52920 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE 

Grant Guideline 

AGENCY: State Justice Institute. 

ACTION: Proposed Grant Guideline. 

SUMMARY: This Guideline sets forth the 

administrative, programmatic, and 

financial requirements attendant to 

Fiscal Year 2007 State Justice Institute 

grants, cooperative agreements, and 

contracts. 

DATES: September 7, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Linskey, Executive Director, State 

Justice Institute, 1650 King St. (Suite 

600), Alexandria, VA 22314, (703) 684– 

6100 X201. 

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. 

Pending appropriations legislation 

passed by the House (H.R. 5672) would 

appropriate $2,000,000 for SJI in fiscal 

year (FY) 2007; the Senate-passed 

version of the bill proposes to 

appropriate $4,500,000. 

Regardless of the final amount 

provided to SJI for FY 2007, the 

Institute’s Board of Directors intends to 

solicit grant applications across the 

range of grant programs available. 

The following Grant Guideline is 

adopted by the State Justice Institute for 

FY 2007: 

Table of Contents 

I. The Mission of the State Justice Institute 

II. Eligibility for Award 

III. Scope of the Program 

IV. Applications 

V. Application Review Procedures 

VI. Compliance Requirements 

VII. Financial Requirements 

VIII. Grant Adjustments 

Appendix A SJI Libraries: Designated Sites 

and Contacts 

Appendix B Grant Application Forms (Forms 

A, B, C, D, and Disclosure of Lobbying 

Activities) 

Appendix C Line-Item Budget Form (Form E) 

Appendix D Scholarship Application Forms 

(Forms S1 and S2) 

I. The Mission of the State Justice 

Institute 

The Institute was established by Pub. 

L. 98–620 to improve the administration 

of justice in the State courts of the 

United States. Incorporated in the State 

of Virginia as a private, nonprofit 

corporation, the Institute is charged, by 

statute, with the responsibility to: 

• 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; 

• Foster coordination and 

cooperation with the Federal judiciary; 

• Promote recognition of the 

importance of the separation of powers 

doctrine to an independent judiciary; 

and 

• 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 a Board 

of Directors appointed by the President, 

with the consent of the Senate. The 

Board is statutorily composed of six 

judges; a State court administrator; and 

four members of the public, no more 

than two of whom can be of the same 

political party. 

Through the award of grants, 

contracts, and cooperative agreements, 

the Institute is authorized to perform the 

following activities: 

A. Support research, demonstrations, 

special projects, technical assistance, 

and training to improve the 

administration of justice in the State 

courts; 

B. Provide for the preparation, 

publication, and dissemination of 

information regarding State judicial 

systems; 

C. Participate in joint projects with 

Federal agencies and other private 

grantors; 

D. Evaluate or provide for the 

evaluation of programs and projects to 

determine their impact upon the quality 

of criminal, civil, and juvenile justice 

and the extent to which they have 

contributed to improving the quality of 

justice in the State courts; 

E. Encourage and assist in furthering 

judicial education; and, 

F. Encourage, assist, and serve in a 

consulting capacity to State and local 

justice system agencies in the 

development, maintenance, and 

coordination of criminal, civil, and 

juvenile justice programs and services. 

II. Eligibility for Award 

The Institute is authorized by 

Congress to award grants, cooperative 

agreements, and contracts to the 

following entities and types of 

organizations: 

A. State and local courts and their 

agencies (42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(1)(A)). 

Each application for funding from a 

State or local court must be approved, 

consistent with State law, by the State’s 

Supreme Court or its designated agency 

or council. The latter shall receive all 

Institute funds awarded to such courts 

and be responsible for assuring proper 

administration of Institute funds, in 

accordance with section VII.C.2. of this 

Guideline. 

B. National nonprofit organizations 

controlled by, operating in conjunction 

with, and serving the judicial branches 

of State governments (42 U.S.C. 

10705(b)(1)(B)). 

C. National nonprofit organizations 

for the education and training of judges 

and support personnel of the judicial 

branch of State governments (42 U.S.C. 

10705(b)(1)(C)). An applicant is 

considered a national education and 

training applicant under section 

10705(b)(1)(C) if: 

1. The principal purpose or activity of 

the applicant is to provide education 

and training to State and local judges 

and court personnel; and 

2. The applicant demonstrates a 

record of substantial experience in the 

field of judicial education and training. 

D. Other eligible grant recipients (42 

U.S.C. 10705 (b)(2)(A)–(D)). 

1. Provided that the objectives of the 

project can be served better, the Institute 

is also authorized to make awards to: 

a. Nonprofit organizations with 

expertise in judicial administration; 

b. Institutions of higher education; 

c. Individuals, partnerships, firms, 

corporations (for-profit organizations 

must waive their fees); and 

d. Private agencies with expertise in 

judicial administration. 

