Grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts; guidelines,

[Federal Register: October 15, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 199)]

[Notices]

[Page 55429-55469]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr15oc98-143]

[[Page 55429]]

Part II

State Justice Institute

Grant Guideline; Notice

[[Page 55430]]

STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE

Grant Guideline

AGENCY: State Justice Institute.

ACTION: Final Grant Guideline.

SUMMARY: This Guideline sets forth the administrative, programmatic, and financial requirements attendant to Fiscal Year 1999 State Justice Institute grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 15, 1998.

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

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

Status of FY 1999 Appropriations

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

Types of Grants Available and Funding Schedules

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

Project Grants

These grants are awarded to support innovative education, research, demonstration, and technical assistance projects that can improve the administration of justice in State courts nationwide. Except for ``Single Jurisdiction'' project grants awarded under section II.C.1. (see below), project grants are intended to support innovative projects of national significance. As provided in section V. of the Guideline, project grants may ordinarily not exceed $200,000 a year; however, grants in excess of $150,000 are likely to be rare, and awarded only to support projects likely to have a significant national impact.

Applicants must ordinarily submit a concept paper (see section VI.) and an application (see section VII.) in order to obtain a project grant. As indicated in Section VI.C., the Board may make an ``accelerated'' grant of less than $40,000 on the basis of the concept paper alone when the need for the project is clear and little additional information about the operation of the project would be provided in an application.

The FY 1999 mailing deadline for project grant concept papers is November 24, 1998. Papers must be postmarked or bear other evidence of submission by that date. The Board of Directors will meet in early March 1999 to invite formal applications based on the most promising concept papers. Applications will be due on May 12, 1999 and awards will be approved by the Board in July.

Single Jurisdiction Project Grants

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

Technical Assistance Grants

Section II.C.2. reserves up to $400,000 for Technical Assistance Grants. Under this program, a State or local court may receive a grant of up to $30,000 to engage outside experts to provide technical assistance to diagnose, develop, and implement a response to a jurisdiction's problems.

Letters of application for a Technical Assistance grant may be submitted at any time. Applicants submitting letters between October 1, 1998 and January 15, 1999 will be notified by March 31, 1999; those submitting letters between January 16 and March 12, 1999 will be notified by May 28, 1999; those submitting letters between March 14 and June 11, 1999 will be notified by August 31, 1999; and those submitting letters between June 12 and September 30, 1999 will be notified of the Board's decision by December 17, 1999.

Curriculum Adaptation Grants

A grant of up to $20,000 may be awarded to a State or local court to replicate or modify a model training program developed with SJI funds. The Guideline allocates up to $160,000 for these grants in FY 1999. See section II.B.2.b.ii.

Letters requesting Curriculum Adaptation grants may be submitted at any time during the fiscal year. However, in order to permit the Institute sufficient time to evaluate these proposals, letters must be submitted no later than 90 days before the projected date of the training program. See section II.B.2.b.ii.(c).

Scholarships

The Guideline allocates up to $200,000 of FY 1999 funds for scholarships to enable judges and court managers to attend out-of-State education and training programs. See section II.B.2.b.iii.

The Institute is making two significant changes in the scholarship program this year. The first is that scholarships for eligible applicants will be approved largely on a ``first come, first served'' basis, although the Institute may approve or disapprove scholarship requests in order to achieve appropriate balances on the basis of geography, program provider, and type of court or applicant (e.g., trial judge, appellate judge, trial court administrator). The second is that scholarships will be approved only for programs that either (1) address topics included in the Guideline's Special Interest categories (section II.B.); (2) enhance the skills of judges and court managers; or (3) are part of a graduate program for judges or court personnel.

Applicants interested in obtaining a scholarship for a program beginning between January 1 and March 31, 1999 must submit their applications and any required accompanying documents by December 1, 1998. For programs beginning between April 1 and June 30, 1999, the applications and documents must be submitted between January 8 and March 8, 1999. For programs beginning between July 1 and September 30, 1999, the applications and documents must be submitted between April 1 and June 1, 1999. For programs beginning between October 1 and December 31, 1999, the applications and documents must be submitted between July 1 and September 1, 1999. For programs beginning between January 1 and March 31, 2000, the applications and documents must be submitted between October 1 and December 1, 1999.

[[Page 55431]]

Renewal Grants

There are two types of renewal grants available from SJI: Continuation grants (see sections III.G., V.C. and D., and IX.A.) and On-going support grants (see sections III.H., V.C. and D., and IX.B.). Continuation grants are intended to enhance the specific program or service begun during the initial grant period. On-going support grants may be awarded for up to a three-year period to support national-scope projects that provide the State courts with critically needed services, programs, or products.

The Guideline establishes a target for renewal grants of approximately 25% of the total amount projected to be available for grants in FY 1999. See section IX. Grantees should accordingly be aware that the award of a grant to support a project does not constitute a commitment to provide either continuation funding or on-going support.

An applicant for a continuation or on-going support grant must submit a letter notifying the Institute of its intent to seek such funding, no later than 120 days before the end of the current grant period. The Institute will then notify the applicant of the deadline for its renewal grant application. See section IX.

Special Interest Categories

The Guideline includes 12 Special Interest categories, i.e., those project areas that the Board has identified as being of particular importance to the State courts this year. The selection of these categories was based on the Board and staff's experience and observations over the past year, the recommendations received from judges, court managers, lawyers, members of the public, and other groups interested in the administration of justice, and the issues identified in recent years' concept papers and applications.

Section II.B. of the Guideline includes the following Special Interest categories:

Improving Public Confidence in the Courts;

Education and Training for Judges and Other Key Court Personnel (this category includes Curriculum Adaptation grants, Scholarships for Judges and Key Court Personnel, and National Conferences);

Dispute Resolution and the Courts;

Application of Technology;

Court Management, Financing, and Planning;

Managed Care and the Courts;

Substance Abuse and the Courts;

Children and Families in Court;

Improving the Courts' Response to Domestic Violence;

Improving Sentencing Practices;

Improving Court Security; and

The Relationship Between State and Federal Courts.

Conferences

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

Comments

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

Recommendations to Grant Writers

Over the past 12 years, Institute staff have reviewed approximately 3,600 concept papers and 1,700 applications. On the basis of those reviews, inquiries from applicants, and the views of the Board, the Institute offers the following recommendations to help potential applicants present workable, understandable proposals that can meet the funding criteria set forth in this Guideline.

The Institute suggests that applicants make certain that they address the questions and issues set forth below when preparing a concept paper or application. Concept papers and applications should, however, be presented in the formats specified in sections VI. and VII. of the Guideline, respectively.

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

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

2. What do you want to do?

   Explain the goal(s) of the project in simple, straightforward terms. The goals should describe the intended consequences or expected overall effect of the proposed project (e.g., to enable judges to sentence drug-abusing offenders more effectively, or to dispose of civil cases within 24 months), rather than the tasks or activities to be conducted (e.g., hold three training sessions, or install a new computer system).

   To the greatest extent possible, an applicant should avoid a specialized vocabulary that is not readily understood by the general public. Technical jargon does not enhance a paper, nor does a clever but uninformative title.

3. How will you do it?

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

4. How will you know it works?

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

   [[Page 55432]]

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

5. How will others find out about it?

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

6. What are the specific costs involved?

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

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

   Courts and other units of State and local government (not including publicly-supported institutions of higher education) are required by the State Justice Institute Act to contribute a match (cash, non-cash, or both) of at least 50 percent of the grant funds requested from the Institute. All other applicants also are encouraged to provide a matching contribution to assist in meeting the costs of a project.

   The match requirement works as follows: If, for example, the total cost of a project is anticipated to be $150,000, a State or local court or executive branch agency may request up to $100,000 from the Institute to implement the project. The remaining $50,000 (50% of the $100,000 requested from SJI) must be provided as match.

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

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

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

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

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

   Personnel estimates that accurately provide the amount of time to be spent by personnel involved with the project and the total associated costs, including current salaries for the designated personnel (e.g., Project Director, 50% for one year, annual salary of $50,000 = $25,000). If salary costs are computed using an hourly or daily rate, the annual salary and number of hours or days in a work-year should be shown.

   Estimates for supplies and expenses supported by a complete description of the supplies to be used, the nature and extent of printing to be done, anticipated telephone charges, and other common expenditures, with the basis for computing the estimates included (e.g., 100 reports x 75 pages each x .05/page = $375.00). Supply and expense estimates offered simply as ``based on experience'' are not sufficient.

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

10. What travel regulations apply to the budget estimates?

    Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the policies of the applicant organization, and a copy of the applicant's travel policy should be submitted as an appendix to the application. If the applicant does not have a travel policy established in writing, then travel rates must be consistent with those established by the Institute or the Federal Government (a copy of the Institute's travel policy is available upon request). The budget narrative should state which regulations are in force for the project.

    The budget narrative also should include the estimated fare, the number of persons traveling, the number of trips to be taken, and the length of stay. The estimated costs of travel, lodging, ground transportation, and other subsistence should be listed and explained separately. It is preferable for the budget to be based on the actual costs of traveling to and from the project or meeting sites. If the points of origin or destination are not known at the time the budget is prepared, an average airfare may be used to estimate the travel costs. For example, if it is anticipated that a project advisory committee will include members from around the country, a reasonable airfare from a central point to the meeting site, or the average of airfares from each coast to the meeting site may be used. Applicants should arrange travel so as to be able to take advantage of advance-purchase price discounts whenever possible.

11. May grant funds be used to purchase equipment?

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

    [[Page 55433]]

12. To what extent may indirect costs be included in the budget estimates?

    It is the policy of the Institute that all costs should be budgeted directly; however, if an indirect cost rate has been approved by a Federal agency within the last two years, an indirect cost recovery estimate may be included in the budget. A copy of the approved rate agreement should be submitted as an appendix to the application.

    If an applicant does not have an approved rate agreement and cannot budget directly for all costs, an indirect cost rate proposal should be prepared in accordance with Section XI.H.4. of the Grant Guideline, based on the applicant's audited financial statements for the prior fiscal year. (Applicants lacking an audit should budget all project costs directly.)

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

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

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

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

    Recommendations To Grantees

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

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

   Quarterly Progress Reports and Financial Status Reports must be submitted within 30 days after the end of every calendar quarter--i.e. no later than January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30--regardless of the project's start date. The reporting periods covered by each quarterly report end 30 days before the respective deadline for the report. When an award period begins December 1, for example, the first Quarterly Progress Report describing project activities between December 1 and December 31 will be due on January 30. A Financial Status Report should be submitted even if funds have not been obligated or expended.

   By documenting what has happened over the past three months, Quarterly Progress Reports provide an opportunity for project staff and Institute staff to resolve any questions before they become problems, and make any necessary changes in the project time schedule, budget allocations, etc. The Quarterly Project Report should describe project activities, their relationship to the approved timeline, and any problems encountered and how they were resolved, and outline the tasks scheduled for the coming quarter. It is helpful to attach copies of relevant memos, draft products, or other requested information. An original and one copy of a Quarterly Progress Report and attachments should be submitted to the Institute.

   Additional Quarterly Progress Report or Financial Status Report forms may be obtained from the grantee's Program Manager at SJI, or photocopies may be made from the supply received with the award.

2. Do reporting requirements differ for renewal grants?

   Recipients of a continuation or on-going support grant are required to submit quarterly progress and financial status reports on the same schedule and with the same information as recipients of a grant for a single new project.

   A continuation grant and each yearly grant under an on-going support award should be considered as a separate phase of the project. The reports should be numbered on a grant rather than project basis. Thus, the first quarterly report filedunder a continuation grant or a yearly increment of an on-going support award should be designated as number one, the second as number two, and so on, through the final progress and financial status reports due within 90 days after the end of the grant period.

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

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

   It is helpful to include the grant number assigned to the award on all correspondence to the Institute.

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

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

   Sections X., XI., and XII. of the Grant Guideline contain the Institute's administrative and financial requirements. Institute Finance Division staff are always available to answer questions and provide assistance regarding these provisions.

5. What is a Grant Adjustment?

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

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

   Requests for reimbursements or advance payments may be made at any

   [[Page 55434]]

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

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

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

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

   The Institute recognizes that some flexibility is required in implementing a project design and budget. Thus, grantees may shift funds among direct cost budget categories. When any one reallocation or the cumulative total of reallocations are expected to exceed five percent of the approved project budget, a grantee must specify the proposed changes, explain the reasons for the changes, and request Institute approval.

   The same standard applies to renewal grants. In addition, prior written Institute approval is required to shift leftover funds from the original award to cover activities to be conducted under the renewal award, or to use renewal grant monies to cover costs incurred during the original grant period.

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

   Following the last day of the grant, a 90-day period is provided to allow for all grant-related bills to be received and posted, and grant funds drawn down to cover these expenses. No obligations of grant funds may be incurred during this period. The last day on which an expenditure of grant funds can be obligated is the end date of the grant period. Similarly, the 90-day period is not intended as an opportunity to finish and disseminate grant products. This should occur before the end of the grant period.

   During the 90 days following the end of the award period, all monies that have been obligated should be expended. All payment requests must be received by the end of the 90-day ``close-out- period.'' Any unexpended monies held by the grantee that remain after the 90-day follow-up period must be returned to the Institute. Any funds remaining in the grant that have not been drawn down by the grantee will be deobligated.

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

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

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

    Except to the extent that they are inconsistent with the express provisions of the SJI Grant Guideline, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-110, A-21, A-87, A-88, A-102, A-122, A-128 and A-133 are incorporated into the Grant Guideline by reference. Because the Institute's enabling legislation specifically requires the Institute to ``conduct, or require each recipient to provide for, an annual fiscal audit'' [see 42 U.S.C. Sec. 10711(c)(1)], the Grant Guideline sets forth options for grantees to comply with this statutory requirement. (See Section XI.J.)

    SJI will accept audits conducted in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and OMB Circulars A-128, or A-133, in satisfaction of the annual fiscal audit requirement. Grantees that are required to undertake these audits in conjunction with Federal grants may include SJI funds as part of the audit even if the receipt of SJI funds would not require such audits. This approach gives grantees an option to fold SJI funds into the governmental audit rather than to undertake a separate audit to satisfy SJI's Guideline requirements.

    In sum, educational and nonprofit organizations that receive payments from the Institute that are sufficient to meet the applicability thresholds of OMB Circular A-133 must have their annual audit conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States rather than with generally accepted auditing standards. Grantees in this category that receive amounts below the minimum threshold referenced in Circular A- 133 must also submit an annual audit to SJI, but they would have the option to conduct an audit of the entire grantee organization in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; include SJI funds in an audit of Federal funds conducted in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and OMB Circulars A-128 or A-133; or conduct an audit of only the SJI funds in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. (See Guideline Section XI.J.) A copy of the above- noted circulars may be obtained by calling OMB at (202) 395-7250.

12. Does SJI have a CFDA number?

    Auditors often request that a grantee provide the Institute's Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for guidance in conducting an audit in accordance with Government Accounting Standards.

    Because SJI is not a Federal agency, it has not been issued such a number, and there are no additional compliance tests to satisfy under the Institute's audit requirements beyond those of a standard governmental audit.

    Moreover, because SJI is not a Federal agency, SJI funds should not be aggregated with Federal funds to determine if the applicability threshold of Circular A-133 has been reached. For example, if in fiscal year 1997 grantee ``X'' received $10,000 in Federal funds from a Department of Justice (DOJ) grant program and $20,000 in grant funds from SJI, the minimum A-133 threshold would not be met. The same distinction would preclude an auditor from considering the additional SJI funds in determining what Federal requirements apply to the DOJ funds.

    Grantees who are required to satisfy either the Single Audit Act, OMB Circulars A-128, or A-133 and who include SJI grant funds in those audits, need to remember that because of its status as a private non- profit corporation, SJI is not on routing lists of cognizant Federal agencies. Therefore, the grantee needs to submit a copy of the audit report prepared for such a cognizant Federal agency directly to SJI. The Institute's audit requirements may be found in Section XI.J. of the Grant Guideline.

    The following Grant Guideline is adopted by the State Justice Institute for FY 1999:

    State Justice Institute Grant Guideline

    Table of Contents

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

    [[Page 55435]]

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

    I. Background

    The Institute was established by Pub. L. 98-620 to improve the administration of justice in the State courts in the United States. Incorporated in the State of Virginia as a private, nonprofit corporation, the Institute is charged, by statute, with the responsibility to:

    1. 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;

    2. Foster coordination and cooperation with the Federal judiciary;

    3. Promote recognition of the importance of the separation of powers doctrine to an independent judiciary; and

    4. Encourage education for judges and support personnel of State court systems through national and State organizations, including universities.

       To accomplish these broad objectives, the Institute is authorized to provide funds to State courts, national organizations which support and are supported by State courts, national judicial education organizations, and other organizations that can assist in improving the quality of justice in the State courts.

       The Institute is supervised by an 11-member Board of Directors appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate. The Board is statutorily composed of six judges, a State court administrator, and four members of the public, no more than two of whom can be of the same political party.

       Through the award of grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements, the Institute is authorized to perform the following activities:

    1. Support research, demonstrations, special projects, technical assistance, and training to improve the administration of justice in the State courts;

    2. Provide for the preparation, publication, and dissemination of information regarding State judicial systems;

    3. Participate in joint projects with Federal agencies and other private grantors;

    4. 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;

    5. Encourage and assist in furthering judicial education;

    6. 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

    7. Be responsible for the certification of national programs that are intended to aid and improve State judicial systems.

       II. Scope of the Program

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

    1. Authorized Program Areas

       The Institute is authorized to fund projects addressing one or more of the following program areas listed in the State Justice Institute Act, the Battered Women's Testimony Act, the Judicial Training and Research for Child Custody Litigation Act, and the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act.

