IX.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 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 (ret.), Supreme Court of 
South Dakota, Pierre, SD.
Joseph F. Baca, Vice-Chairman, Justice (ret.), 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., Executive Vice-President, The National 
Geographic Society, Washington, DC.
Robert N. Baldwin, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of 
Virginia, Richmond, VA.
Carlos R. Garza, Esq., Administrative Judge (ret.), Round Rock, TX.
Sophia H. Hall, Administrative Presiding Judge, Circuit Court of Cook 
County, Chicago, IL.
Tommy Jewell, Presiding Children's Court Judge, Albuquerque, NM.
Arthur A. McGiverin, Chief Justice (ret.), Supreme Court of Iowa, 
Ottumwa, 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 17 years, the Institute staff has reviewed almost 
4,000 proposals. On the basis of those reviews, inquiries from 
applicants, and the views of the Board, the Institute offers the 
following recommendations to help potential applicants present 
workable, understandable proposals that can meet the funding 
criteria set forth in this Guideline.
    The Institute suggests that applicants make certain that they 
address the questions and issues set forth below when preparing an 
application. Applications should, however, be presented in the 
format specified in section VI. of the Guideline.

1. What Is the Subject or Problem You Wish To Address?

    Describe the subject or problem and how it affects the courts 
and the public. Discuss how your approach will improve the situation 
or advance the state of the art or knowledge, and explain why it is 
the most appropriate 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

[[Page 57581]]

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. 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 that 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 an application 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 to contribute a match of at least 50 percent of the funds 
requested from the Institute for a new grant. Except in the case of 
Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance grants, at least 20% 
of the required match must be in the form of cash. All other 
applicants must contribute a match of 25% to a new SJI-funded 
project, and at least 10% of that match must be in the form of cash.
    The match requirement works as follows: If, for example, a State 
court system receives a $100,000 grant from the Institute, it must 
provide a $50,000 match; at least 20% of the required match for a 
new grant ($10,000 in the example) must be in the form of cash 
rather than in-kind support (e.g., the value of staff time 
contributed to the project). If a non-profit organization receives a 
$100,000 grant from SJI, it must provide a $25,000 match, and at 
least 10% of that match ($2,500 in the example) must be in the form 
of cash.
    Cash match includes funds directly contributed to the project by 
the applicant, or by other private or authorized public sources; 
income generated from tuition fees or the sale of project products 
during the grant period; and funds dedicated to the project by the 
grantee's assumption of approved indirect costs.
    Non-cash match refers to in-kind contributions by the applicant, 
or other private or authorized public 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). The nature of the match (cash or in-kind) should be 
explained, and the tasks and line items for which costs will be 
covered wholly or in part by match should be specified.
    The Institute may waive the match and cash match requirements in 
certain circumstances. See section VIII.A.8.c.

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

    Section VI.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 
VI.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.

[[Page 57582]]

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. Recoverable indirect costs are limited to no 
more than 75% of a grantee's direct personnel costs (salaries plus 
fringe benefits). Grantees may apply unrecoverable indirect costs to 
meet their required matching contributions, including the required 
level of cash match. A copy of the approved indirect cost 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 IX.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--Answers to Grantees' Frequently Asked Questions


    The Institute's staff works with grantees to help assure the 
smooth operation of the project and compliance with the Guideline. 
On the basis of monitoring more than 1,000 grants, the Institute 
staff offers the following suggestions to aid grantees in meeting 
the administrative and substantive requirements of their grants.

1. After the Grant Has Been Awarded, When Are the First Quarterly 
Reports Due?

    Quarterly Progress Reports and Financial Status Reports must be 
submitted within 30 days after the end of every calendar quarter--
i.e., no later than January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30--
regardless of the project's start date. The reporting periods 
covered by each quarterly report end 30 days before the respective 
deadline for the report. When an award period begins December 1, for 
example, the first quarterly progress report describing project 
activities between December 1 and December 31 will be due on January 
30. A Financial Status Report should be submitted even if funds have 
not been obligated or expended.
    By documenting what has happened over the past three months, 
quarterly progress reports provide an opportunity for project staff 
and Institute staff to resolve any questions before they become 
problems, and make any necessary changes in the project time 
schedule, budget allocations, etc. The quarterly 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 Grants?

    Recipients of continuation 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.
    A continuation grant 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 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 pertinent Guideline requirements. 
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 VIII., IX., and X. 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 Grants?

    The basic procedures are the same for any grant. A continuation 
grant 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 should 
be designated as number one, the second as number two, and so on 
through the final payment request for that grant.

[[Page 57583]]

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 allocate 
funds to a previously unbudgeted cost category or to exceed five 
percent (5%) 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 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 continuation award, or to use continuation 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 IX.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 IX.K.) Circulars may be obtained from OMB by 
calling 202-395-3080 or visiting the OMB Web site at 
www.whitehouse.gov/OMB.