2. The Institute may also make awards 

to State or local agencies and 

institutions other than courts for 

services that cannot be adequately 

provided through nongovernmental 

arrangements (42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(3)). 

E. Inter-agency Agreements. The 

Institute may enter into inter-agency 

agreements with Federal agencies (42 

U.S.C. 10705(b)(4)) and private funders 

to support projects consistent with the 

purposes of the State Justice Institute 

Act. 

III. Scope of the Program 

SJI is offering five types of grants in 

FY 2007: Project Grants, Technical 

Assistance (TA) Grants, Curriculum 

Adaptation and Training (CAT) Grants, 

Scholarships, and Partner Grants. 

Effective immediately, SJI will no longer 

award Continuation Grants to extend 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52921 

previous or future Project or Partner 

Grants. 

A. Project Grants 

Project Grants are intended to support 

innovative education and training, 

research and evaluation, demonstration, 

and technical assistance projects that 

can improve the administration of 

justice in State courts nationwide. 

Project Grants may ordinarily not 

exceed $300,000; however, grants in 

excess of $200,000 are apt to be rare, 

and awarded only to support projects 

likely to have a significant national 

impact. Grant periods for Project Grants 

ordinarily may not exceed 36 months. 

No Continuation Grants will be 

awarded. 

Applicants for Project Grants will be 

required to contribute a cash match of 

not less than 50% of the total cost of the 

proposed project. In other words, grant 

awards by SJI must be matched at least 

dollar for dollar by grant applicants. 

Applicants may contribute the required 

cash match directly or in cooperation 

with third parties. 

Prospective applicants should 

carefully review Section VI.8. (matching 

requirements) and Section VI.16.a. (nonsupplantation) of the guidelines prior to 

beginning the application process. If 

questions arise, applicants are strongly 

encouraged to consult with the Institute. 

As set forth in Section I., the Institute 

is authorized to fund projects 

addressing a broad range of program 

areas. Though the Board is likely to 

favor Project Grant applications focused 

on the Special Interest program 

categories described below, potential 

applicants are also encouraged to bring 

to the attention of the Institute 

innovative projects outside those 

categories. Funds will not be made 

available for the ordinary, routine 

operation of court systems or programs 

in any of these areas. 

1. Special Interest Program Categories 

The Institute is interested in funding 

both innovative programs and programs 

of proven merit that can be replicated in 

other jurisdictions. The Institute is 

especially interested in funding projects 

that: 

• Formulate new procedures and 

techniques, or creatively enhance 

existing procedures and techniques; 

• Address aspects of the State judicial 

systems that are in special need of 

serious attention; 

• Have national significance by 

developing products, services, and 

techniques that may be used in other 

States; and 

• Create and disseminate products 

that effectively transfer the information 

and ideas developed to relevant 

audiences in State and local judicial 

systems, or provide technical assistance 

to facilitate the adaptation of effective 

programs and procedures in other State 

and local jurisdictions. 

A project will be identified as a 

Special Interest project if it meets the 

four criteria set forth above and it falls 

within the scope of the Boarddesignated Special Interest program 

categories listed below. 

The order of listing does not imply 

any ordering of priorities among the 

categories. 

a. Court Budgeting. Unlike the 

legislative and executive branches, the 

judiciary seems to weather regular 

periods of budgetary feast and famine. 

This has proven very disruptive to court 

staffing, services, technology 

investment, and professional education 

and development. The Institute is 

interested in pursuing ‘‘how to’’ projects 

that focus on ‘‘best practices’’ regarding 

budget structure and formulation, 

sources of revenue, inter-branch 

relations, and other methods that 

contribute to stabilizing court budgets 

and improving their long-term financial 

prospects. 

b. Courts and the Media. Recent 

repeated public attacks on courts have 

gone largely unanswered, because 

judges were unwilling and/or courts 

were unable to respond effectively. No 

one is better prepared than a judge to 

describe decision-making on the bench 

within the law and the Constitution. 