1. Assistance to State and local court systems in establishing appropriate procedures for the selection and removal of judges and other court personnel and in determining appropriate levels of compensation;

2. Education and training programs for judges and other court personnel for the performance of their general duties and for specialized functions, and national and regional conferences and seminars for the dissemination of information on new developments and innovative techniques;

3. Research on alternative means for using judicial and nonjudicial personnel in court decisionmaking activities, implementation of demonstration programs to test such innovative approaches, and evaluations of their effectiveness;

4. Studies of the appropriateness and efficacy of court organizations and financing structures in particular States, and support to States to implement plans for improved court organization and financing;

5. Support for State court planning and budgeting staffs and the provision of technical assistance in resource allocation and service forecasting techniques;

6. Studies of the adequacy of court management systems in State and local courts, and implementation and evaluation of innovative responses to records management, data processing, court personnel management, reporting and transcription of court proceedings, and juror utilization and management;

7. Collection and compilation of statistical data and other information on the work of the courts and on the work of other agencies which relates to and affects the work of courts;

8. Studies of the causes of trial and appellate court delay in resolving cases, and establishing and evaluating experimental programs for reducing case processing time;

9. Development and testing of methods for measuring the performance of judges and courts, and experiments in the use of such measures to improve the functioning of judges and the courts;

10. Studies of court rules and procedures, discovery devices, and evidentiary standards to identify problems with the operation of such rules, procedures, devices, and standards, and the development of alternative approaches to better reconcile the requirements of due process with the need for swift and certain justice, and testing of the utility of those alternative approaches;

11. Studies of the outcomes of cases in selected areas to identify instances in which the substance of justice meted out by the courts diverges from public expectations of fairness, consistency, or equity, and the development, testing, and evaluation of alternative approaches to resolving cases in such problem areas;

12. Support for programs to increase court responsiveness to the needs of citizens through citizen education, improvement of court treatment of witnesses, victims, and jurors, and development of procedures for obtaining and using measures of public

    [[Page 55436]]

    satisfaction with court processes to improve court performance;

13. Testing and evaluating experimental approaches to provide increased citizen access to justice, including processes which reduce the cost of litigating common grievances, and alternative techniques and mechanisms for resolving disputes between citizens;

14. Collection and analysis of information regarding the admissibility and quality of expert testimony on the experiences of battered women offered as part of the defense in criminal cases under State law, as well as sources of and methods to obtain funds to pay costs incurred to provide such testimony, particularly in cases involving indigent women defendants;

15. Development of training materials to assist battered women, operators of domestic violence shelters, battered women's advocates, and attorneys to use expert testimony on the experiences of battered women in appropriate cases, and individuals with expertise in the experiences of battered women to develop skills appropriate to providing such testimony;

16. Research regarding State judicial decisions relating to child custody litigation involving domestic violence;

17. Development of training curricula to assist State courts to develop an understanding of, and appropriate responses to child custody litigation involving domestic violence;

18. Dissemination of information and training materials and provision of technical assistance regarding the issues listed in paragraphs 14-17 above;

19. Development of national, regional, and in-State training and educational programs dealing with criminal and civil aspects of interstate and international parental child abduction;

20. Other programs, consistent with the purposes of the State Justice Institute Act, as may be deemed appropriate by the Institute, including projects dealing with the relationship between Federal and State court systems such as where there is concurrent State-Federal jurisdiction and where Federal courts, directly or indirectly, review State court proceedings.

    Funds will not be made available for the ordinary, routine operation of court systems or programs in any of these areas.

    2. Special Interest Program Categories

1. General Description.

   The Institute is interested in funding both innovative programs and programs of proven merit that can be replicated in other jurisdictions. Although applications in any of the statutory program areas are eligible for funding in FY 1999, the Institute is especially interested in funding those projects that:

   a. Formulate new procedures and techniques, or creatively enhance existing arrangements to improve the courts;

   b. Address aspects of the State judicial systems that are in special need of serious attention;

   c. Have national significance by developing products, services, and techniques that may be used in other States; and

   d. Create and disseminate products that effectively transfer the information and ideas developed to relevant audiences in State and local judicial systems, or provide technical assistance to facilitate the adaptation of effective programs and procedures in other State and local jurisdictions.

   A project will be identified as a ``Special Interest'' project if it meets the four criteria set forth above and (1) it falls within the scope of the ``special interest'' program areas designated below, or (2) information coming to the attention of the Institute from the State courts, their affiliated organizations, the research literature, or other sources demonstrates that the project responds to another special need or interest of the State courts.

   Concept papers and applications which address a ``Special Interest'' category will be accorded a preference in the rating process. (See the selection criteria listed in sections VI.B., ``Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects,'' and VIII.B., ``Application Review Procedures.'') 2. Specific Categories

   The Board has designated the areas set forth below as ``Special Interest'' program categories. The order of listing does not imply any ordering of priorities among the categories.

   a. Improving Public Confidence in the Courts. This category includes demonstration, evaluation, research, and education projects designed to improve the responsiveness of courts to public concerns regarding the fairness, equity, accessibility, timeliness, and comprehensibility of the court process, and test innovative methods for increasing the public's confidence in the State courts.

   The Institute is particularly interested in supporting innovative projects that examine, develop, and test methods that trial or appellate courts may use to:

   ‹bullet› Achieve more effectively the educational function of the court by clearly communicating information to litigants and the public about judicial decisions, the trial and appellate court process, and court operations;

   ‹bullet› Eliminate race, ethnic, and gender bias in the courts through innovative programs, procedures, materials, and court-community collaborations to help make courts more accessible, understandable, and inclusive for all segments of the communities they serve;

   ‹bullet› Assure that judges and court employees meet the highest ethical standards and that judicial disciplinary procedures are known, fair, and effective;

   ‹bullet› Address court-community problems resulting from the influx of legal and illegal immigrants, including projects to inform judges about the effects of recent Federal and State legislation regarding immigrants; design and assess procedures for use in custody, visitation, and other domestic relations cases when key family members or property are outside the United States; and develop protocols to facilitate service of process, the enforcement of orders of judgment, and the disposition of criminal and juvenile cases when a non-U.S. citizen or corporation is involved;

   ‹bullet› Demonstrate and evaluate approaches courts can use to implement the concept of restorative justice, including methods for involving the community in the sentencing process;

   ‹bullet› Test the impact of methods for improving juror comprehension in criminal and civil cases, including preparation and use of jury instructions in as ``plain English'' as possible, and providing access to videotaped instructions and testimony, electronically-based evidence, and other aids to comprehension in the jury room.

   In addition, the Institute is interested in supporting projects to complement or enhance the National Conference on Unrepresented Litigants in Court, scheduled to be held in late 1999. and anticipates supporting projects to implement the action plans and findings developed at that Conference in fiscal year 2000. However, applicants are advised that Institute funds may not be used to directly or indirectly support legal representation of individuals in specific cases.

   Previous SJI-supported projects that address these issues include: Enhancing Court-Community Relationships: A National Town Hall Meeting Videoconference and projects to implement the action plans developed at the conference; national and State conferences on Enhancing Public Trust and Confidence in the Courts; educational materials for court employees on serving the public;

   [[Page 55437]]

   surveys and focus groups to identify concerns about the courts and assess how courts are serving the needs of the public; a videotape on the role and operation of a State supreme court; a demonstration of the use of reparative community sentencing boards and community volunteers to monitor adult probationers and to monitor guardianships; evaluation of community-based court programs in New York City; and guidelines for court-annexed day-care systems;

   Serving Unrepresented Litigants: A national conference on unrepresented litigants in courts; a guidebook on the extent of self- representation and the problems being encountered, and the procedures, and programs being used by courts to assist pro se litigants; educational materials and a benchbook to assist courts in responding to individuals and groups unwilling to comply with legal and administrative procedures; developing and evaluating various means by which courts can assist unrepresented litigants including local and Statewide self-service centers, touchscreen computer kiosks, videotapes, plain-English forms and other written materials; assessing effective and efficient methods for providing legal representation to indigent parties in criminal and family cases; and examining the methods courts in rural communities can use to assure access and fairness for immigrants;

   Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts: Presenting a National Conference on Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts and supporting projects to implement the action plans developed at the conference; examining the applicability of various dispute resolution procedures to different cultural groups; and developing educational programs and materials for judges and court staff on diversity and related issues;

   Facilitating the Use of Qualified Court Interpreters: Preparing a manual and other materials for managing and coordinating court interpretation services; developing basic and graduate level curricula and other materials for training and assisting court interpreters; and assessing the feasibility and effectiveness of interpreting in court via the telephone;

   Improving Jury Service and Jury System Management: Developing a manual for implementing innovations in jury selection, use, and management; preparing a guide for making juries accessible to persons with disabilities; documenting methods for reducing juror stress; and assessing the effect of allowing jurors to discuss the evidence prior to the deliberations on the verdict.

   b. Education and Training for Judges and Other Key Court Personnel. The Institute is interested in supporting an array of projects that will continue to strengthen and broaden the availability of court education programs at the State, regional, and national levels. This category is divided into four subsections: (i) Innovative Educational Programs; (ii) Curriculum Adaptation Projects; (iii) Scholarships; and (iv) National Conferences.

   i. Innovative Educational Programs. This category includes support for the development and pilot-testing of innovative, high-quality educational programs for judges or court personnel that address key substantive and administrative issues of concern to the nation's courts, or help local courts or State court systems develop or enhance their capacity to deliver quality continuing education. Programs may be designed for presentation at the local, State, regional, or national level. Ordinarily, court education programs should be based on some form of assessment of the needs of the target audience; include clearly stated learning objectives that delineate the new knowledge or skills that participants will acquire (as opposed to a description of what will be taught); incorporate adult education principles and multiple teaching/learning methods; and result in the development of a disseminable curriculum as defined in section III.J.

   (a) The Institute is particularly interested in the development of education programs that:

   ‹bullet› Include innovative self-directed learning packages for use by judges and court personnel, and distance-learning approaches to assist those who do not have ready access to classroom-centered programs. These packages and approaches should include the appropriate use of various media and technologies such as Internet-based programming, interactive CD-ROM or floppy disk-based programs, videos, or other audio and visual media, supported by written materials or manuals. They also should include a meaningful program evaluation and a self-evaluation process that assesses pre-and post-program knowledge and skills;

   ‹bullet› Familiarize faculty with the effective use of instructional technology including methods for effectively presenting information through distance learning approaches including the Internet, videos, and satellite teleconferences;

   ‹bullet› Assist local courts, State court systems, and court systems in a geographic region to develop or enhance a comprehensive program of continuing education, training, and career development for judges and court personnel as an integral part of court operations;

   ‹bullet› Test the effectiveness of including a variety of experiential instructional approaches in judicial branch education programs such as field studies and interchanges with community programs, organizations, and institutions; and

   ‹bullet› Encourage intergovernmental teambuilding, collaboration, and planning among the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of government, or courts within a metropolitan area or multi-State region

   (b) The Institute also is interested in supporting the development and testing of curricula on issues of critical importance to the courts, including those listed in the other Special Interest categories described in this Chapter.

   ii. Curriculum Adaptation Projects. (a) Description of the Program. The Board is reserving up to $160,000 to provide support for projects that adapt a model curriculum developed with SJI support and to pilot test it to determine its appropriateness, quality, and effectiveness for inclusion in the jurisdiction's judicial branch education program. An illustrative list of the curricula that may be appropriate for adaptation is contained in Appendix III.

   The goal of the Curriculum Adaptation program is to provide State and local courts with sufficient support to modify a model curriculum, course module, or national or regional conference program developed with SJI funds so as to meet a State's or local jurisdiction's educational needs, to pilot-test it to determine its appropriateness, quality, and effectiveness, and train future instructors to enable them to make future presentations of the curriculum. It is anticipated that the adapted curriculum will become part of the grantee's ongoing educational offerings.

   Only State or local courts may apply for Curriculum Adaptation funding. Grants to support adaptation of educational programs previously developed with SJI funds are limited to no more than $20,000 each. As with other awards to State or local courts, cash or in-kind match must be provided in an amount equal to at least 50% of the grant amount requested.

   (b) Review Criteria and Procedures. Curriculum Adaptation grants will be awarded on the basis of criteria including: the goals and objectives of the proposed project; the need for outside funding to support the program; the appropriateness of the educational approach in achieving the project's

   [[Page 55438]]

   educational objectives; the likelihood of effective implementation and integration into the State's or local jurisdiction's ongoing educational programming; and expressions of interest by the judges and/ or court personnel who would be directly involved in or affected by the project. In making curriculum adaptation awards, the Institute will also consider factors such as the reasonableness of the amount requested, compliance with match requirements, diversity of subject matter, geographic diversity, the level of appropriations available in the current year, and the amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.

   The Board anticipates acting upon applications within 45 days after receipt. Grant funds will be available only after Board approval, and negotiation of the final terms of the grant.

   (c) Application Procedures. In lieu of concept papers and formal applications, applicants should submit a detailed letter and three photocopies. Although there is no prescribed form for the letter, or a minimum or maximum page limit, letters of application should include the following information to assure that each of the review criteria listed above is addressed:

   ‹bullet› Project Description. What is the title of the model curriculum to be adapted and who developed it? What are the project's goals? Why is this education program needed at the present time? What program components would be implemented, and what types of modifications, if any, are anticipated in length, format, learning objectives, teaching methods, or content? Who would be responsible for adapting the model curriculum? Who would the participants be, how many would there be, how will they be recruited, and from where would they come (e.g., from across the State, from a single local jurisdiction, from a multi-State region)?

   ‹bullet› Need for Funding. Why are sufficient State or local resources unavailable to fully support the modification and presentation of the model curriculum? What is the potential for replicating or integrating the program in the future using State or local funds, once it has been successfully adapted and tested?

   ‹bullet› Likelihood of Implementation. What is the proposed timeline for modifying and presenting the program? Who would serve as faculty and how were they selected? What measures would be taken to facilitate subsequent presentations of the adapted program? (Ordinarily, an independent evaluation of a curriculum adaptation project is not required; however, the results of any evaluation should be included in the final report.)

   ‹bullet› Expressions of Interest By Judges and/or Court Personnel. Does the proposed program have the support of the court system leadership, and of judges, court managers, and judicial education personnel who are expected to attend? (This may be demonstrated by attaching letters of support.)

   ‹bullet› Budget and Matching State Contribution. Applicants should attach a copy of budget Form E (see Appendix V) and a budget narrative (see Section VII.B.) that describes the basis for the computation of all project-related costs and the source of the match offered.

   ‹bullet› Chief Justice's Concurrence. Local courts should attach a concurrence form signed by the Chief Justice of the State or his or her designee. (See Form B, Appendix VI.)

   Letters of application may be submitted at any time. However, applicants should allow at least 90 days between the date of submission and the date of the proposed program to allow sufficient time for needed planning.

   (d) Grantee Responsibilities. A recipient of a Curriculum Adaptation grant must:

   (1) Comply with the same quarterly reporting requirements as other Institute grantees (see Section X.L.);

   (2) Include in each grant product a prominent acknowledgment that support was received from the Institute, along with the ``SJI'' logo and a disclaimer paragraph (See section X.Q.); and

   (3) Submit one copy of the manuals, handbooks, or conference packets developed under the grant at the conclusion of the grant period, along with a final report that includes any evaluation results and explains how the grantee intends to present the program in the future.

   iii. Scholarships for Judges and Court Personnel. The Institute is reserving up to $200,000 to support a scholarship program for State court judges and court managers.

   (a) Program Description/Scholarship Amounts. The purposes of the Institute scholarship program are to: enhance the skills, knowledge, and abilities of judges and court managers; enable State court judges and court managers to attend out-of-State educational programs sponsored by national and State providers that they could not otherwise attend because of limited State, local and personal budgets; and provide States, judicial educators, and the Institute with evaluative information on a range of judicial and court-related education programs.

   Scholarships will be granted to individuals only for the purpose of attending an out-of-State educational program within the United States.

   A scholarship may cover the cost of tuition and transportation up to a maximum total of $1,500 per scholarship. (Transportation expenses include round-trip coach airfare or train fare. Recipients who drive to the site of the program may receive $.31/mile up to the amount of the advanced purchase round-trip airfare between their home and the program site.) Funds to pay tuition and transportation expenses in excess of $1,500, and other costs of attending the program such as lodging, meals, materials, transportation to and from airports, and local transportation (including rental cars) at the site of the education program, must be obtained from other sources or be borne by the scholarship recipient.

   Scholarship applicants are encouraged to check other sources of financial assistance and to combine aid from various sources whenever possible. In addition, scholarship recipients are encouraged to check with their tax advisor to determine whether the scholarship constitutes taxable income under Federal and State law.

   (b) Eligibility Requirements. Because of the limited amount of funds available:

   (1) Recipients. Scholarships can be awarded only to full-time judges of State or local trial and appellate courts; full-time professional, State or local court personnel with management responsibilities; and supervisory and management probation personnel in judicial branch probation offices. Senior judges, part-time judges, quasi-judicial hearing officers including referees and commissioners, State administrative law judges, staff attorneys, law clerks, line staff, law enforcement officers, and other executive branch personnel are not eligible to receive a scholarship.

   (2) Courses. Scholarships can be awarded only for courses presented in a U.S. jurisdiction other than the one in which the applicant resides that are designed to enhance the skills of new or experienced judges and court managers; address any of the topics listed in the Institute's Special Interest categories; or are offered by a recognized graduate program for judges or court managers. The annual or midyear meeting of a State or national organization of which the applicant is a member does not qualify as an out-of-State educational program for scholarship purposes, even though it may include workshops or other training sessions.

   (c) Application Procedures. (1) Forms. Judges and court managers interested in

   [[Page 55439]]

   receiving a scholarship must submit the Institute's Judicial Education Scholarship Application Form and the written concurrence of the Chief Justice of their State's Supreme Court (or the Chief Justice's designee) on the Institute's Judicial Education Scholarship Concurrence form (Forms S1 & S2, see Appendix V). The signature of the presiding judge of the applicant's court cannot be substituted for that of the Chief Justice or the Chief Justice's designee. Court managers, other than elected clerks of court, also must submit a letter of support from their immediate supervisor.

   An applicant may apply for a scholarship for only one educational program during any one application cycle.

   (2) Dates. Scholarship applications with the accompanying documents must be submitted during the periods specified below:

   October 1-December 1, 1998, for programs beginning between

   January 1 and March 31, 1999;

   January 8-March 8, 1999, for programs beginning between April 1 and June 30, 1999;

   April 1-June 1, 1999, for programs beginning between July 1 and September 30, 1999;

   July 1-September 1, 1999, for programs beginning between October 1 and December 31, 1999; and

   October 1-December 1, 1999, for programs beginning between January 1 and March 31, 2000.

   No exceptions or extensions will be granted. For the Scholarship application cycle beginning January 8, 1999 and all subsequent cycles, applications sent prior to the application period will be considered to have been sent one week after the beginning of that application period. All the required items must be received in order for an application to be considered. If the Concurrence form or letter of support is sent separately from the application, the postmark date of the last item to be sent will be used in applying the above criteria.