12. Does SJI Have a CFDA Number?

    Auditors often request that a grantee provide the Institute's 
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for guidance in 
conducting an audit in accordance with Government Accounting 
Standards.
    Because SJI is not a Federal agency, it has not been issued such 
a number, and there are no additional compliance tests to satisfy 
under the Institute's audit requirements beyond those of a standard 
governmental audit.
    Moreover, because SJI is not a Federal agency, SJI funds should 
not be aggregated with Federal funds to determine if the 
applicability threshold of Circular A-133 has been reached. For 
example, if in fiscal year 2001 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 IX.K. of the Grant Guideline.

Appendix C--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

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Lani Orosco
Arizona Supreme Court
Supreme Court Library 1501 W. Washington, Suite 445
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 542-5028 e-mail: [email protected]

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. Linda Gruenthal
Deputy Supreme Court Law Librarian
Colorado State Judicial Building 2 East 14th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 864-4522

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

[[Page 57584]]

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

Ms. Elisabeth H. Goodner
State Courts Administrator
Florida Supreme Court Building
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900
(850) 922-5081 e-mail:
[email protected]

Georgia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. David Ratley
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

Michigan

Michigan Judicial Institute

Dawn F. McCarty
Interim 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. Randall Snyder
Law Librarian
National Judicial College
Judicial College Building
University of Nevada
Reno, NV 89550
(775) 784-6747

New Hampshire

New Hampshire Law Library

Ms. Christine Swan
Law Librarian
New Hampshire Law Library
Supreme Court Building
One Noble Drive
Concord, NH 03301-6160
(603) 271-3777

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

[[Page 57585]]

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

New York

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Barbara Briggs
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
Mr. Thomas P. Davis
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. Barbara Miller
Collection Management Librarian
State Library of Pennsylvania
Office of Commonwealth Libraries
Bureau of State Library `` Collection Management
333 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17126-1745
(717) 787-5718
[email protected]

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 University

Ms. Gail Winson
Director of the Library
Roger Williams University
School of Law Library 10 Metacom Avenue
Bristol, RI 02809

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. Paul J. Donovan
Law Librarian
Department of Libraries
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609
(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

[[Page 57586]]

NATIONAL

American Judicature Society

Mr. John Edwards
Opperman Hall
Drake University Law School
2507 University Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50311-4504
(515) 271-2141
e-mail: [email protected]

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 D--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 (http://jeritt.msu.org 
or 517/353-8603) for more information about these and 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 E--Illustrative List of Model Curricula


    The following list includes examples of model SJI-supported 
curricula that State judicial educators may wish to adapt for 
presentation in education programs for judges and other court 
personnel with the assistance of a Judicial Branch Education 
Technical Assistance Grant. Please refer to section VI.F. for 
information on submitting a letter of 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 (http://jeritt.msu.edu or 517/353-8603) and your State SJI-
designated library (see appendix C) for more information about these 
and other SJI-supported curricula that may be appropriate for in-
State adaptation.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

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

Court Coordination

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

Court Management

Managing Trials Effectively: A Program for State Trial Judges 
(National Center for State Courts/National Judicial College: SJI-87-
066/067, SJI-89-054/055, SJI-91-025/026).
Caseflow Management Principles and Practices (Institute for Court 
Management/National Center for State Courts: SJI-87-056).
A Manual for Workshops on Processing Felony Dispositions in Limited 
Jurisdiction Courts (National Center for State Courts: SJI-90-052).
Managerial Budgeting in the Courts; Performance Appraisal in the 
Courts; Managing Change in the Courts; Court Automation Design; Case 
Management for Trial Judges; Trial Court Performance Standards 
(Institute for Court Management/National Center for State Courts: 
SJI-91-043).
Strengthening Rural Courts of Limited Jurisdiction and Team Training 
for Judges and Clerks (Rural Justice Center: SJI-90-014, SJI-91-
082).
Integrating Trial Management and Caseflow Management (Justice 
Management Institute: SJI-93-214).
Leading Organizational Change (California Administrative Office of 
the Courts: SJI-94-068).
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

[[Page 57587]]

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 Association: SJI-99-
063).

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

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).
New Employee Orientation Facilitators Guide (Minnesota Supreme 
Court: SJI-92-155).
    Magistrates Correspondence Course (Alaska Court System: SJI-92-
156).
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 Judicial SJ-89-029).
An Approach to Long-Range Strategic Planning in the Courts (Center 
for Public Policy Studies: SJI-91-045).

Substance Abuse

Good Times, Bad Times: Drugs, Youth, and the Judiciary (Professional 
Development and Training Center, Inc.: SJI-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).
Judicial Education on Substance Abuse (American Judges Association 
and National Center for State Courts: SJI-01-210).
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-P

[[Page 57588]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03OC03.000


[[Page 57589]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03OC03.001


[[Page 57590]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03OC03.002


[[Page 57591]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03OC03.003


[[Page 57592]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03OC03.004


[[Page 57593]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03OC03.005


[[Page 57594]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03OC03.006


[[Page 57595]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03OC03.007


[[Page 57596]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03OC03.008


[[Page 57597]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03OC03.009


[[Page 57598]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03OC03.010


[[Page 57599]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03OC03.011


[[Page 57600]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03OC03.012


[[Page 57601]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03OC03.013


[[Page 57602]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03OC03.014

[FR Doc. 03-24592 Filed 10-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-C