The Institute is interested in projects 

that explore the role of judge as public 

commentator within ethical and 

professional bounds. The Institute is 

also interested in judicial education or 

other programs that prepare judges and 

court officials to serve as spokesmen in 

short notice, high profile circumstances, 

especially in situations where courts 

lack dedicated press secretaries. Finally, 

the Institute is interested in promoting 

initiatives that improve relations 

between the judiciary and the media, 

since much of the recent rancor between 

the two seems based on unfamiliarity 

with one another’s duties, 

responsibilities, and limitations. In 

particular, the Institute is interested in 

proposals that focus on cultivating trust 

and open communication between the 

Third Branch and the Fourth Estate on 

a day-to-day basis, because dialogue 

between strangers is rarely started and 

never sustained in a crisis. 

c. Elder Issues. This category includes 

research, demonstration, evaluation, 

and education projects designed to 

improve management of guardianship, 

probate, fraud, Americans with 

Disability Act, and other types of elderrelated cases. The Institute is 

particularly interested in projects that 

would develop and evaluate judicial 

branch education programs addressing 

elder law and related issues. 

d. Performance Standards and 

Outcome Measures. This category 

includes projects that will develop and 

measure performance standards and 

outcomes for all aspects of court 

operations. The Institute is particularly 

interested in projects that take the 

National Center for State Courts’

‘‘CourTools’’ to the next level. Other 

initiatives designed to further 

professionalize court staff and 

operations, or to objectively evaluate the 

costs and benefits and cost-effectiveness 

of problem solving courts, are also 

welcome. 

e. Defending the Institution. The 

perils facing courts today include 

attacks on our system of justice and 

judges and catastrophes natural and 

manmade. The Institute is seeking 

proposals to address each. 

Attacks on courts and judges have 

increased. These attacks are often not 

scrutinized because many citizens in 

this country lack education or 

knowledge about the role of the courts 

in our system of government. The 

Institute remains interested in 

supporting the creation of public 

education projects that would develop 

and test materials that judges and court 

leaders can use to inform community 

groups and constituencies about the 

nature and importance of Federalism, 

separation and balance of powers, and 

judicial independence. In addition, as 

mentioned above, projects that would 

improve the relationship between courts 

and the media are encouraged. 

Catastrophes, natural and manmade, 

can destroy the ability of our courts to 

help provide law and order. The Board 

is interested in: (1) Continuity of 

operations proposals that go beyond 

planning and table top exercises to 

include ‘‘no notice’’ drills and ‘‘red 

team’’ exercises involving all personnel 

integral to court operations, including 

those from outside agencies such as 

sheriffs’ offices, (2) innovative and 

secure court security informationsharing projects that piggyback on, or 

otherwise exploit, existing capabilities 

and technologies (because new 

resources for new systems are apt to be 

limited), and (3) piloting a low cost 

‘‘virtual’’ 24/7 threat center netting 

Federal, State, and local court security 

first responders with analysts 

conducting real-time threat assessments 

(replacing costly ‘‘bricks and mortar’’

proposals). 

Though ‘‘Managing Self-Represented 

Litigation’’, ‘‘Application of Technology 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
52922 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

in the Courts’’, and ‘‘Children and 

Families in Court’’ are no longer listed 

as Special Interest program categories, 

the SJI Board retains a keen interest in 

these areas and would welcome ground 

breaking proposals in all three. 

Project Grant application procedures 

can be found in section IV.A. 

B. Technical Assistance (TA) Grants 

TA Grants are intended to provide 

State or local courts, particularly small, 

rural, or impoverished urban courts or 

regional court associations, with 

sufficient support to obtain expert 

assistance to diagnose a problem, 

develop a response to that problem, and 

implement any needed changes. TA 

Grants may not exceed $30,000, and 

shall only cover the cost of obtaining the 

services of expert consultants. Examples 

of expenses not covered by TA Grants 

include the salaries, benefits, travel, or 

training costs of full- or part-time court 

employees. Grant periods for TA Grants 

ordinarily may not exceed 24 months. In 

calculating project duration, applicants 

are cautioned to fully consider the time 

required to issue a request for proposals, 

negotiate a contract with the selected 

provider, and execute the project. The 

SJI Board intends to reserve up to 

$250,000 for TA Grants. Sufficient funds 

will be reserved each quarter to assure 

the availability of TA Grants throughout 

the year. 

Applicants for TA Grants will be 

required to contribute a match of not 

less than 50% of the grant amount 

requested, of which 20% must be cash. 

In other words, a grantee seeking a 

$30,000 TA grant must provide a 

$15,000 match, of which up to $12,000 

can be in-kind and not less than $3,000 

must be cash. Applicants considering 

cash matches well in excess of $3,000 

should consider applying for Project 

Grants and are strongly urged to consult 

with the Institute prior to applying. The 

Institute may waive the match and cash 

match requirements in extraordinary 

circumstances (see section VI.A.8.). 

TA Grant application procedures can 

be found in section IV.B. 