   All applications should be sent by mail or courier (not fax or e- mail) to: Scholarship Program Coordinator, State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314.

   Applicants are encouraged not to wait for the decision on the scholarship to register for the educational program they wish to attend.

   (d) Selection Criteria/Review Procedures. Scholarships will be awarded on the basis of:

   ‹bullet› The date on which the application and concurrence (and support letter, if required) were sent;

   ‹bullet› The unavailability of State or local funds to cover the costs of attending the program or scholarship funds from another source;

   ‹bullet› 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;

   ‹bullet› Geographic balance among the recipients;

   ‹bullet› The balance of scholarships among educational programs;

   ‹bullet› The balance of scholarships among the types of courts represented; and

   ‹bullet› The level of appropriations available to the Institute in the current year and the amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.

   The postmark or courier receipt will be used to determine the date on which the application form and other required items were sent.

   The Institute intends to notify each applicant whether a scholarship has been approved within 30 days after the close of the relevant application period. The Institute will reserve sufficient funds each quarter to assure the availability of scholarships throughout the year.

   (e) Non-transferability. A scholarship is not transferable to another individual. It may be used only for the course specified in the application unless attendance at a different course that meets the eligibility requirements is approved in writing by the Institute. Decisions on such requests will be made within 30 days after the receipt of the request letter.

   (f) Responsibilities of Scholarship Recipients. Scholarship recipients are responsible for disseminating the information received from the course to their court colleagues locally, and if possible, throughout the State (e.g., by developing a formal seminar, circulating the written material, or discussing the information at a meeting or conference). Recipients also must submit to the Institute a certificate of attendance at the program, an evaluation of the educational program they attended, and a copy of the notice of any scholarship funds received from other sources. A copy of the evaluation must be sent to the Chief Justice of their State. A State or local jurisdiction may impose additional requirements on scholarship recipients.

   In order to receive the funds authorized by a scholarship award, recipients must submit a Scholarship Payment Voucher (Form S3) together with a tuition statement from the program sponsor, and a transportation fare receipt (or statement of the driving mileage to and from the recipient's home to the site of the educational program). Scholarship Payment Vouchers should be submitted within 90 days after the end of the course which the recipient attended.

   iv. National Conferences. This category includes support for national conferences on topics of major concern to State court judges and personnel across the nation. Applicants are encouraged to consider the use of videoconference and other technologies to increase participation and limit travel expenses in planning and presenting conferences. In planning a conference, applicants should provide for a written, video, or computer-based product that would widely disseminate information, findings, and any recommendations resulting from the conference.

   The Institute is particularly interested in supporting a National Symposium on Evaluating the Impact of ``Future and the Courts'' Activities. In the late 1980's, Virginia and Arizona established the first commissions on the future of their State courts. SJI contributed support to those commissions, and in May 1990, under a cooperative agreement with the American Judicature Society, convened a ``National Conference on the Future and the Courts'' in San Antonio. Over the next several years, almost every State court system established a ``futures'' commission, convened a futures conference, or engaged in some other long-range planning exercise. Each of those ventures produced a set of recommendations for steps that could be taken by the courts, the legislature, the bar, other professional disciplines, and the public to improve the administration of justice in the State. Anecdotal information suggests that, in many States, those recommendations produced significant long-term change in a number of areas but, in other States, little, if any, change occurred.

   The purpose of the national conference would be to:

   (a) Evaluate the impact of the national and State futures activities conducted over the past decade;

   (b) Identify the reasons why some States were more successful than others in implementing change; and (c) Assess what steps can be taken or methods developed to:

   (1) facilitate the recommended changes that are still appropriate;

   (2) more fully institutionalize long-range planning by State court systems and, where appropriate, local courts; and

   (3) assist each State court system or local court in identifying future trends that may significantly affect its ability to deliver justice.

   [[Page 55440]]

   The Board wishes to emphasize that it does not envision this conference as a second San Antonio conference. The purpose of the proposed conference should not be to develop trends, scenarios, and strategies for improving American courts over the next 30 years, but to meet the specific goals articulated above.

   c. Dispute Resolution and the Courts. This category includes research, evaluation, and demonstration projects to evaluate or enhance the effectiveness of court-connected dispute resolution programs. The Institute is interested in projects that facilitate comparison among research studies by using similar measures and definitions; address the nature and operation of ADR programs within the context of the court system as a whole; and compare dispute resolution processes to attorney settlement as well as trial. Specific topics of interest include:

   ‹bullet› Determining the appropriate timing for referrals to dispute resolution services to enhance settlements and reduce time to disposition;

   ‹bullet› Assessing the effect of different referral methods including any differences in outcome between voluntary and mandatory referrals;

   ‹bullet› Comparing the appropriateness and effectiveness of facilitative and evaluative mediation in various types of cases;

   ‹bullet› Evaluating the effectiveness of the use of family group conferencing procedures in dependency, delinquency, and status offense cases;

   ‹bullet› Evaluating innovative court-connected dispute resolution programs for resolving specific types of cases such as minor criminal cases, probate proceedings, land-use disputes, and complex and multi- party litigation;

   ‹bullet› Testing of methods that courts can use to assure the quality of court-connected dispute resolution programs; and

   ‹bullet› Developing methods to eliminate race, ethnic, or gender bias in court-connected dispute resolution programs, testing approaches for assuring that such programs are open to all members of the community served by the court, and assessing whether having a mediator pool that reflects the diversity of the community it serves, has an impact on the use of mediation by minorities and its effectiveness.

   Applicants should be aware that the Institute will not provide operational support for on-going ADR programs or start-up costs of non- innovative ADR programs. Courts also should be advised that it is preferable for the applicant to use its funds to support the operational costs of an innovative program and request Institute funds to support related technical assistance, training, and evaluation elements of the program.

   In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported projects to evaluate the use of mediation in civil, domestic relations, juvenile, guardianship, medical malpractice, appellate, and minor criminal cases, as well as in resolving grievances of court employees. SJI grants also have supported assessments of the impact of private judging on State courts; multi-door courthouse programs; arbitration of civil cases; screening and intake procedures for mediation; early referrals to mediation in divorce proceedings; and trial and appellate level civil settlement programs.

   In addition, SJI has supported two national conferences on court- connected dispute resolution; a national ADR resource center and a national database of court-connected dispute resolution programs; training programs for judges and mediators; the testing of Statewide and trial court-based ADR monitoring/evaluation systems and implementation manuals; the promulgation and implementation of principles and policies regarding the qualifications, selection, and training of court-connected neutrals; development of standards for court-annexed mediation programs; development of guidelines to help mediators avoid conduct that may be considered the unauthorized practice of law; and an examination of the applicability of various dispute resolution procedures to different cultural groups.

   d. Application of Technology. This category includes the testing of innovative applications of technology to improve the operation of court management systems and judicial practices at both the trial and appellate court levels.

   The Institute seeks to support local experiments with promising but untested applications of technology in the courts that include an evaluation of the impact of the technology in terms of costs, benefits, and staff workload, and a training component to assure that staff is appropriately educated about the purpose and use of the new technology. In this context, ``untested'' refers to novel applications of technology developed for the private sector and other fields that have not previously been applied to the courts.

   The Institute is particularly interested in supporting efforts to:

   ‹bullet› Evaluate innovative approaches for filing pleadings and documents electronically;

   ‹bullet› Develop model rules or standards to govern the use of electronic filing, electronic notices, and electronic data and document interchange;

   ‹bullet› Test innovative telecommunications links among courts, and between courts and executive branch or private agencies and services.

   ‹bullet› Test innovative applications of voice recognition technology by judges and clerks in the adjudication process;

   ‹bullet› Evaluate and document the innovative uses of technology to improve jury management;

   ‹bullet› Assess the impact of the use of comprehensive electronic court records systems on case management and court procedures;

   ‹bullet› Demonstrate and evaluate the use of technology to assist judicial decisionmaking;

   ‹bullet› Evaluate the use of digital audio and video technology for making a record of court proceedings;

   ‹bullet› Demonstrate and evaluate the use of videoconferencing technology to present testimony by witnesses in remote locations, and appellate arguments (but see the limitations specified below);

   ‹bullet› Assess the impact of the use of multimedia CD-ROM-based briefs on the courts, parties, counsel, and the trial or appellate process;

   ‹bullet› Assist courts in determining the policies and procedures that should govern public access to information filedin electronically stored case records; and

   ‹bullet› Assist courts in identifying and solving potential ``Year 2000'' problems.

   Ordinarily, the Institute will not provide support for the purchase of equipment or software in order to implement a technology that is commonly used by courts, such as videoconferencing between courts and jails, optical imaging for recordkeeping, and automated management information systems. (See also section XI.H.2.b. regarding other limits on the use of grant funds to purchase equipment and software.)

   In previous funding cycles, grants have been awarded to support projects that: demonstrate, document, and evaluate the availability of electronic forms and information on the Internet to assist pro se litigants; access to case data via the Internet; electronic filing and document transfer; an electronic document management system; a court management information display system; the integration of bar-coding technology with an existing automated case management system; an on- bench automated system for generating and processing court orders; an automated judicial education management system; a document management system for

   [[Page 55441]]

   small courts using imaging technology; a computerized citizen intake and referral service; an ``analytic judicial desktop system'' to assist judges in making sentencing decisions; the application of voice- recognition technology to stenomask reporting; and the use of automated teller machines for paying jurors.

   Grants have also supported national court technology conferences; a court technology laboratory to provide judges and court managers an opportunity to test automated court-related hardware and software; a technical information service to respond to specific inquiries concerning court-related technologies; development of recommendations for electronic transfer of court documents, model rules on the use of computer-generated demonstrative evidence and electronic documentary evidence, and guidelines on privacy and public access to electronic court information and on court access to the information superhighway; implementation and evaluation of a Statewide automated integrated case docketing and record-keeping system; computer simulation models to assist State courts in evaluating potential strategies for improving civil caseflow; and an examination of the impact of the use of technology in the trial process.

   e. Court Planning, Management, Financing. The Institute is interested in supporting projects that explore emerging issues that will affect the State courts as they enter the 21st Century, as well as projects that develop and test innovative approaches for managing the courts, and securing, managing, and demonstrating the effective use of the resources required to fully meet the responsibilities of the judicial branch, and institutionalizing long-range planning processes. In particular the Institute is interested in:

   i. Demonstration, evaluation, education, research, and technical assistance projects to:

   ‹bullet› Develop, implement, and assess innovative case management techniques for specialized calendars including but not limited to drug courts, domestic violence courts, juvenile courts, and family courts;

   ‹bullet› Facilitate communication, information sharing, and coordination between the juvenile and criminal courts;

   ‹bullet› Assess the effects of innovative management approaches designed to assure quality services to court users;

   ‹bullet› Strengthen the judge's and court manager's skills in leadership, planning, and building community confidence in the courts;

   ‹bullet› Develop and test innovative educational programs and materials to enhance the core competencies required of court managers and staff;

   ‹bullet› Develop and test methods for facilitating and implementing change and for encouraging excellence in court operations;

   ‹bullet› Demonstrate and assess the effective use of staff teams in court operations; and

   ‹bullet› Implement and evaluate approaches for institutionalizing long-range strategic planning in individual States and local jurisdictions including development of the capacity to conduct environmental scanning, trends analysis, and benchmarking.

   ii. Demonstration, evaluation, education, technical assistance, and research projects to implement the National Agenda for Assuring Prompt and Affordable Justice in the 21st Century, including projects to:

   ‹bullet› Document and publicize successful innovative programs and practices and establish mentor courts to assist other jurisdictions in reducing litigation costs and delay.

   ‹bullet› Develop and test rules and procedures that will establish economic and other incentives that reduce the cost and time required for the resolution of disputes.

   ‹bullet› Examine and test how the techniques applied to pretrial caseflow management and trial management in general jurisdiction court civil and criminal cases can be used to reduce the cost and time required in limited jurisdiction high volume courts, domestic relations proceedings, cases involving children, and post-adjudication matters.

   iii. The preparation of ``think pieces'' exploring emerging issues that may result in significant changes in the court process or judicial administration and their implications for judges, court managers, policymakers, and the public. Grants supporting such projects are limited to no more than $10,000. The resulting essay should be directed to the court community and be of publishable quality.

   Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

   ‹bullet› the implications on court procedures, court operations, and judicial selection of the changing expectations about the proper role of courts--from adjudicators to problem solvers;

   ‹bullet› the proper balance between collaboration with the community and judicial independence;

   ‹bullet› the implications of the increasing commerce via the Internet for the State courts--what special problems may arise and what new rules and procedures may be needed to address those problems;

   ‹bullet› how the increased litigation resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement and the global integration of business affect the State courts--are special rules and procedures needed?

   ‹bullet› what the new ``community courts'' can learn from the experience of the old justice of the peace courts,

   ‹bullet› the appropriateness of modifying methods for selecting, qualifying, and using juries; and

   ‹bullet› the likely extent, nature, and impact on the courts of litigation arising from ``Year 2000'' problems.

   In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported national and Statewide ``future and the courts'' conferences and training; curricula, guidebooks, a video on visioning, and a long-range planning guide for trial courts; the testing of coordinated State/local approaches to institutionalizing long-range planning by the courts; and technical assistance to courts conducting futures and long-range planning.

   SJI has also supported technical assistance and training to assist jurisdictions establish court-led multi-agency teams to address critical community problems; executive management programs for teams of judges and court administrators; a test of the feasibility of implementing the Trial Court Performance Standards in general jurisdiction and family courts; Appellate Court Performance Standards and Measures; tests of the use of TQM approaches in trial and appellate court and State court administrative offices; revision of the Standards on Judicial Administration; projects identifying the causes of delay in trial and appellate courts; the preparation of a national agenda for assuring prompt and affordable justice and the development of educational programs for reducing litigation cost and delay in civil, criminal, domestic relations, and juvenile courts; the testing of various types of weighted caseload systems; a National Interbranch Conference on Funding the State Courts; and National Symposia on Court Management.

   f. Managed Care and the Courts. The First National Conference on Managed Care and the Criminal Justice System, held June 28-30, 1998 in Albuquerque, highlighted what many judges and court personnel need to know about the implications of managed care for the courts and for court-ordered substance abuse, mental health, and other services. Accordingly, the Institute is interested

   [[Page 55442]]

   in supporting educational, research, and demonstration projects to:

   ‹bullet› Develop and test State, regional, and local educational programs for judges and court staff on the implications of managed care for the provision of drug and alcohol treatment, mental health treatment, and other services to adult and juvenile offenders, neglected and abused children and their families, and persons subject to civil commitment. In addition to defining managed care principles and procedures, the curricula and materials (which could include modules for use at State judicial conferences and meetings of State clerk and court managers associations) should cover such matters as: (i) strategies for ensuring that contracts with managed care organizations satisfactorily address court concerns such as protecting public safety, dealing appropriately with non-compliance by a person under court order, reporting, providing ancillary services, and (ii) assuring the continuity and prompt provision of ordered services; and methods for establishing collaborative public sector managed care programs for court-ordered services.

   ‹bullet› Draft model managed care contract provisions and letters of agreement for the provision of court-ordered treatment and services to adults and juveniles.

   ‹bullet› Develop and test performance measures to determine the quality and appropriateness of court-ordered treatment and services.

   ‹bullet› Document public sector and private sector managed care programs that effectively provide court-ordered treatment and other services to adults and juveniles.

   g. Substance Abuse. This category includes education, technical assistance, research, and evaluation projects to assist courts in handling a large volume of substance abuse-related criminal, civil, juvenile, and domestic relations cases fairly and expeditiously. (It does not include providing support for planning, establishing, operating, or enhancing a local drug court. Applicants interested in obtaining grants to plan, implement, operate, or enhance a drug court program should contact the Drug Court Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.)

   The Institute is particularly interested in projects to:

   ‹bullet› Evaluate the effectiveness of ``family drug court'' programs (i.e. specialized calendars that provide intensely supervised, court-enforced substance abuse treatment and other services to families involved in child neglect, child abuse, domestic violence, or other family cases);

   ‹bullet› Develop a self-evaluation guide for ``juvenile drug court'' programs;

   ‹bullet› Develop and test curricula on the specific knowledge and skills needed to manage drug court programs for adults, juveniles, or families.

   ‹bullet› Develop and test effective approaches for identifying and treating substance abuse by judges, lawyers, and court staff, and determining and lessening the impact on the courts of such substance abuse.

   The Institute has supported the presentation of the 1995 National Symposium on the Implementation and Operation of Court-Enforced Drug Treatment Programs as well as the 1991 National Conference on Substance Abuse and the Courts, and efforts to implement the State and local plans developed at these Conferences.

   It has also supported projects to evaluate court-enforced treatment programs, and other court-based alcohol and drug assessment programs; develop a self-evaluation guide for drug courts; test the applicability of drug courts in non-urban sites and develop guidance for jurisdictions establishing juvenile drug courts; involve community groups and families in drug court programs; assess the impact of legislation and court decisions dealing with drug-affected infants; develop strategies for coping with increasing caseload pressures, and benchbooks and other educational materials on child abuse and neglect cases involving parental substance abuse and appropriate sentences for pregnant substance abusers; test the use of a dual diagnostic treatment model for domestic violence cases in which substance abuse was a factor; and present local and regional educational programs for judges and other court personnel on substance abuse and its treatment. In addition, SJI has supported an information system that permits courts, criminal justice agencies, and drug treatment providers to share information electronically.

   h. Children and Families in Court. This category includes education, demonstration, evaluation, technical assistance, and research projects to identify and inform judges of innovative, effective approaches for handling cases involving children and families. The Institute is particularly interested in projects to:

   ‹bullet› Develop and test innovative protocol, procedures, educational programs, and other measures to determine and address the service needs of children exposed to family violence and the methods for mitigating those effects when issuing protection, custody, visitation, or other orders;

   ‹bullet› Develop and test guidelines, curricula, and other materials to assist judges in establishing and enforcing custody, and support orders in cases in which a child's parents were never married to each other;

   ‹bullet› Develop and test effective approaches for the detention, adjudication, and disposition of juveniles under age 13 who are accused of involvement in a violent offense;

   ‹bullet› Develop and test procedures and programs to include victims of offenses committed by juveniles in the juvenile court process (other than victim-offender mediation programs);

   ‹bullet› 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;

   ‹bullet› Develop and test innovative techniques for improving communication, sharing information, and coordinating juvenile and criminal courts and divisions;

   ‹bullet› Design or evaluate information systems that not only provide aggregate data, but are able to track individual cases, individual juveniles, and specific families, so that judges and court managers can manage their caseloads effectively, track placement and service delivery, and coordinate orders in different proceedings involving members of the same family; and

   ‹bullet› Develop and test educational programs to assure that everyone coming into contact with courts serving children and families are treated with dignity, respect, and courtesy.

   See also the topics listed in the Special Interest Category on Managed Care and the Courts (section II.B.2.f.)

   In previous funding cycles, the Institute supported national and State conferences on courts, children, and the family; a review of juvenile courts in light of the upcoming 100th anniversary of the founding of the first juvenile court; testing of alternative models for achieving the goals of a family court without altering court structure; the authority of the juvenile court to enforce treatment orders and the role of juvenile court judges; validation of a risk assessment tool for juvenile offenders; and an assessment of the effectiveness of various intervention strategies for young violent offenders and for low-risk juvenile offenders.

   In addition, the Institute has supported a symposium on the resolution of interstate child welfare issues; and educational materials on the questioning of child witnesses, determining the best interest of a child

   [[Page 55443]]

   and making reasonable efforts to preserve families, adjudicating allegations of child sexual abuse when custody is in dispute, child victimization, handling child abuse and neglect cases when parental substance abuse is involved, and on children as the silent victims of spousal abuse.

   Other Institute grants have supported the development of computer- based training on the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, and the examination of supervised visitation programs, effective court responses when domestic violence and custody disputes coincide, and foster care review procedures.

   The Institute also has supported projects to enhance coordination of cases involving the same family that are being heard in different courts; develop an MIS system to link the court with executive branch and private juvenile justice agencies and services; assist States considering establishment of a family court; develop national and State-based training materials for guardians ad litem as well as a set of performance measures; test the use of differentiated case management in juvenile court and methods for reducing the use of continuances; and develop innovative approaches for coordinating the appointment of guardians and Federal representative payees for disabled persons.

   i. Improving the Courts' Response to Domestic Violence. This category includes innovative education, demonstration, technical assistance, evaluation, and research projects to improve the fair and effective processing, consideration, and disposition of cases concerning domestic violence and gender-related violent crimes, including projects to:

   ‹bullet› Develop and test methods for facilitating recognition and enforcement of protection orders issued by a State, Federal, or Tribal court in another jurisdiction;

   ‹bullet› Determine the effective use of information contained in protection order files stored in court electronic databases consistent with the protection of the privacy and safety of victims of violence;

   ‹bullet› Evaluate the effectiveness of domestic violence courts (i.e., specialized calendars or divisions for considering domestic violence cases and related matters), including their impact on victims, offenders, and court operations;

   ‹bullet› Assess the effectiveness of including jurisdiction over family violence in a unified family court;

   ‹bullet› Demonstrate effective ways to coordinate the response to domestic violence and gender-related crimes of violence among courts, criminal justice agencies, and social services programs, and to assure that courts are fully accessible to victims of domestic violence and other gender-related violent crimes;

   ‹bullet› Test the effectiveness of innovative sentencing and treatment approaches in cases involving domestic violence and other gender-related crimes including sentences that incorporate restorative justice measures.

   Institute funds may not be used to provide operational support to programs offering direct services or compensation to victims of crimes. (Applicants interested in obtaining such operational support should contact the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, or the agency in their State that awards OVC funds to State and local victim assistance and compensation programs.)

   In previous funding cycles, the Institute supported national and State conferences on family violence and the courts as well as projects to implement the action plans developed at these conferences; preparation of descriptions of innovative court practices in family violence cases, including programs for battered mothers and their children; and development of recommendations on how to improve access to rural courts for victims of family violence, conduct fatality reviews, and collect and report dispositional and other data concerning family violence cases.

   The Institute also supported a national conference, national and regional symposia, and the development of guides on the implementation of the full faith and credit requirements included in the Violence Against Women Act; and the drafting of a proposed uniform statute on the recognition of protection orders from other jurisdictions.

   In addition, Institute grants have resulted in the development of curricula for judges on a range of topics regarding the handling of family violence, rape, and sexual assault cases; evaluations of the effectiveness of specialized domestic violence calendars, court-ordered treatment for family violence offenders, the use of alternatives to adjudication in child abuse cases, and procedures to improve the effectiveness of civil protection orders for family violence victims; research on the use of mediation in domestic relations cases involving allegations of violence, the relevancy of culture in adjudicating and disposing of family violence cases, and effective sentencing of sex offenders; and analyses of the issues related to the use of expert testimony in criminal cases involving domestic violence.

   The Institute also has funded testing of procedures for coordinating multiple cases involving a single family and for electronic filing of petitions for protection orders; development of links among courts, criminal justice agencies, and service providers to share information and assist victims of violence; and the production of videotapes and other educational programs for the parties in divorce actions and their children.

   j. Improving Sentencing Practices. This category includes education, demonstration, technical assistance, evaluation, and research projects to address and implement the findings and recommendations reached at the National Symposium on Sentencing: The Judicial Response to Crime. In particular, the Institute is interested in projects to:

   ‹bullet› Identify and document effective sentencing approaches for particular types of offenders and offenses including juvenile offenders tried as adults;

   ‹bullet› Improve public understanding of sentencing options and approaches and their cost and effectiveness;

   ‹bullet› Eliminate disparities in sentencing on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, and income;

   ‹bullet› Assess effective and appropriate approaches for sentencing mentally ill and mentally retarded offenders; and

   ‹bullet› Develop and test educational programs and materials for judges on evaluating expert testimony regarding sex offenders; appropriate and effective sentencing and treatment of sex offenders; and assuring the safety of the victim, the public, and the offender when a community-based sentence is imposed.

   See also the paragraph on developing and testing the effectiveness of sentences based on restorative justice principles in section II.B.2.a. and the topics listed in the Special Interest category on Managed Care and the Courts, section II.B.2.f.

   In addition to the National Symposium on Sentencing, the Institute has supported development of a handbook, educational materials, symposia, and technical assistance on the appropriate and effective use of intermediate sanctions; tests of the use of day-fines, community reparation boards, special court-ordered programs for women offenders, and various fine and restitution collection programs; and presentation of a regional conference on implementation of sentencing innovations.

   [[Page 55444]]

   k. Improving Court Security. This category includes demonstration, evaluation, technical assistance, education, and research projects to enhance the security of courthouses and the people who use and work in them. The Institute is particularly interested in supporting innovative projects to:

   ‹bullet› Develop policies, protocols, and procedures designed to prevent harassment, threats, and incidents endangering the lives and property of judges, court employees, jurors, litigants, witnesses, and other members of the public in court facilities;

   ‹bullet› Evaluate innovative applications of technology to prevent courthouse incidents that endanger the lives and property of judges, court personnel, and courtroom participants; and

   ‹bullet› Develop and test model training programs that will assist judges and court personnel in protecting their safety and that of jurors, litigants, witnesses, and other members of the public in court facilities, and in managing cases involving individuals or organizations unwilling to cooperate with legal or administrative procedures.

   In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported Statewide strategic planning to enhance court security; a demonstration project to organize sharing of court security staff between counties; a court security clearinghouse; and an educational program and benchbook on the common law court movement.

   l. The Relationship Between State and Federal Courts. This category includes education, research, demonstration, and evaluation projects designed to facilitate appropriate and effective communication, cooperation, and coordination between State and Federal courts. The Institute is particularly interested in innovative projects that:

   i. Develop and test curricula and disseminate information regarding effective methods being used at the trial court, State, and Circuit levels to coordinate cases and administrative activities, and share facilities; and

   ii. Develop and test new approaches to:

   ‹bullet› Implement the habeas corpus provisions of the Anti- Terrorism Act of 1996;

   ‹bullet› Handle capital habeas corpus cases fairly and efficiently;

   ‹bullet› Coordinate and process mass tort cases fairly and efficiently at the trial and appellate levels;

   ‹bullet› Coordinate cases in which there is concurrent jurisdiction including State and Federal cases brought under the Violence Against Women Act;

   ‹bullet› Develop a guidebook for judges to assist in determining whether punitive damages should be awarded, calculating the amount in which they should be awarded, and instructing jurors regarding these issues.

   ‹bullet› Exchange information and coordinate calendars among State and Federal courts; and

   ‹bullet› Share facilities, jury pools, alternative dispute resolution programs, information regarding persons on pretrial release or probation, and court services.

   In previous funding cycles, the Institute has supported national and regional conferences on State-Federal judicial relationships, a national conference on mass tort litigation, and the Chief Justices' Special Committee on Mass Tort Litigation.

   In addition, the Institute has supported projects testing the use common electronic filing process for the State and Federal courts in New Mexico, and other methods of State and Federal trial and appellate court cooperation; developing judicial impact statement procedures for national legislation affecting State courts; establishing procedures for facilitating certification of questions of law; assessing the impact on the State courts of diversity cases and cases brought under section 1983, the procedures used in Federal habeas corpus review of State court criminal cases, and the factors that motivate litigants to select Federal or State courts; and the mechanisms for transferring cases between Federal and State courts, as well as the methods for effectively consolidating, deciding, and managing complex litigation.

   The Institute has also supported a clearinghouse of information on State constitutional law decisions; educational programs for State judges on coordination of Federal bankruptcy cases with State litigation as well as research on the impact of bankruptcy stays on State litigation; and the assignment of specialized law clerks to trial courts hearing capital cases in order to improve the fairness and efficiency of death penalty litigation at the trial level.

   3. Single Jurisdiction Projects

      The Board will consider supporting a limited number of projects submitted by State or local courts that address the needs of only the applicant State or local jurisdiction. The Institute has established two categories of Single Jurisdiction Projects: 1. Projects Addressing a Critical Need of a Single State or Local Jurisdiction Including ``Replication Grants''

      a. Description of the Program. The Board will set aside up to $300,000 to support projects submitted by State or local courts that address the needs of only the applicant State or local jurisdiction. A project under this section may address any of the topics included in the Special Interest Categories or Statutory Program Areas. Ordinarily, the Institute will not provide support solely for the purchase of equipment or software.

      Concept papers for single jurisdiction projects may be submitted by a State court system, an appellate court, or a limited or general jurisdiction trial court. All awards under this category are subject to the matching requirements set forth in section X.B.1.

      The Board is particularly interested in supporting projects to replicate programs, procedures, or strategies that have been developed, demonstrated, or evaluated through an SJI grant. (A list of examples of such grants is contained in Appendix IV.) Replication grants are subject to the same limits on amount and duration as other project grants. (See section V.)

      b. Application Procedures. Concept papers and applications requesting funds for projects under this section must meet the requirements of sections VI. (``Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects'') and VII. (``Application Requirements''), respectively, and must demonstrate that:

      i. The proposed project is essential to meeting a critical need of the jurisdiction; and

      ii. The need cannot be met solely with State and local resources within the foreseeable future. 2. Technical Assistance Grants

      a. Description of the Program. The Board will set aside up to $400,000 to support the provision of technical assistance to State and local courts. The exact amount to be awarded for these grants will depend on the number and quality of the applications submitted in this category and other categories of the Guideline. The Committee will reserve sufficient funds each quarter to assure the availability of technical assistance grants throughout the year. The program is designed to provide State and local courts with sufficient support to obtain technical assistance to diagnose a problem, develop a response to that problem, and initiate implementation of any needed changes.

      Technical Assistance grants are limited to no more than $30,000 each, and may cover the cost of obtaining the services of expert consultants; travel by a team of officials from one court to examine a practice, program, or facility in another jurisdiction that the applicant court is interested in

      [[Page 55445]]

      replicating; or both. Technical assistance grant funds ordinarily may not be used to support production of a videotape. Normally, the technical assistance must be completed within 12 months after the start-date of the grant.

      b. Eligibility for Technical Assistance Grants. Only a State or local court may apply for a Technical Assistance grant. As with other awards to State or local courts, cash or in-kind match must be provided equal to at least 50% of the grant amount.

      c. Review Criteria. Technical Assistance grants will be awarded on the basis of criteria including: whether the assistance would address a critical need of the court; the soundness of the technical assistance approach to the problem; the qualifications of the consultant(s) to be hired, or the specific criteria that will be used to select the consultant(s); commitment on the part of the court to act on the consultant's recommendations; and the reasonableness of the proposed budget. The Institute also will consider factors such as the level and nature of the match that would be provided, diversity of subject matter, geographic diversity, the level of appropriations available to the Institute in the current year, and the amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.

      d. Application Procedures. In lieu of formal applications, applicants for Technical Assistance grants may submit, at any time, an original and three copies of a detailed letter describing the proposed project and addressing the issues listed below. Letters from an individual trial or appellate court must be signed by the presiding judge or manager of that court. Letters from the State court system must be signed by the Chief Justice or State Court Administrator.

      Although there is no prescribed form for the letter nor a minimum or maximum page limit, letters of application should include the following information to assure that each of the criteria is addressed:

      i. Need for Funding. What is the critical need facing the court? How will the proposed technical assistance help the court meet this critical need? Why cannot State or local resources fully support the costs of the required consultant services?

      ii. Project Description. What tasks would the consultant be expected to perform and how would they be accomplished? Which organization or individual would be hired to provide the assistance and how was this consultant selected? If a consultant has not yet been identified, what procedures and criteria would be used to select the consultant? (Applicants are expected to follow their jurisdiction's normal procedures for procuring consultant services.) What is the time frame for completion of the technical assistance? How would the court oversee the project and provide guidance to the consultant, and who at the court would be responsible for coordinating all project tasks and submitting quarterly progress and financial status reports?

      If the consultant has been identified, the applicant should provide a letter from that individual or organization documenting interest in and availability for the project, as well as the consultant's ability to complete the assignment within the proposed time period and for the proposed cost. The consultant must agree to submit a detailed written report to the court and the Institute upon completion of the technical assistance.

      iii. Likelihood of Implementation. What steps have been/will be taken to facilitate implementation of the consultant's recommendations upon completion of the technical assistance? For example, if the support or cooperation of specific court officials or committees, other agencies, funding bodies, organizations, or a court other than the applicant will be needed to adopt the changes recommended by the consultant and approved by the court, how will they be involved in the review of the recommendations and development of the implementation plan?

      iv. Budget and Matching State Contribution. A completed Form E, ``Preliminary Budget'' (see Appendix V) and budget narrative must be included with the applicant's letter requesting technical assistance. The estimated cost of the technical assistance services should be broken down into the categories listed on the budget form rather than aggregated under the Consultant/Contractual category.

      The budget narrative should provide the basis for all project- related costs, including the basis for determining the estimated consultant costs, if compensation of the consultant is required (e.g., number of days per task times the requested daily consultant rate). Applicants should be aware that consultant rates above $300 per day must be approved in advance by the Institute, and that no consultant will be paid at a rate in excess of $900 per day. In addition, the budget should provide for submission of two copies of the consultant's final report to the Institute.

      Recipients of technical assistance grants do not have to submit an audit, but must maintain appropriate documentation to support expenditures. (See section X.M.)

      v. Support for the Project from the State Supreme Court or its Designated Agency or Council. Written concurrence on the need for the technical assistance must be submitted. This concurrence may be a copy of SJI Form B (see Appendix VI) signed by the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court or the Chief Justice's designee, or a letter from the State Chief Justice or designee. The concurrence may be submitted with the applicant's letter or under separate cover prior to consideration of the application. The concurrence also must specify whether the State Supreme Court would receive, administer, and account for the grant funds, if awarded, or would designate the local court or a specified agency or council to receive the funds directly.

      Letters of application may be submitted at any time; however, all of the letters received during a calendar quarter will be considered at one time. Applicants submitting letters between June 12 and September 30, 1998 will be notified of the Board's decision by December 11, 1998; those submitting letters between October 1, 1998 and January 15, 1999 will be notified by March 31, 1999; notification of the Board's decisions concerning letters mailed between January 16 and March 12, 1999, will be made by May 28, 1999; notice of decisions regarding letters submitted between March 13 and June 11, 1999 will be made by August 31, 1999. Subject to the availability of sufficient appropriations for fiscal year 2000, applicants submitting letters between June 12 and September 30, 1999, will be notified by December 17, 1999.

      If the support or cooperation of agencies, funding bodies, organizations, or courts other than the applicant would be needed in order for the consultant to perform the required tasks, written assurances of such support or cooperation should accompany the application letter. Support letters also may be submitted under separate cover; however, to ensure that there is sufficient time to bring them to the attention of the Board's Technical Assistance Committee, letters sent under separate cover must be received not less than three weeks prior to the Board meeting at which the technical assistance requests will be considered (i.e., by October 30, 1998, and February 11, April 9, and July 16, 1999).

      vi. Grantee Responsibilities. Technical Assistance grant recipients are subject to the same quarterly reporting requirements as other Institute grantees. At the conclusion of the grant period, a

      [[Page 55446]]

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

      III. Definitions

      The following definitions apply for the purposes of this Guideline:

   1. Institute

      The State Justice Institute.

   2. State Supreme Court

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

   3. Designated Agency or Council

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

   4. 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.

   5. Subgrantee

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

   6. Match

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

   7. Continuation Grant

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

   8. On-going Support Grant

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

      I. Human Subjects

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

   10. Curriculum

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

   11. Products

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

       IV. Eligibility for Award

       In awarding funds to accomplish these objectives and purposes, the Institute has been authorized by Congress to award grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to State and local courts and their agencies (42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(1)(A)); national nonprofit organizations controlled by, operating in conjunction with, and serving the judicial branches of State governments (42 U.S.C. 10705 (b)(1)(B)); and national nonprofit organizations for the education and training of judges and support personnel of the judicial branch of State governments (42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(1)(C)).

       An applicant will be considered a national education and training applicant under section 10705(b)(1)(C) if: (1) the principal purpose or activity of the applicant is to provide education and training to State and local judges and court personnel; and (2) the applicant demonstrates a record of substantial experience in the field of judicial education and training.

       The Institute also is authorized to make awards to other nonprofit organizations with expertise in judicial administration, institutions of higher education, individuals, partnerships, firms, corporations, and private agencies with expertise in judicial administration, provided that the objectives of the relevant program area(s) can be served better. In making this judgment, the Institute will consider the likely replicability of the projects' methodology and results in other jurisdictions. For-profit organizations are also eligible for grants and cooperative agreements; however, they must waive their fees.

       The Institute may also make awards to Federal, State or local agencies and institutions other than courts for services that cannot be adequately provided through nongovernmental arrangements.

       In addition, the Institute may enter into inter-agency agreements with other public or private funders to support projects consistent with the purpose of the State Justice Institute Act.

       Each application for funding from a State or local court must be approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court or its designated agency or council. The latter shall receive all Institute funds awarded to such courts and be responsible for assuring proper administration of Institute funds, in accordance with section XI.B.2. of this Guideline. A list of persons to contact in each State regarding approval of applications from State and local courts and administration of Institute grants to those courts is contained in Appendix I.

       [[Page 55447]]

       V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of Awards

   1. Types of Projects

      Except as expressly provided in section II.B.2.b. and II.C. above, the Institute has placed no limitation on the overall number of awards or the number of awards in each special interest category. The general types of projects are:

1. Education and training;

2. Research and evaluation;

3. Demonstration; and

4. Technical assistance.

   2. Types of Grants

   The Institute has established the following types of grants:

1. Project grants (See sections II.B., and C.1., VI., and VII.);

2. Continuation grants (See sections III.H. and IX.A);

3. On-going Support grants (See sections III.I. and IX.B.);

4. Technical Assistance grants (See section II.C.2);

5. Curriculum Adaptation grants (See section II.B.2.b.ii.); and

6. Scholarships (See section II.B.2.b.iii).

   3. Maximum Size of Awards

1. Except as specified below, applications for new project grants and applications for continuation grants may request funding in amounts up to $200,000, although new and continuation awards in excess of $150,000 are likely to be rare and to be made, if at all, only for highly promising proposals that will have a significant impact nationally.

2. Applications for on-going support grants may request funding in amounts up to $600,000 over three years, although awards in excess of $450,000 are likely to be rare. At the discretion of the Board, the funds for on-going support grants may be awarded either entirely from the Institute's appropriations for the fiscal year of the award or from the Institute's appropriations for successive fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year of the award. When funds to support the full amount of an on-going support grant are not awarded from the appropriations for the fiscal year of award, funds to support any subsequent years of the grant will be made available upon (1) the satisfactory performance of the project as reflected in the Quarterly Progress Reports required to be filedand grant monitoring; (2) the availability of appropriations for that fiscal year; and (3) a determination that the project continues to fall within the Institute's priorities.

3. Applications for technical assistance grants may request funding in amounts up to $30,000.

4. Applications for curriculum adaptation grants may request funding in amounts up to $20,000.

5. Applications for scholarships may request funding in amounts up to $1,500.

   4. Length of Grant Periods

1. Grant periods for all new and continuation projects ordinarily will not exceed 15 months.

2. Grant periods for on-going support grants ordinarily will not exceed 36 months.

3. Grant periods for technical assistance grants and curriculum adaptation grants ordinarily will not exceed 12 months.

   VI. Concept Paper Submission Requirements for New Projects

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

   1. Format and Content

   All concept papers must include a cover sheet, a program narrative, and a preliminary budget. 1. The Cover Sheet

   The cover sheet for all concept papers must contain:

   a. A title that clearly describes the proposed project;

   b. The name and address of the court, organization, or individual submitting the paper;

   c. The name, title, address (if different from that in b.), and telephone number of a contact person who can provide further information about the paper;

   d. The letter of the Special Interest Category (see section II.B.2.) or the number of the statutory Program Area (see section II.A.) that the proposed project addresses most directly; and

   e. The estimated length of the proposed project.

   Applicants requesting the Board to waive the application requirement and approve a grant of less than $40,000 based on the concept paper, should add APPLICATION WAIVER REQUESTED to the information on the cover page. 2. The Program Narrative

   The program narrative of a concept paper should be no longer than necessary, but must not exceed eight (8) double-spaced pages on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper. Margins must be at least 1 inch and type size must be at least 12 point and 12 cpi. The pages should be numbered. The narrative should describe:

   a. Why is this project needed and how will it benefit State courts? If the project is to be conducted in a specific location(s), applicants should discuss the particular needs of the project site(s) to be addressed by the project, why those needs are not being met through the use of existing materials, programs, procedures, services, or other resources, and the benefits that would be realized by the proposed site(s).

   If the project is not site-specific, applicants should discuss the problems that the proposed project will address, why existing materials, programs, procedures, services, or other resources do not adequately resolve those problems, and the benefits that would be realized from the project by State courts generally.

   b. What will be done if a grant is awarded? Applicants should include a summary description of the project to be conducted and the approach to be taken, including the anticipated length of the grant period. Applicants requesting a waiver of the application requirement for a grant of less than $40,000 should explain the proposed methods for conducting the project as fully as space allows, and include a detailed task schedule as an attachment to the concept paper.

   c. How will the effects and quality of the project be determined? Applicants should include a summary description of how the project will be evaluated, including the evaluation criteria.

   d. How will others find out about the project and be able to use the results? Applicants should describe the products that will result, the degree to which they will be applicable to courts across the nation, and to whom the products and results of the project will be disseminated in addition to the SJI-designated libraries (e.g., State chief justices, specified groups of trial judges, State court administrators, specified groups of trial court administrators, State judicial educators, or other audiences).

   [[Page 55448]]

3. The Budget

   a. Preliminary Budget. A preliminary budget must be attached to the narrative that includes the information specified on Form E included in Appendix VI of this Guideline. Applicants should be aware that prior written Institute approval is required for any consultant rate in excess of $300 per day, and that Institute funds may not be used to pay a consultant in excess of $900 per day.

   b. Concept Papers Requesting Accelerated Award of a Grant of Less than $40,000. Applicants requesting a waiver of the application requirement and approval of a grant based on a concept paper under section VI.C., must attach to Form E (see Appendix VI) a budget narrative that explains the basis for each of the items listed, and indicates whether the costs would be paid from grant funds, through a matching contribution, or from other sources. Courts requesting an accelerated award must also attach a Certificate of State Approval (Form B) signed by the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court or the Chief Justice's designee. 4. Letters of Cooperation or Support

   The Institute encourages concept paper applicants to attach letters of cooperation and support from the courts and related agencies that will be involved in or directly affected by the proposed project. Letters of support also may be sent under separate cover. However, in order to ensure that there is sufficient time to bring them to the Board's attention, support letters sent under separate cover must be received no later than January 6, 1999. 5. Page Limits

   a. The Institute will not accept concept papers with program narratives exceeding the limits set in sections VI.A.2. The page limit does not include the cover page, budget form, the budget narrative if required under section VI.A.3.b., the task schedule if required under section VI.A.2.b., and any letters of cooperation or endorsements. Additional material should not be attached unless it is essential to impart a clear understanding of the project.

   b. Applicants submitting more than one concept paper may include material that would be identical in each concept paper in a cover letter, and incorporate that material by reference in each paper. The incorporated material will be counted against the eight-page limit for each paper. A copy of the cover letter should be attached to each copy of each concept paper. 6. Sample Concept Papers

   Sample concept papers from previous funding cycles are available from the Institute upon request.

   2. Selection Criteria

1. All concept papers will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:

   a. The demonstration of need for the project;

   b. The soundness and innovativeness of the approach described;

   c. The benefits to be derived from the project;

   d. The reasonableness of the proposed budget;

   e. The proposed project's relationship to one of the ``Special Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B; and

   f. The degree to which the findings, procedures, training, technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other jurisdictions.

   ``Single jurisdiction'' concept papers submitted pursuant to section II.C. will be rated on the proposed project's relation to one of the ``Special Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B., and on the special requirements listed in section II.C.1.

2. In determining which concept papers will be approved for award or selected for development into full applications, the Institute will also consider the availability of financial assistance from other sources for the project; the amount and nature (cash or in-kind) of the applicant's anticipated match; whether the applicant is a State court, a national court support or education organization, a non-court unit of government, or another type of entity eligible to receive grants under the Institute's enabling legislation (see 42 U.S.C. 10705(b), as amended and section IV above); the extent to which the proposed project would also benefit the Federal courts or help the State courts enforce Federal constitutional and legislative requirements, and the level of appropriations available to the Institute in the current year and the amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.

   3. Review Process

      Concept papers will be reviewed competitively by the Board of Directors. Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary and a rating sheet assigning points for each relevant selection criterion for those concept papers which fall within the scope of the Institute's funding program and merit serious consideration by the Board. Staff will also prepare a list of those papers that, in the judgment of the Executive Director, propose projects that lie outside the scope of the Institute's funding program or are not likely to merit serious consideration by the Board. The narrative summaries, rating sheets, and list of non-reviewed papers will be presented to the Board for its review. Committees of the Board will review concept paper summaries within assigned program areas and prepare recommendations for the full Board. The full Board of Directors will then decide which concept paper applicants should be invited to submit formal applications for funding. The decision to invite an application is solely that of the Board of Directors.

      The Board may waive the application requirement and approve a grant based on a concept paper for a project requiring less than $40,000, when the need for and benefits of the project are clear, and the methodology and budget require little additional explanation. Applicants considering whether to request consideration for an accelerated award should make certain that the proposed budget is sufficient to accomplish the project objectives in a quality manner. Because the Institute's experience has been that projects to conduct empirical research or a program evaluation ordinarily require a more thorough explanation of the methodology to be used than can be provided within the space limitations of a concept paper, the Board is unlikely to waive the application requirement for such projects.

   4. Submission Requirements

      Except as noted below, an original and three copies of all concept papers submitted for consideration in Fiscal Year 1999 must be sent by first class or overnight mail or by courier (but not by fax or e-mail) no later than November 24, 1998.

      A postmark or courier receipt will constitute evidence of the submission date. All envelopes containing concept papers should be marked CONCEPT PAPER and should be sent to: State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

      The Institute will send written notice to all persons submitting concept papers, informing them of the Board's decisions regarding their papers and of the key issues and questions that arose during the review process. A decision by the Board not to invite an application may not be appealed, but applicants may resubmit of the concept paper or a revision thereof in a subsequent round of funding. The Institute will also notify the designated State contact listed in Appendix I when the Board invites applications that are based on concept

      [[Page 55449]]

      papers which are submitted by courts within their State or which specify a participating site within their State.

      Receipt of each concept paper will be acknowledged in writing. Extensions of the deadline for submission of concept papers will not be granted.

      VII. Application Requirements for New Projects

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

   1. Forms

1. Application Form (FORM A)

   The application form requests basic information regarding the proposed project, the applicant, and the total amount of funding support requested from the Institute. It also requires the signature of an individual authorized to certify on behalf of the applicant that the information contained in the application is true and complete, that submission of the application has been authorized by the applicant, and that if funding for the proposed project is approved, the applicant will comply with the requirements and conditions of the award, including the assurances set forth in Form D. 2. Certificate of State Approval (FORM B)

   An application from a State or local court must include a copy of FORM B signed by the State's Chief Justice or Chief Judge, the director of the designated agency, or the head of the designated council. The signature denotes that the proposed project has been approved by the State's highest court or the agency or council it has designated. It denotes further that if funding for the project is approved by the Institute, the court or the specified designee will receive, administer, and be accountable for the awarded funds. 3. Budget Forms (FORM C or C1)

   Applicants may submit the proposed project budget either in the tabular format of FORM C or in the spreadsheet format of FORM C1. Applicants requesting $100,000 or more are strongly encouraged to use the spreadsheet format. If the proposed project period is for more than a year, a separate form should be submitted for each year or portion of a year for which grant support is requested, as well as for the total length of the project.

   In addition to FORM C or C1, applicants must provide a detailed budget narrative providing an explanation of the basis for the estimates in each budget category. (See section VII.D.)

   If funds from other sources are required to conduct the project, either as match or to support other aspects of the project, the source, current status of the request, and anticipated decision date must be provided. 4. Assurances (FORM D)

   This form lists the statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements and conditions with which recipients of Institute funds must comply. 5. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

   This form requires applicants other than units of State or local government to disclose whether they, or another entity that is part of the same organization as the applicant, have advocated a position before Congress on any issue, and to identify the specific subjects of their lobbying efforts. (See section X.D.)

   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 should not exceed 25 double-spaced pages on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper. Margins must be at least 1 inch, and type size must be at least 12-point and 12 cpi. The pages should be numbered. This page limit does not include the forms, the abstract, the budget narrative, and any appendices containing resumes and letters of cooperation or endorsement. Additional background material should be attached only if it is essential to impart a clear understanding of the proposed project. Numerous and lengthy appendices are strongly discouraged.

      The program narrative should address the following topics: 1. Project Objectives

      The applicant should include a clear, concise statement of what the proposed project is intended to accomplish. In stating the objectives of the project, applicants should focus on the overall programmatic objective (e.g., to enhance understanding and skills regarding a specific subject, or to determine how a certain procedure affects the court and litigants) rather than on operational objectives (e.g., provide training for 32 judges and court managers, or review data from 300 cases). 2. Program Areas To Be Covered

      The applicant should list the Special Interest Category or Categories that are addressed by the proposed project (see section II.B.). If the proposed project does not fall within one of the Institute's Special Interest Categories, the applicant should list the Statutory Program Area or Areas that are addressed by the proposed project. (See section II.A.) 3. Need for the Project

      If the project is to be conducted in a specific location(s), the applicant should discuss the particular needs of the project site(s) to be addressed by the project and why those needs are not being met through the use of existing materials, programs, procedures, services, or other resources.

      If the project is not site-specific, the applicant should discuss the problems that the proposed project would address, and why existing materials, programs, procedures, services, or other resources do not adequately resolve those problems. The discussion should include specific references to the relevant literature and to the experience in the field. 4. Tasks, Methods and Evaluation

      a. Tasks and Methods. The applicant should delineate the tasks to be performed in achieving the project objectives and the methods to be used for accomplishing each task. For example:

      i. For research and evaluation projects, the applicant should include the data sources, data collection strategies, variables to be examined, and analytic procedures to be used for conducting the research or evaluation and ensuring the validity and general applicability of the results. For projects involving human subjects, the discussion of methods should address the procedures for obtaining respondents' informed consent, ensuring the respondents' privacy and freedom from risk or harm, and the protection of others who are not the subjects of research but would be affected by the research. If the potential exists for risk or harm to the human subjects, a discussion should be included that explains the value of the proposed research and the methods to be used to minimize or eliminate such risk.

      [[Page 55450]]

      ii. For education and training projects, the applicant should include the adult education techniques to be used in designing and presenting the program, including the teaching/learning objectives of the educational design, the teaching methods to be used, and the opportunities for structured interaction among the participants; how faculty will be recruited, selected, and trained; the proposed number and length of the conferences, courses, seminars, or workshops to be conducted and the estimated number of persons who will attend them; the materials to be provided and how they will be developed; and the cost to participants.

      iii. For demonstration projects, the applicant should include the demonstration sites and the reasons they were selected, or if the sites have not been chosen, how they will be identified and their cooperation obtained; and how the program or procedures will be implemented and monitored.

      iv. For technical assistance projects, the applicant should explain the types of assistance that will be provided; the particular issues and problems for which assistance will be provided; how requests will be obtained and the type of assistance determined; how suitable providers will be selected and briefed; how reports will be reviewed; and the cost to recipients.

      b. Evaluation. Every project design must include an evaluation plan to determine whether the project met its objectives. The evaluation should be designed to provide an objective and independent assessment of the effectiveness or usefulness of the training or services provided; the impact of the procedures, technology, or services tested; or the validity and applicability of the research conducted. In addition, where appropriate, the evaluation process should be designed to provide on-going or periodic feedback on the effectiveness or utility of particular programs, educational offerings, or achievements which can then be further refined as a result of the evaluation process. The plan should present the qualifications of the evaluator(s); describe the criteria, related to the project's programmatic objectives, that will be used to evaluate the project's effectiveness; explain how the evaluation will be conducted, including the specific data collection and analysis techniques to be used; discuss why this approach is appropriate; and present a schedule for completion of the evaluation within the proposed project period.

      The evaluation plan should be appropriate to the type of project proposed. For example:

      i. Research. An evaluation approach suited to many research projects is a review by an advisory panel of the research methodology, data collection instruments, preliminary analyses, and products as they are drafted. The panel should be comprised of independent researchers and practitioners representing the perspectives affected by the proposed project.

      ii. Education and Training. The most valuable approaches to evaluating educational or training programs will serve to reinforce the participants' learning experience while providing useful feedback on the impact of the program and possible areas for improvement. One appropriate evaluation approach is to assess the acquisition of new knowledge, skills, attitudes or understanding through participant feedback on the seminar or training event. Such feedback might include a self-assessment on what was learned along with the participant's response to the quality and effectiveness of faculty presentations, the format of sessions, the value or usefulness of the material presented, and other relevant factors. Another appropriate approach would be to use an independent observer who might request both verbal and written responses from participants in the program. When an education project involves the development of curricular materials, an advisory panel of relevant experts can be coupled with a test of the curriculum to obtain the reactions of participants and faculty as indicated above.

      iii. Demonstration. The evaluation plan for a demonstration project should encompass an assessment of program effectiveness (e.g., How well did it work?); user satisfaction, if appropriate; the cost- effectiveness of the program; a process analysis of the program (e.g., Was the program implemented as designed? Did it provide the services intended to the targeted population?); the impact of the program (e.g., What effect did the program have on the court? What benefits resulted from the program?); and the replicability of the program or components of the program.

      iv. Technical Assistance. For technical assistance projects, applicants should explain how the quality, timeliness, and impact of the assistance provided will be determined, and should develop a mechanism for feedback from both the users and providers of the technical assistance.

      v. Evaluation plans involving human subjects should include a discussion of the procedures for obtaining respondents' informed consent, ensuring the respondents' privacy and freedom from risk or harm, and the protection of others who are not the subjects of evaluation but would be affected by it. Other than the provision of confidentiality to respondents, human subject protection issues ordinarily are not applicable to participants evaluating an education program. 5. Project Management

      The applicant should present a detailed management plan including the starting and completion date for each task; the time commitments to the project of key staff and their responsibilities regarding each project task; and the procedures that will be used to ensure that all tasks are performed on time, within budget, and at the highest level of quality. In preparing the project time line, Gantt Chart, or schedule, applicants should make certain that all project activities, including publication or reproduction of project products and their initial dissemination will occur within the proposed project period. The management plan must also provide for the submission of Quarterly Progress and Financial Reports within 30 days after the close of each calendar quarter (i.e., no later than January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30).

      Applicants should be aware that the Institute is unlikely to approve more than one limited extension of the grant period. Therefore, the management plan should be as realistic as possible and fully reflect the time commitments of the proposed project staff and consultants. 6. Products

      The application should contain a description of the products to be developed by the project (e.g., training curricula and materials, videotapes, articles, manuals, or handbooks), including when they will be submitted to the Institute.

      a. Dissemination Plan. The application must explain how and to whom the products will be disseminated; describe how they will benefit the State courts, including how they can be used by judges and court personnel; identify development, production, and dissemination costs covered by the project budget; and present the basis on which products and services developed or provided under the grant will be offered to the courts community and the public at large (i.e., whether products will be distributed at no cost to recipients, or if costs are involved, the reason for charging recipients and the estimated price of the

      [[Page 55451]]

      product). (See section X.V.) Ordinarily, applicants should schedule all product preparation and distribution activities within the project period.

      A copy of each product must be sent to the library established in each State to collect the materials developed with Institute support. (A list of these libraries is contained in Appendix II.) To facilitate their use, all videotaped products should be distributed in VHS format.

      Twenty copies of all project products must be submitted to the Institute. A master copy of each videotape, in addition to 20 copies of each videotape product, must also be provided to the Institute.

      b. Types of Products, Abstracts, and Press Releases. The type of product to be prepared depends on the nature of the project. For example, in most instances, the products of a research, evaluation, or demonstration project should include an article summarizing the project findings that is publishable in a journal serving the courts community nationally, an executive summary that will be disseminated to the project's primary audience, or both. Applicants proposing to conduct empirical research or evaluation projects with national import should describe how they will make their data available for secondary analysis after the grant period. (See section X.W.)

      The curricula and other products developed by education and training projects should be designed for use outside the classroom so that they may be used again by original participants and others in the course of their duties.

      However, all grantees must submit a diskette containing a one-page abstract summarizing the products resulting from a project in Word or ASCII for posting on the Institute's website. In addition, recipients of project grants must prepare a press release describing the project and announcing the results and distribute the release to a list of national and State judicial branch organizations. Both the format for the abstract and a list of press release recipients will be provided to grantees at least 30 days before the end of the grant period.

      c. Institute Review. Applicants must provide for submitting a final draft of all written grant products to the Institute for review and approval at least 30 days before the products are submitted for publication or reproduction. For products in a videotape or CD-ROM format, applicants must provide for incremental Institute review of the product at the treatment, script, rough-cut, and final stages of development, or their equivalents. No grant funds may be obligated for publication or reproduction of a final grant product without the written approval of the Institute.

      d. Acknowledgment, Disclaimer, and Logo. Applicants must also provide for including in all project products a prominent acknowledgment that support was received from the Institute and a disclaimer paragraph based on the example provided in section X.Q. of the Guideline. The ``SJI'' logo must appear on the front cover of a written product, or in the opening frames of a video product, unless the Institute approves another placement. 7. Applicant Status

      An applicant that is not a State or local court and has not received a grant from the Institute within the past two years should state whether it is either a national non-profit organization controlled by, operating in conjunction with, and serving the judicial branches of State governments; or a national non-profit organization for the education and training of State court judges and support personnel. See section IV. If the applicant is a nonjudicial unit of Federal, State, or local government, it must explain whether the proposed services could be adequately provided by non-governmental entities. 8. Staff Capability

      The applicant should include a summary of the training and experience of the key staff members and consultants that qualify them for conducting and managing the proposed project. Resumes of identified staff should be attached to the application. If one or more key staff members and consultants are not known at the time of the application, a description of the criteria that will be used to select persons for these positions should be included. The applicant also should identify the person who would be responsible for the financial management and financial reporting for the proposed project. 9. Organizational Capacity

      Applicants that have not received a grant from the Institute within the past two years should include a statement describing the capacity of the applicant to administer grant funds including the financial systems used to monitor project expenditures (and income, if any), and a summary of the applicant's past experience in administering grants, as well as any resources or capabilities that the applicant has that will particularly assist in the successful completion of the project.

      Unless requested otherwise, an applicant that has received a grant from the Institute within the past two years should describe only the changes in its organizational capacity, tax status, or financial capability that may affect its capacity to administer a grant.

      If the applicant is a non-profit organization (other than a university), it must also provide documentation of its 501(c) tax exempt status as determined by the Internal Revenue Service and a copy of a current certified audit report. For purposes of this requirement, ``current'' means no earlier than two years prior to the current calendar year.

      If a current audit report is not available, the Institute will require the organization to complete a financial capability questionnaire which must be signed by a Certified Public Accountant. Other applicants may be required to provide a current audit report, a financial capability questionnaire, or both, if specifically requested to do so by the Institute. 10. Statement of Lobbying Activities

      Non-governmental applicants must submit the Institute's Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Form that requires them to state whether they, or another entity that is a part of the same organization as the applicant, have advocated a position before Congress on any issue, and identifies the specific subjects of their lobbying efforts. 11. Letters of Cooperation or Support

      If the cooperation of courts, organizations, agencies, or individuals other than the applicant is required to conduct the project, the applicant should attach written assurances of cooperation and availability to the application, or send them under separate cover. In order to ensure that there is sufficient time to bring them to the Board's attention, letters of support sent under separate cover must be received no more than 30 days after the deadline for mailing the application.

   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

      [[Page 55452]]

      and clearly identify costs attributable to the project evaluation. Under OMB grant guidelines incorporated by reference in this Guideline, grant funds may not be used to purchase alcoholic beverages. 1. Justification of Personnel Compensation

      The applicant should set forth the percentages of time to be devoted by the individuals who will serve as the staff of the proposed project, the annual salary of each of those persons, and the number of work days per year used for calculating the percentages of time or daily rate of those individuals. The applicant should explain any deviations from current rates or established written organization policies. If grant funds are requested to pay the salary and related costs for a current employee of a court or other unit of government, the applicant should explain why this would not constitute a supplantation of State or local funds in violation of 42 U.S.C. 10706 (d)(1). An acceptable explanation may be that the position to be filled is a new one established in conjunction with the project or that the grant funds will be supporting only the portion of the employee's time that will be dedicated to new or additional duties related to the project. 2. Fringe Benefit Computation

      The applicant should provide a description of the fringe benefits provided to employees. If percentages are used, the authority for such use should be presented as well as a description of the elements included in the determination of the percentage rate. 3. Consultant/Contractual Services and Honoraria

      The applicant should describe the tasks each consultant will perform, the estimated total amount to be paid to each consultant, the basis for compensation rates (e.g., number of days x the daily consultant rates), and the method for selection. Rates for consultant services must be set in accordance with section XI.H.2.c. Honorarium payments must be justified in the same manner as other consultant payments. Prior written Institute approval is required for any consultant rate in excess of $300 per day; Institute funds may not be used to pay a consultant at a rate in excess of $900 per day. 4. Travel

      Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the policies of the applicant organization. If the applicant does not have an established travel policy, then travel rates must be consistent with those established by the Institute or the Federal Government. (A copy of the Institute's travel policy is available upon request.) The budget narrative should include an explanation of the rate used, including the components of the per diem rate and the basis for the estimated transportation expenses. The purpose of the travel should also be included in the narrative. 5. Equipment

      Grant funds may be used to purchase only the equipment that is necessary to demonstrate a new technological application in a court, or that is otherwise essential to accomplishing the objectives of the project. Equipment purchases to support basic court operations ordinarily will not be approved. The applicant should describe the equipment to be purchased or leased and explain why the acquisition of that equipment is essential to accomplish the project's goals and objectives. The narrative should clearly identify which equipment is to be leased and which is to be purchased. The method of procurement should also be described. Purchases for automatic data processing equipment must comply with section XI.H.2.b. 6. Supplies

      The applicant should provide a general description of the supplies necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives of the grant. In addition, the applicant should provide the basis for the amount requested for this expenditure category. 7. Construction

      Construction expenses are prohibited except for the limited purposes set forth in section X.H.2. Any allowable construction or renovation expense should be described in detail in the budget narrative. 8. Telephone

      Applicants should include anticipated telephone charges, distinguishing between monthly charges and long distance charges in the budget narrative. Also, applicants should provide the basis used in developing the monthly and long distance estimates. 9. Postage

      Anticipated postage costs for project-related mailings should be described in the budget narrative. The cost of special mailings, such as for a survey or for announcing a workshop, should be distinguished from routine operational mailing costs. The bases for all postage estimates should be included in the justification material. 10. Printing/Photocopying

      Anticipated costs for printing or photocopying should be included in the budget narrative. Applicants should provide the details underlying these estimates in support of the request. 11. Indirect Costs

      Applicants should describe the indirect cost rates applicable to the grant in detail. If costs often included within an indirect cost rate are charged directly (e.g., a percentage of the time of senior managers to supervise product activities), the applicant should specify that these costs are not included within their approved indirect cost rate. These rates must be established in accordance with section XI.H.4. If the applicant has an indirect cost rate or allocation plan approved by any Federal granting agency, a copy of the approved rate agreement should be attached to the application. 12. Match

      The applicant should describe the source of any matching contribution and the nature of the match provided. Any additional contributions to the project should be described in this section of the budget narrative as well. If in-kind match is to be provided, the applicant should describe how the amount and value of the time, services, or materials actually contributed will be documented sufficiently clearly to permit them to be included in an audit of the grant. Applicants should be aware that the time spent by participants in education courses does not qualify as in-kind match.

      Applicants that do not contemplate making matching contributions continuously throughout the course of the project or on a task-by-task basis must provide a schedule within 30 days after the beginning of the project period indicating at what points during the project period the matching contributions will be made. (See sections III.F., VIII.B., X.B. and XI.D.1.)

   5. Submission Requirements

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

   [[Page 55453]]

   All invited must be sent by first class or overnight mail or by courier, no later than May 12, 1999. A postmark or courier receipt will constitute evidence of the submission date. Please mark APPLICATION on all application package envelopes and send to: State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314.

   Receipt of each proposal will be acknowledged in writing. Extensions of the deadline for submission of applications will not be granted. See section VII.C.11. for receipt deadlines for letters of support.

2. Applicants submitting more than one application may include material that would be identical in each application in a cover letter, and incorporate that material by reference in each application. The incorporated material will be counted against the 25-page limit for the program narrative. A copy of the cover letter should be attached to each copy of each application.

   VIII. Application Review Procedures

   1. 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.

   2. Selection Criteria

1. All applications will be rated on the basis of the criteria set forth below. The Institute will accord the greatest weight to the following criteria:

   a. The soundness of the methodology;

   b. The demonstration of need for the project;

   c. The appropriateness of the proposed evaluation design;

   d. The applicant's management plan and organizational capabilities;

   e. The qualifications of the project's staff;

   f. The products and benefits resulting from the project including the extent to which the project will have long-term benefits for State courts across the nation;

   g. The degree to which the findings, procedures, training, technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other jurisdictions.

   h. The reasonableness of the proposed budget;

   i. The demonstration of cooperation and support of other agencies that may be affected by the project; and

   j. The proposed project's relationship to one of the ``Special Interest'' categories set forth in section II.B.

2. In determining which applicants to fund, the Institute will also consider whether the applicant is a State court, a national court support or education organization, a non-court unit of government, or other type of entity eligible to receive grants under the Institute's enabling legislation (see 42 U.S.C. 10705(6) (as amended) and Section IV above); the availability of financial assistance from other sources for the project; the amount and nature (cash or in-kind) of the applicant's match; the extent to which the proposed project would also benefit the Federal courts or help State courts enforce Federal constitutional and legislative requirements; and the level of appropriations available to the Institute in the current year and the amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.

   3. Review and Approval Process

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

      Awards approved by the Board will be signed by the Chairman of the Board on behalf of the Institute.

   4. 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.

   5. Notification of Board Decision

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

   6. Response to Notification of Approval

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

      IX. Renewal Funding Procedures and Requirements

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

   1. Continuation Grants

1. Purpose and Scope

   Continuation grants are intended to support projects with a limited duration that involve the same type of activities as the previous project. They are intended to enhance the specific program or service produced or established during the prior grant period. They may be used, for example, when a project is divided into two or more sequential phases, for secondary analysis of data obtained in an Institute-supported research project, or for more extensive testing of an innovative technology, procedure, or program developed with SJI grant support.

   In order for a project to be considered for continuation funding, the grantee must have completed the project tasks and met all grant requirements and conditions in a timely manner, absent extenuating circumstances or prior Institute approval of changes to the project design. Continuation grants are not intended to provide support for a project for which the grantee has underestimated the amount of time or funds needed to accomplish the project tasks. 2. Application Procedures--Letters of Intent

   In lieu of a concept paper, a grantee seeking a continuation grant must inform the Institute, by letter, of its intent to submit an application for such funding as soon as the need for renewal funding becomes apparent but no less than 120 days before the end of the current grant period.

   [[Page 55454]]

   a. A letter of intent must be no more than 3 single-spaced pages on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper and must contain a concise but thorough explanation of the need for continuation; an estimate of the funds to be requested; and a brief description of anticipated changes in the scope, focus, or audience of the project.

   b. Within 30 days after receiving a letter of intent, Institute staff will review the proposed activities for the next project period and inform the grantee of specific issues to be addressed in the continuation application and the date by which the application for a continuation grant must be submitted. 3. Application Format

   An application for a continuation grant must include an application form, budget forms (with appropriate documentation), a project abstract conforming to the format set forth in section VII.B., a program narrative, a budget narrative, a Certificate of State Approval (FORM B) if the applicant is a State or local court, a disclosure of lobbying form (from applicants other than units of State or local government), and any necessary appendices.

   The program narrative should conform to the length and format requirements set forth in section VII.C. However, rather than the topics listed in section VII.C., the program narrative of an application for a continuation grant should include:

   a. Project Objectives. The applicant should clearly and concisely state what the continuation project is intended to accomplish.

   b. Need for Continuation. The applicant should explain why continuation of the project is necessary to achieve the goals of the project, and how the continuation will benefit the participating courts or the courts community generally. That is, to what extent will the original goals and objectives of the project be unfulfilled if the project is not continued, and conversely, how will the findings or results of the project be enhanced by continuing the project?

   c. Report of Current Project Activities. The applicant should discuss the status of all activities conducted during the previous project period. Applicants should identify any activities that were not completed, and explain why.

   d. Evaluation Findings. The applicant should present the key findings, impact, or recommendations resulting from the evaluation of the project, if they are available, and how they will be addressed during the proposed continuation. If the findings are not yet available, applicants should provide the date by which they will be submitted to the Institute. Ordinarily, the Board will not consider an application for continuation funding until the Institute has received the evaluator's report.

   e. Tasks, Methods, Staff and Grantee Capability. The applicant should fully describe any changes in the tasks to be performed, the methods to be used, the products of the project, and how and to whom those products will be disseminated, as well as any changes in the assigned staff or the grantee's organizational capacity. Applicants should include, in addition, the criteria and methods by which the proposed continuation project would be evaluated.

   f. Task Schedule. The applicant should present a detailed task schedule and timeline for the next project period.

   g. Other Sources of Support. The applicant should indicate why other sources of support are inadequate, inappropriate or unavailable. 4. Budget and Budget Narrative

   The applicant should provide a complete budget and budget narrative conforming to the requirements set forth in paragraph VII.D. Changes in the funding level requested should be discussed in terms of corresponding increases or decreases in the scope of activities or services to be rendered. In addition, the applicant should estimate the amount of grant funds that will remain unobligated at the end of the current grant period.

5. References to Previously Submitted Material

   An application for a continuation grant should not repeat information contained in a previously approved application or other previously submitted materials, but should provide specific references to such materials where appropriate. 6. Submission Requirements, Review and Approval Process, and Notification of Decision

   The submission requirements set forth in section VII.E., other than the deadline for mailing, apply to applications for a continuation grant. Such applications will be rated on the selection criteria set forth in section VIII.B. The key findings and recommendations resulting from an evaluation of the project and the proposed response to those findings and recommendations will also be considered. The review and approval process, return policy, and notification procedures are the same as those for new projects set forth in sections VIII.C.-VIII.E.

   2. On-going Support Grants

1. Purpose and Scope

   On-going support grants are intended to support projects that are national in scope and that provide the State courts with services, programs or products for which there is a continuing critical need. An on-going support grant may also be used to fund longitudinal research that directly benefits the State courts. On-going support grants are subject to the limits on size and duration set forth in V.C.2. and V.D.2. The Board will consider awarding an on-going support grant for a period of up to 36 months. The total amount of the grant will be fixed at the time of the initial award. Funds ordinarily will be made available in annual increments as specified in section V.C.2.

   A project is eligible for consideration for an on-going support grant if:

   a. The project is supported by and has been evaluated under a grant from the Institute;

   b. The project is national in scope and provides a significant benefit to the State courts;

   c. There is a continuing critical need for the services, programs or products provided by the project as indicated by the level of use and support by members of the court community;

   d. The project is accomplishing its objectives in an effective and efficient manner; and

   e. It is likely that the service or program provided by the project would be curtailed or significantly reduced without Institute support.

   Each project supported by an on-going support grant must include an evaluation component assessing its effectiveness and operation throughout the grant period. The evaluation should be independent, but may be designed collaboratively by the evaluator and the grantee. The design should call for regular feedback from the evaluator to the grantee throughout the project period concerning recommendations for mid-course corrections or improvement of the project, as well as periodic reports to the Institute at relevant points in the project.

   An interim evaluation report must be submitted 18 months into the grant period. The decision to obligate Institute funds to support the third year of the project will be based on the interim evaluation findings and the applicant's response to any deficiencies noted in the report.

   A final evaluation assessing the effectiveness, operation of, and continuing need for the project must be submitted 90 days before the end of the 3-year project period. In addition, a

   [[Page 55455]]

   detailed annual task schedule must be submitted not later than 45 days before the end of the first and second years of the grant period, along with an explanation of any necessary revisions in the projected costs for the remainder of the project period. (See also section IX.B.3.h.) 2. Letters of Intent

   In lieu of a concept paper, a grantee seeking an on-going support grant must inform the Institute, by letter, of its intent to submit an application for such funding as soon as the need for renewal funding becomes apparent but no less than 120 days before the end of the current grant period. The letter of intent should be in the same format as that prescribed for continuation grants in section IX.A.2.a. 3. Format

   An application for an on-going support grant must include an application form, budget forms (with appropriate documentation), a Certificate of State Approval (FORM B) if the applicant is a State or local court, a disclosure of lobbying form (from applicants other than units of State or local government), a project abstract conforming to the format set forth in section VII.B., a program narrative, a budget narrative, and any necessary appendices.

   The program narrative should conform to the length and format requirements set forth in section VII.C. However, rather than the topics listed in section VII.C., the program narrative of applications for on-going support grants should address:

   a. Description of Need for and Benefits of the Project. The applicant should provide a detailed discussion of the benefits provided by the project to the State courts around the country, including the degree to which State courts, State court judges, or State court managers and personnel are using the services or programs provided by the project.

   b. Demonstration of Court Support. The applicant should demonstrate support for the continuation of the project from the courts community.

   c. Report on Current Project Activities. The applicant should discuss the extent to which the project has met its goals and objectives, identify any activities that have not been completed, and explain why.

   d. Evaluation Findings. The applicant should attach a copy of the final evaluation report regarding the effectiveness, impact, and operation of the project, specify the key findings or recommendations resulting from the evaluation, and explain how they will be addressed during the proposed renewal period. Ordinarily, the Board will not consider an application for on-going support until the Institute has received the evaluator's report.

   e. Objectives, Tasks, Methods, Staff and Grantee Capability. The applicant should describe fully any changes in the objectives; tasks to be performed; the methods to be used; the products of the project; how and to whom those products will be disseminated; the assigned staff; and the grantee's organizational capacity. The grantee also should describe the steps it will take to obtain support from other sources for the continued operation of the project.

   f. Task Schedule. The applicant should present a general schedule for the full proposed project period and a detailed task schedule for the first year of the proposed new project period.

   g. Other Sources of Support. The applicant should describe what efforts it has taken to secure support for the project from other sources and discuss why other sources of support are inadequate, inappropriate, or unavailable. 4. Budget and Budget Narrative

   The applicant should provide a complete three-year budget and budget narrative conforming to the requirements set forth in paragraph VII.D., and estimate the amount of grant funds that will remain unobligated at the end of the current grant period. Changes in the funding level requested should be discussed in terms of corresponding increases or decreases in the scope of activities or services to be rendered. A complete budget narrative should be provided for the full project as well as for each year, or portion of a year, for which grant support is requested. Changes in the funding level requested should be discussed in terms of corresponding increases or decreases in the scope of activities or services to be rendered. The budget should provide for realistic cost-of-living and staff salary increases over the course of the requested project period. Applicants should be aware that the Institute is unlikely to approve a supplemental budget increase for an on-going support grant in the absence of well-documented, unanticipated factors that clearly justify the requested increase. 5. References to Previously Submitted Material

   An application for an on-going support grant should not repeat information contained in a previously approved application or other previously submitted materials, but should provide specific references to such materials where appropriate. 6. Submission Requirements, Review and Approval Process, and Notification of Decision

   The submission requirements set forth in section VII.E., other than the deadline for mailing, apply to applications for an on-going support grant. Such applications will be rated on the selection criteria set forth in section VIII.B. The key findings and recommendations resulting from an evaluation of the project and the proposed response to those findings and recommendations will also be considered. The review and approval process, return policy, and notification procedures are the same as those for new projects set forth in sections VIII.C.-VIII.E.

   X. Compliance Requirements

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

   1. State and Local Court Systems

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

   2. Matching Requirements

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

   [[Page 55456]]

   give preference to those applicants that provide a cash match to the Institute's award. (For a further definition of match, see section III.F.)

   The requirement to provide match may be waived in exceptionally rare circumstances upon the request of the Chief Justice of the highest court in the State and approval by the Board of Directors. 42 U.S.C. 10705(d).

2. Other eligible recipients of Institute funds are not required to provide a match, but are encouraged to contribute to meeting the costs of the project. In instances where match is proposed, the grantee is responsible for ensuring that the total amount proposed is actually contributed. If a proposed contribution is not fully met, the Institute may reduce the award amount accordingly, in order to maintain the ratio originally provided for in the award agreement (see sections VIII.B. above and XI.D.).

   3. Conflict of Interest

   Personnel and other officials connected with Institute-funded programs shall adhere to the following requirements:

1. No official or employee of a recipient court or organization shall participate personally through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise in any proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, grant, cooperative agreement, claim, controversy, or other particular matter in which Institute funds are used, where to his/her knowledge he/she or his/her immediate family, partners, organization other than a public agency in which he/she is serving as officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee or any person or organization with whom he/she is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest.

2. In the use of Institute project funds, an official or employee of a recipient court or organization shall avoid any action which might result in or create the appearance of:

   a. Using an official position for private gain; or

   b. Affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Institute program.

3. Requests for proposals or invitations for bids issued by a recipient of Institute funds or a subgrantee or subcontractor will provide notice to prospective bidders that the contractors who develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, and/or requests for proposals for a proposed procurement will be excluded from bidding on or submitting a proposal to compete for the award of such procurement.

   4. Lobbying

      Funds awarded to recipients by the Institute shall not be used, indirectly or directly, to influence Executive orders or similar promulgations by Federal, State or local agencies, or to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation by Federal, State or local legislative bodies. 42 U.S.C. 10706(a).

      It is the policy of the Board of Directors to award funds only to support applications submitted by organizations that would carry out the objectives of their applications in an unbiased manner. Consistent with this policy and the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 10706, the Institute will not knowingly award a grant to an applicant that has, directly or through an entity that is part of the same organization as the applicant, advocated a position before Congress on the specific subject matter of the application.

   5. Political Activities

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

   6. 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).

   7. 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.

   8. Supplantation and Construction

      To ensure that funds are used to supplement and improve the operation of State courts, rather than to support basic court services, funds shall not be used for the following purposes:

1. To supplant State or local funds supporting a program or activity (such as paying the salary of court employees who would be performing their normal duties as part of the project, or paying rent for space which is part of the court's normal operations);

2. To construct court facilities or structures, except to remodel existing facilities or to demonstrate new architectural or technological techniques, or to provide temporary facilities for new personnel or for personnel involved in a demonstration or experimental program; or

3. Solely to purchase equipment.

   I. Confidentiality of Information

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

   10. Human Research Protection

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

   11. Nondiscrimination

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

       [[Page 55457]]

       L. Reporting Requirements

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

   13. Audit

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

   14. 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).

   15. 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.

   16. 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.

   17. Acknowledgment and Disclaimer

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

       Recipients also shall display the following disclaimer on all grant products:

       This [document, film, videotape, etc.] was developed under

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

   18. Institute Approval of Grant Products

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

   19. Distribution of Grant Products

       In addition to the distribution specified in the grant application, grantees shall send:

1. Twenty copies of each final product developed with grant funds to the Institute, unless the product was developed under either a curriculum adaptation or a technical assistance grant, in which case submission of 2 copies is required.

2. A mastercopy of each videotape produced with grant funds to the Institute.

3. One copy of each final product developed with grant funds to the library established in each State to collect materials prepared with Institute support. (A list of these libraries is contained in Appendix II. Labels for these libraries are available from the Institute upon request.) Recipients of curriculum adaptation and technical assistance grants are not required to submit final products to State libraries.

4. A one-page abstract to the Institute summarizing the products produced during the project for posting on the Internet together with a diskette containing the abstract in Word or ASCII in a format prescribed by the Institute for posting on the Institute's website.

5. In addition, recipients of project grants must prepare a press release describing the project and announcing the results and distribute the release to a list of national and State judicial branch organizations provided by the Institute.

   20. 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.

   21. Inventions and Patents

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

       [[Page 55458]]

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

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

       When Institute funds fully cover the cost of developing, producing, and disseminating a product, (e.g., a report, curriculum, videotape or software), the product should be distributed to the field without charge. When Institute funds only partially cover the development, production, or dissemination costs, the grantee may, with the Institute's prior written approval, recover its costs for developing, producing, and disseminating the material to those requesting it, to the extent that those costs were not covered by Institute funds or grantee matching contributions.

       Applicants should disclose their intent to sell grant-related products in both the concept paper and the application. Grantees must obtain the written, prior approval of the Institute of their plans to recover project costs through the sale of grant products.

       Written requests to recover costs ordinarily should be received during the grant period and should specify the nature and extent of the costs to be recouped, the reason that such costs were not budgeted (if the rationale was not disclosed in the approved application), the number of copies to be sold, the intended audience for the products to be sold, and the proposed sale price. If the product is to be sold for more than $25.00, the written request also should include a detailed itemization of costs that will be recovered and a certification that the costs were not supported by either Institute grant funds or grantee matching contributions.

       In the event that the sale of grant products results in revenues that exceed the costs to develop, produce, and disseminate the product, the revenue must continue to be used for the authorized purposes of the Institute-funded project or other purposes consistent with the State Justice Institute Act that have been approved by the Institute. See sections III.F. and XI.F. for requirements regarding project-related income realized during the project period.

   23. Availability of Research Data for Secondary Analysis

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

       X. Approval of Key Staff

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

       XI. Financial Requirements

   1. Accounting Systems and Financial Records

      All grantees, subgrantees, contractors, and other organizations directly or indirectly receiving Institute funds are required to establish and maintain accounting systems and financial records to accurately account for funds they receive. These records shall include total program costs, including Institute funds, State and local matching shares, and any other fund sources included in the approved project budget. 1. Purpose

      The purpose of this section is to establish accounting system requirements and offer guidance on procedures which will assist all grantees/subgrantees in:

      a. Complying with the statutory requirements for the awarding, disbursement, and accounting of funds;

      b. Complying with regulatory requirements of the Institute for the financial management and disposition of funds;

      c. Generating financial data which can be used in the planning, management and control of programs; and

      d. Facilitating an effective audit of funded programs and projects. 2. References

      Except where inconsistent with specific provisions of this Guideline, the following regulations, directives and reports are applicable to Institute grants and cooperative agreements under the same terms and conditions that apply to Federal grantees. These materials supplement the requirements of this section for accounting systems and financial recordkeeping and provide additional guidance on how these requirements may be satisfied. (Circulars may be obtained from OMB by calling 202-395-7250.)

      a. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions.

      b. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments.

      c. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-88 (revised), Indirect Cost Rates, Audit and Audit Follow-up at Educational Institutions.

      d. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local Governments.

      e. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110, Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and other Non-Profit Organizations.

      f. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments.

      g. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Non-profit Organizations.

      h. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non-profit Institutions.

   2. Supervision and Monitoring Responsibilities

1. Grantee Responsibilities

   All grantees receiving direct awards from the Institute are responsible for the management and fiscal control of all funds. Responsibilities include accounting for receipts and expenditures, maintaining adequate financial records, and refunding expenditures disallowed by audits. 2. Responsibilities of State Supreme Court

   Each application for funding from a State or local court must be approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court, or its designated agency or council.

   The State Supreme Court or its designee shall receive all Institute funds awarded to such courts; be responsible

   [[Page 55459]]

   for assuring proper administration of Institute funds; and be responsible for all aspects of the project, including proper accounting and financial recordkeeping by the subgrantee. These responsibilities include:

   a. Reviewing Financial Operations. The State Supreme Court or its designee should be familiar with, and periodically monitor, its subgrantees' financial operations, records system and procedures. Particular attention should be directed to the maintenance of current financial data.

   b. Recording Financial Activities. The subgrantee's grant award or contract obligation, as well as cash advances and other financial activities, should be recorded in the financial records of the State Supreme Court or its designee in summary form. Subgrantee expenditures should be recorded on the books of the State Supreme Court OR evidenced by report forms duly filedby the subgrantee. Non-Institute contributions applied to projects by subgrantees should likewise be recorded, as should any project income resulting from program operations.

   c. Budgeting and Budget Review. The State Supreme Court or its designee should ensure that each subgrantee prepares an adequate budget as the basis for its award commitment. The detail of each project budget should be maintained on file by the State Supreme Court.

   d. Accounting for Non-Institute Contributions. The State Supreme Court or its designee will ensure, in those instances where subgrantees are required to furnish non-Institute matching funds, that the requirements and limitations of the Guideline are applied to such funds.

   e. Audit Requirement. The State Supreme Court or its designee is required to ensure that subgrantees have met the necessary audit requirements set forth by the Institute (see sections X.M. and XI.J).

   f. Reporting Irregularities. The State Supreme Court, its designees, and its subgrantees are responsible for promptly reporting to the Institute the nature and circumstances surrounding any financial irregularities discovered.

   3. Accounting System

   The grantee is responsible for establishing and maintaining an adequate system of accounting and internal controls for itself and for ensuring that an adequate system exists for each of its subgrantees and contractors. An acceptable and adequate accounting system is considered to be one which:

1. Properly accounts for receipt of funds under each grant awarded and the expenditure of funds for each grant by category of expenditure (including matching contributions and project income);

2. Assures that expended funds are applied to the appropriate budget category included within the approved grant;

3. Presents and classifies historical costs of the grant as required for budgetary and evaluation purposes;

4. Provides cost and property controls to assure optimal use of grant funds;

5. Is integrated with a system of internal controls adequate to safeguard the funds and assets covered, check the accuracy and reliability of the accounting data, promote operational efficiency, and assure conformance with any general or special conditions of the grant;

6. Meets the prescribed requirements for periodic financial reporting of operations; and

7. Provides financial data for planning, control, measurement, and evaluation of direct and indirect costs.

   4. Total Cost Budgeting and Accounting

      Accounting for all funds awarded by the Institute shall be structured and executed on a ``total project cost'' basis. That is, total project costs, including Institute funds, State and local matching shares, and any other fund sources included in the approved project budget shall be the foundation for fiscal administration and accounting. Grant applications and financial reports require budget and cost estimates on the basis of total costs. 1. Timing of Matching Contributions

      Matching contributions need not be applied at the exact time of the obligation of Institute funds. However, the full matching share must be obligated during the award period, except that, with the prior written permission of the Institute, contributions made following approval of the grant by the Institute's Board of Directors but before the beginning of the grant may be counted as match. Grantees that do not contemplate making matching contributions continuously throughout the course of a project, or on a task-by-task basis, are required to submit a schedule within 30 days after the beginning of the project period indicating at what points during the project period the matching contributions will be made. In instances where a proposed cash match is not fully met, the Institute may reduce the award amount accordingly, in order to maintain the ratio originally provided for in the award agreement. 2. Records for Match

      All grantees must maintain records which clearly show the source, amount, and timing of all matching contributions. In addition, if a project has included, within its approved budget, contributions which exceed the required matching portion, the grantee must maintain records of those contributions in the same manner as it does the Institute funds and required matching shares. For all grants made to State and local courts, the State Supreme Court has primary responsibility for grantee/subgrantee compliance with the requirements of this section. (See section XI.B.2.)

   5. Maintenance and Retention of Records

      All financial records, supporting documents, statistical records and all other records pertinent to grants, subgrants, cooperative agreements or contracts under grants shall be retained by each organization participating in a project for at least three years for purposes of examination and audit. State Supreme Courts may impose record retention and maintenance requirements in addition to those prescribed in this chapter. 1. Coverage

      The retention requirement extends to books of original entry, source documents supporting accounting transactions, the general ledger, subsidiary ledgers, personnel and payroll records, canceled checks, and related documents and records. Source documents include copies of all grant and subgrant awards, applications, and required grantee/subgrantee financial and narrative reports. Personnel and payroll records shall include the time and attendance reports for all individuals reimbursed under a grant, subgrant or contract, whether they are employed full-time or part-time. Time and effort reports will be required for consultants. 2. Retention Period

      The three-year retention period starts from the date of the submission of the final expenditure report or, for grants which are renewed annually, from the date of submission of the annual expenditure report. 3. Maintenance

      Grantees and subgrantees are expected to see that records of different fiscal years are separately identified and maintained so that requested

      [[Page 55460]]

      information can be readily located. Grantees and subgrantees are also obligated to protect records adequately against fire or other damage. When records are stored away from the grantee's/subgrantee's principal office, a written index of the location of stored records should be on hand, and ready access should be assured. 4. Access

      Grantees and subgrantees must give any authorized representative of the Institute access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, and documents related to an Institute grant.

   6. Project-Related Income

      Records of the receipt and disposition of project-related income must be maintained by the grantee in the same manner as required for the project funds that gave rise to the income and must be reported to the Institute. (See section XI.G.2.) The policies governing the disposition of the various types of project-related income are listed below. 1. Interest

      A State and any agency or instrumentality of a State, including State institutions of higher education and State hospitals, shall not be held accountable for interest earned on advances of project funds. When funds are awarded to subgrantees through a State, the subgrantees are not held accountable for interest earned on advances of project funds. Local units of government and nonprofit organizations that are direct grantees must refund any interest earned. Grantees shall ensure minimum balances in their respective grant cash accounts. 2. Royalties

      The grantee/subgrantee may retain all royalties received from copyrights or other works developed under projects or from patents and inventions, unless the terms and conditions of the grant provide otherwise. 3. Registration and Tuition Fees

      Registration and tuition fees shall be used to pay project-related costs not covered by the grant, or to reduce the amount of grant funds needed to support the project. Registration and tuition fees may be used for other purposes only with the prior written approval of the Institute. Estimates of registration and tuition fees, and any expenses to be offset by the fees, should be included in the application budget forms and narrative. 4. Income From the Sale of Grant Products

      When grant funds fully cover the cost of producing and disseminating a limited number of copies of a product, the grantee may, with the written prior approval of the Institute, sell additional copies reproduced at its expense only at a price intended to recover actual reproduction and distribution costs that were not covered by Institute grant funds or grantee matching contributions to the project. When grant funds only partially cover the costs of developing, producing and disseminating a product, the grantee may, with the written prior approval of the Institute, recover costs for developing, reproducing, and disseminating the material to the extent that those costs were not covered by Institute grant funds or grantee matching contributions. If the grantee recovers its costs in this manner, then amounts expended by the grantee to develop, produce, and disseminate the material may not be considered match.

      If the sale of products occurs during the project period, the costs and income generated by the sales must be reported on the Quarterly Financial Status Reports and documented in an auditable manner. Whenever possible, the intent to sell a product should be disclosed in the concept paper and application or reported to the Institute in writing once a decision to sell products has been made. The grantee must request approval to recover its product development, reproduction, and dissemination costs as specified in section X.V. 5. Other

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

   7. Payments and Financial Reporting Requirements

1. Payment of Grant Funds

   The procedures and regulations set forth below are applicable to all Institute grant funds and grantees.

   a. Request for Advance or Reimbursement of Funds. Grantees will receive funds on a ``Check-Issued'' basis. Upon receipt, review, and approval of a Request for Advance or Reimbursement by the Institute, a check will be issued directly to the grantee or its designated fiscal agent. A request must be limited to the grantee's immediate cash needs. The Request for Advance or Reimbursement, along with the instructions for its preparation, will be included in the official Institute award package.

   b. Continuation and On-Going Support Awards. For purposes of submitting Requests for Advance or Reimbursement, recipients of continuation and on-going support grants should treat each grant as a new project and number their requests accordingly (i.e. on a grant rather than a project basis). For example, the first request for payment from a continuation grant or each year of an on-going support would be number 1, the second number 2, etc. (See Recommendations to Grantees in the Introduction for further guidance.)

   c. Termination of Advance and Reimbursement Funding. When a grantee organization receiving cash advances from the Institute:

   i. Demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to attain program or project goals, or to establish procedures that will minimize the time elapsing between cash advances and disbursements, or cannot adhere to guideline requirements or special conditions;

   ii. Engages in the improper award and administration of subgrants or contracts; or

   iii. Is unable to submit reliable and/or timely reports; the Institute may terminate advance financing and require the grantee organization to finance its operations with its own working capital. Payments to the grantee shall then be made by check to reimburse the grantee for actual cash disbursements. In the event the grantee continues to be deficient, the Institute may suspend reimbursement payments until the deficiencies are corrected.

   d. Principle of Minimum Cash on Hand. Recipient organizations should request funds based upon immediate disbursement requirements. Grantees should time their requests to ensure that cash on hand is the minimum needed for disbursements to be made immediately or within a few days. Idle funds in the hands of subgrantees will impair the goals of good cash management. 2. Financial Reporting

   a. General Requirements. In order to obtain financial information concerning the use of funds, the Institute requires that grantees/ subgrantees of these funds submit timely reports for review.

   Three copies of the Financial Status Report are required from all grantees, other than recipients of scholarships under section II.B.2.b.iii., for each active quarter on a calendar-quarter basis. This report is due within 30 days after the close of the calendar quarter. It is designed to provide financial information relating to Institute funds,

   [[Page 55461]]

   State and local matching shares, project income, and any other sources of funds for the project, as well as information on obligations and outlays. A copy of the Financial Status Report, along with instructions for its preparation, will be included in the official Institute Award package. In circumstances where an organization requests substantial payments for a project prior to the completion of a given quarter, the Institute may request a brief summary of the amount requested, by object class, in support of the Request for Advance or Reimbursement.

   b. Additional Requirements for Renewal Grants. Grantees receiving a continuation or on-going support grant should number their quarterly Financial Status Reports on a grant rather than a project basis. For example, the first quarterly report for a continuation grant or each year of an on-going support award should be number 1, the second number 2, etc. 3. Consequences of Non-Compliance With Submission Requirements

   Failure of the grantee organization to submit required financial and program reports may result in a suspension or termination of grant payments.

   8. Allowability of Costs

1. General

   Except as may be otherwise provided in the conditions of a particular grant, cost allowability shall be determined in accordance with the principles set forth in OMB Circulars A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments; A-21, Cost Principles Applicable to Grants and Contracts with Educational Institutions; and A-122, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations. No costs may be recovered to liquidate obligations which are incurred after the approved grant period. Copies of these circulars may be obtained from OMB by calling (202) 395-7250. 2. Costs Requiring Prior Approval

   a. Pre-agreement Costs. The written prior approval of the Institute is required for costs which are considered necessary to the project but occur prior to the award date of the grant.

   b. Equipment. Grant funds may be used to purchase or lease only that equipment which is essential to accomplishing the goals and objectives of the project. The written prior approval of the Institute is required when the amount of automated data processing (ADP) equipment to be purchased or leased exceeds $10,000 or the software to be purchased exceeds $3,000.

   c. Consultants. The written prior approval of the Institute is required when the rate of compensation to be paid a consultant exceeds $300 a day. Institute funds may not be used to pay a consultant at a rate in excess of $900 per day. 3. Travel Costs

   Transportation and per diem rates must comply with the policies of the applicant organization. If the applicant does not have an established written travel policy, then travel rates shall be consistent with those established by the Institute or the Federal Government. Institute funds may not be used to cover the transportation or per diem costs of a member of a national organization to attend an annual or other regular meeting of that organization. 4. Indirect Costs

   These are costs of an organization that are not readily assignable to a particular project, but are necessary to the operation of the organization and the performance of the project. The cost of operating and maintaining facilities, depreciation, and administrative salaries are examples of the types of costs that are usually treated as indirect costs. It is the policy of the Institute that all costs should be budgeted directly; however, if a recipient has an indirect cost rate approved by a Federal agency as set forth below, the Institute will accept that rate.

   a. Approved Plan Available. i. The Institute will accept an indirect cost rate or allocation plan approved for a grantee during the preceding two years by any Federal granting agency on the basis of allocation methods substantially in accord with those set forth in the applicable cost circulars. A copy of the approved rate agreement must be submitted to the Institute.

   ii. Where flat rates are accepted in lieu of actual indirect costs, grantees may not also charge expenses normally included in overhead pools, e.g., accounting services, legal services, building occupancy and maintenance, etc., as direct costs.

   iii. Organizations with an approved indirect cost rate, utilizing total direct costs as the base, usually exclude contracts under grants from any overhead recovery. The negotiated agreement will stipulate that contracts are excluded from the base for overhead recovery.

   b. Establishment of Indirect Cost Rates. In order to be reimbursed for indirect costs, a grantee or organization must first establish an appropriate indirect cost rate. To do this, the grantee must prepare an indirect cost rate proposal and submit it to the Institute within three months after the start of the grant period to assure recovery of the full amount of allowable indirect costs. The rate must be developed in accordance with principles and procedures appropriate to the type of grantee institution involved as specified in the applicable OMB Circular. Copies of OMB Circulars may be obtained directly from OMB by calling (202) 395-7250.

   c. No Approved Plan. If an indirect cost proposal for recovery of actual indirect costs is not submitted to the Institute within three months after the start of the grant period, indirect costs will be irrevocably disallowed for all months prior to the month that the indirect cost proposal is received. This policy is effective for all grant awards.

   I. Procurement and Property Management Standards

1. Procurement Standards

   For State and local governments, the Institute adopts the standards set forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular A-102. Institutions of higher education, hospitals; other non-profit organizations will be governed by the standards set forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular A-110. 2. Property Management Standards

   The property management standards as prescribed in Attachment N of OMB Circulars A-102 and A-110 shall be applicable to all grantees and subgrantees of Institute funds except as provided in section X.O.

   All grantees/subgrantees are required to be prudent in the acquisition and management of property with grant funds. If suitable property required for the successful execution of projects is already available within the grantee or subgrantee organization, expenditures of grant funds for the acquisition of new property will be considered unnecessary.

   10. Audit Requirements

1. Implementation

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

   [[Page 55462]]

   annual fiscal audit. The audit shall be conducted by an independent Certified Public Accountant, or a State or local agency authorized to audit government agencies.

   Grantees who receive funds from a Federal agency and who satisfy audit requirements of the cognizant Federal agency should submit a copy of the audit report prepared for that Federal agency to the Institute in order to satisfy the provisions of this section. Cognizant Federal agencies do not send reports to the Institute. Therefore, each grantee must send this report directly to the Institute. 2. Resolution and Clearance of Audit Reports

   Timely action on recommendations by responsible management officials is an integral part of the effectiveness of an audit. Each grant recipient shall have policies and procedures for acting on audit recommendations by designating officials responsible for: follow-up, maintaining a record of the actions taken on recommendations and time schedules, responding to and acting on audit recommendations, and submitting periodic reports to the Institute on recommendations and actions taken. 3. Consequences of Non-Resolution of Audit Issues

   It is the general policy of the State Justice Institute not to make new grant awards to an applicant having an unresolved audit report involving Institute awards. Failure of the grantee organization to resolve audit questions may also result in the suspension or termination of payments for active Institute grants to that organization.

   11. Close-Out of Grants

1. Definition

   Close-out is a process by which the Institute determines that all applicable administrative and financial actions and all required work of the grant have been completed by both the grantee and the Institute. 2. Grantee Close-Out Requirements

   Within 90 days after the end date of the grant or any approved extension thereof (See section XI.K.3), the following documents must be submitted to the Institute by the grantee other than a recipient of a scholarship under section II.B.2.b.iii. These reporting requirements apply at the conclusion of any non-scholarship grant, even when the project will receive renewal funding through a continuation or on-going support grant.

   a. Financial Status Report. The final report of expenditures must have no unliquidated obligations and must indicate the exact balance of unobligated funds. Any unobligated/unexpended funds will be deobligated from the award by the Institute. Final payment requests for obligations incurred during the award period must be submitted to the Institute prior to the end of the 90-day close-out period. Grantees on a check- issued basis, who have drawn down funds in excess of their obligations/ expenditures, must return any unused funds as soon as it is determined that the funds are not required. In no case should any unused funds remain with the grantee beyond the submission date of the final financial status report.

   b. Final Progress Report. This report should describe the project activities during the final calendar quarter of the project and the close-out period, including to whom project products have been disseminated; provide a summary of activities during the entire project; specify whether all the objectives set forth in the approved application or an approved adjustment thereto have been met and, if any of the objectives have not been met, explain the reasons therefor; and discuss what, if anything, could have been done differently that might have enhanced the impact of the project or improved its operation. 3. Extension of Close-out Period

   Upon the written request of the grantee, the Institute may extend the close-out period to assure completion of the Grantee's close-out requirements. Requests for an extension must be submitted at least 14 days before the end of the close-out period and must explain why the extension is necessary and what steps will be taken to assure that all the grantee's responsibilities will be met by the end of the extension period.

   XII. Grant Adjustments

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

   1. Grant Adjustments Requiring Prior Written Approval

   There are several types of grant adjustments which require the prior written approval of the Institute. Examples of these adjustments include:

1. Budget revisions among direct cost categories which, individually or in the aggregate, exceed or are expected to exceed five percent of the approved original budget or the most recently approved revised budget. For the purposes of this section, the Institute will view budget revisions cumulatively.

   For continuation and on-going support grants, funds from the original award may be used during the renewal grant period and funds awarded by a continuation or on-going support grant may be used to cover project-related expenditures incurred during the original award period, with the prior written approval of the Institute.

2. A change in the scope of work to be performed or the objectives of the project (see section XII.D.).

3. A change in the project site.

4. A change in the project period, such as an extension of the grant period and/or extension of the final financial or progress report deadline (see section XII.E.).

5. Satisfaction of special conditions, if required.

6. A change in or temporary absence of the project director (see sections XII.F. and G.).

7. The assignment of an employee or consultant to a key staff position whose qualifications were not described in the application, or a change of a person assigned to a key project staff position (see section X.X.).

8. A change in or temporary absence of the person responsible for the financial management and financial reporting for the grant.

9. A change in the name of the grantee organization.

10. A transfer or contracting out of grant-supported activities (see section XII.H.).

11. A transfer of the grant to another recipient.

12. Preagreement costs, the purchase of automated data processing equipment and software, and consultant rates, as specified in section XI.H.2.

13. A change in the nature or number of the products to be prepared or the manner in which a product would be distributed.

    2. Request for Grant Adjustments

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

       [[Page 55463]]

    3. 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.

    4. Changes in the Scope of the Grant

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

    5. Date Changes

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

    6. Temporary Absence of the Project Director

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

    7. 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.

    8. Transferring or Contracting Out of Grant-Supported Activities

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

       State Justice Institute Board of Directors

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

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

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

       [[Page 55464]]

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

       Appendix II--SJI Libraries: Designated Sites and Contacts

       Alabama

       Supreme Court Library

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

       Alaska

       Anchorage Law Library

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

       Arizona

       State Law Library

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

       Arkansas

       Administrative Office of the Courts

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

       California

       Administrative Office of the Courts

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

       Colorado

       Supreme Court Library

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

       Connecticut

       State Library

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

       Delaware

       Administrative Office of the Courts

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

       District of Columbia

       Executive Office, District of Columbia Courts

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

       Florida

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

       Georgia

       Administrative Office of the Courts

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

       [[Page 55465]]

       Hawaii

       Supreme Court Library

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

       Idaho

       AOC Judicial Education Library / State Law Library

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

       Illinois

       Supreme Court Library

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

       Indiana

       Supreme Court Library

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

       Iowa

       Administrative Office of the Court

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

       Kansas

       Supreme Court Library

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

       Kentucky

       State Law Library

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

       Louisiana

       State Law Library

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

       Maine

       State Law and Legislative Reference Library

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

       Maryland

       State Law Library

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

       Massachusetts

       Middlesex Law Library

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

       Michigan

       Michigan Judicial Institute

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

       Minnesota

       State Law Library (Minnesota Judicial Center)

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

       Mississippi

       Mississippi Judicial College

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

       Montana

       State Law Library

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

       Nebraska

       Administrative Office of the Courts

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

       Nevada

       National Judicial College

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

       New Jersey

       New Jersey State Library

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

       New Mexico

       Supreme Court Library

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

       New York

       Supreme Court Library

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

       North Carolina

       Supreme Court Library

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

       North Dakota

       Supreme Court Library

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

       Northern Mariana Islands

       Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands

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

       Ohio

       Supreme Court Library

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

       Oklahoma

       Administrative Office of the Courts

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

       Oregon

       Administrative Office of the Courts

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

       Pennsylvania

       State Library of Pennsylvania

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

       Puerto Rico

       Office of Court Administration

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

       Rhode Island

       Roger Williams Law School Library,

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

       South Carolina

       Coleman Karesh Law Library

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

       Tennessee

       Tennessee State Law Library

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

       [[Page 55466]]

       Texas

       State Law Library

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

       U.S. Virgin Islands

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

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

       Utah

       Utah State Judicial Administration Library

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

       Vermont

       Supreme Court of Vermont

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

       Virginia

       Administrative Office of the Courts

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

       Washington

       Washington State Law Library

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

       West Virginia

       Administrative Office of the Courts

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

       Wisconsin

       State Law Library

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

       Wyoming

       Wyoming State Law Library

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

       National

       American Judicature Society

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

       National Center for State Courts

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

       JERITT

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

       Appendix III--Illustrative List of Model Curricula

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

       Alternative Dispute Resolution

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

       Court Coordination

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

       Court Management

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

       Courts and Communities

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

       Criminal Process

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

       [[Page 55467]]

       Diversity, Values, and Attitudes

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

       Family Violence and Gender-Related Violence Crime

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

       Health and Science

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

       Judicial Education For Appellate Court Judges

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

       Judicial Education Faculty, and Program Development

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

       Orientation and Mentoring of Judges and Court Personnel

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

       Juveniles and Families in Court

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

       Strategic and Futures Planning

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

       Substance Abuse

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

       Appendix IV--Illustrative List of Replicable Projects

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

       Alternative Dispute Resolution

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

       Application of Technology

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

       [[Page 55468]]

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

       Children and Families in Court

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

       Court Management, Coordination and Planning

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

       Courts and Communities

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

       Sentencing

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

       Substance Abuse

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

       Appendix V--State Justice Institute

       (Form S1)

       SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION

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

       [[Page 55469]]

       Applicant Information

1. Applicant Name: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (Last)

   (First)

   (M) 2. Position:----------------------------------------------------------- 3. Name of Court:------------------------------------------------------ 4. Address: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Street/P.O. Box ---------------------------------------------------------------------- City

   State

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

   Program Information

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

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

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

   ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Please attach a current resume or professional summary, and provide the information requested below. (You may attach additional pages if necessary.)

1. Please describe your need to acquire the skills and knowledge taught in this course.

2. Please describe how will taking this course benefit you, your court, and the State's courts generally.

3. Is there an educational program currently available through your State on this topic?

4. Are State or local funds available to support your attendance at the proposed course? If so, what amount(s) will be provided?

5. How long have you served as a judge or court manager?

6. How long do you anticipate serving as a judge or court manager, assuming reelection or reappointment? 0-1 year 2-4 years 5-7 years 8-10 years 11+years

7. What continuing professional education programs have you attended in the past year? Please indicate which were mandatory (M) and which were non-mandatory (V).

   Statement of Applicant's Commitment

   If a scholarship is awarded, I will share the skills and knowledge I have gained with my court colleagues locally, and if possible, Statewide, and I will submit an evaluation of the educational program to the State Justice Institute and to the Chief Justice of my State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Signature ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date

   Please return this form and Form S-2 to: Scholarship Coordinator, State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, Virginia 22314

   (Form S2)

   State Justice Institute

   SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION

   CONCURRENCE

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

   Appendix VI--Line-Item Budget Form

   For Concept Papers, Curriculum Adaptation & Technical Assistance Grant Requests

   Category

   SJI Funds

   Cash Match

   In-kind match

   Personnel........................... $________

   $________

   $________ Fringe Benefits..................... $________

   $________

   $________ Consultant/Contractual.............. $________

   $________

   $________ Travel.............................. $________

   $________

   $________ Equipment........................... $________

   $________

   $________ Supplies............................ $________

   $________

   $________ Telephone........................... $________

   $________

   $________ Postage............................. $________

   $________

   $________ Printing/Photocopying............... $________

   $________

   $________ Audit............................... $________

   $________

   $________ Other............................... $________

   $________

   $________ Indirect Costs (%).................. $________

   $________

   $________

   Total........................... $________

   $________

   $________

   Project Total................... $________

   $________

   $________

   Financial assistance has been or will be sought for this project from the following other sources:

   * Concept papers requesting an acccelerated award, Curriculum Adaptation grant requests, and Technical Assistance grant requests should be accompanied by a budget narrative explaining the basis for each line-item listed in the proposed budget.

   Form B (Instructions on Reverse Side)

   Appendix VII--State Justice Institute

   Certificate of State Approval

   The ________ (Name of State Supreme Court or Designated Agency or Council) has reviewed the application entitled ________ prepared by

   (Name of Applicant)--approves its submission to the State Justice Institute, and

   [ ] agrees to receive and administer and be accountable for all funds awarded by the Institute pursuant to the application.

   [ ] designates ________ (Name of Trial or Appellate Court or Agency) as the entity to receive, administer, and be accountable for all funds awarded by the Institute pursuant to the application. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Signature ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Name ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Title ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date

   [FR Doc. 98-27234Filed10-14-98; 8:45 am]

   BILLING CODE 6820-SC-P