C. Curriculum Adaptation and Training 

(CAT) Grants 

CAT Grants are intended to: (1) 

Enable courts and regional or national 

court associations to modify and adapt 

model curricula, course modules, or 

conference programs to meet States’ or 

local jurisdictions’ educational needs; 

train instructors to present portions or 

all of the curricula; and pilot-test them 

to determine their appropriateness, 

quality, and effectiveness, or (2) conduct 

judicial branch education and training 

programs, led by either expert or inhouse personnel, designed to prepare 

judges and court personnel for recently 

adopted innovations, reforms, and/or 

new technologies by grantee courts. 

CAT Grants may not exceed $20,000. 

Grant periods for CAT Grants ordinarily 

may not exceed 12 months. The SJI 

Board intends to reserve up to $100,000 

for CAT Grants. 

Applicants for CAT Grants will be 

required to contribute a match of not 

less than 50% of the grant amount 

requested, of which 20% must be cash. 

In other words, a grantee seeking a 

$20,000 CAT grant must provide a 

$10,000 match, of which up to $8,000 

can be in-kind and not less than $2,000 

must be cash. Applicants considering 

cash matches well in excess of $2,000 

should consider applying for Project 

Grants and are strongly urged to consult 

with the Institute prior to applying. The 

Institute may waive the match and cash 

match requirements in extraordinary 

circumstances (see section VI.A.8.). 

CAT Grant application procedures 

can be found in section IV.C. 

D. Scholarships for Judges and Court 

Managers 

Scholarships are intended to enhance 

the skills, knowledge, and abilities of 

State court judges and court managers 

by enabling them to attend out-of-State, 

or to enroll in online, educational and 

training programs sponsored by national 

and State providers that they could not 

otherwise attend or take online because 

of limited State, local, and personal 

budgets. Scholarships may not exceed 

$1,500. The SJI Board intends to reserve 

up to $250,000 for scholarships. 

Sufficient funds will be reserved each 

quarter to assure the availability of 

scholarships throughout the year. 

Scholarship application procedures 

can be found in section IV.D. 

E. Partner Grants 

Partner Grants are intended to allow 

SJI and Federal, State, or local agencies 

or foundations, trusts, or other private 

entities to combine financial resources 

in pursuit of common interests. Though 

many, if not most, Partner Grants will 

fall under the Special Interest program 

categories cited in section III.A., 

proposals addressing other emerging or 

high priority court-related problems will 

be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

SJI and its financial partners may set 

any level for Partner Grants, subject to 

the entire amount of the grant being 

available at the time of the award; 

applicants for Partner Grants may 

request any amount of funding. Grant 

periods for Partner Grants ordinarily 

may not exceed 36 months. Absent 

extraordinary circumstances, no grant 

will continue for more than five years. 

Partner Grants are subject to the same 

cash match requirement as Project 

Grants. In other words, grant awards by 

SJI must be matched at least dollar for 

dollar. Applicants may contribute the 

required cash match directly or in 

cooperation with third parties (note: a 

Federal third party may contribute no 

more than 49% of the total cost of a 

project and only to purchase a service, 

not as a grantee’s match). 

Partner Grant application procedures 

can be found in section IV.E. 

IV. Applications 

A. Project Grants 

An application for a Project Grant 

must include an application form; 

budget forms (with appropriate 

documentation); a project abstract and 

program narrative; a disclosure of 

lobbying form, when applicable; and 

certain certifications and assurances 

(see below). See Appendix B for the 

Project Grant application forms. For a 

summary of the application process, 

visit the Institute’s Web site 

(www.statejustice.org) and click on OnLine Tutorials, then Project Grant. 

1. Forms 

a. Application Form (Form A). The 

application form requests basic 

information regarding the proposed 

project, the applicant, and the total 

amount of funding requested from the 

Institute. It also requires the signature of 

an individual authorized to certify on 

behalf of the applicant that the 

information contained in the 

application is true and complete; that 

submission of the application has been 

authorized by the applicant; and that if 

funding for the proposed project is 

approved, the applicant will comply 

with the requirements and conditions of 

the award, including the assurances set 

forth in Form D. 

b. Certificate of State Approval (Form 

B). An application from a State or local 

court must include a copy of Form B 

signed by the State’s Chief Justice or 

Chief Judge, the director of the 

designated agency, or the head of the 

designated council. The signature 

denotes that the proposed project has 

been approved by the State’s highest 

court or the agency or council it has 

designated. It denotes further that if the 

Institute approved funding for the 

project, the court or the specified 

designee will receive, administer, and 

be accountable for the awarded funds. 

c. Budget Form (Form C). Applicants 

must submit a Form C. In addition to 

Form C, applicants must provide a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52923 

detailed budget narrative providing an 

explanation of the basis for the 

estimates in each budget category (see 

subsection A.4. below). 

If funds from other sources are 

required to conduct the project, either as 

match or to support other aspects of the 

project, the source, current status of the 

request, and anticipated decision date 

must be provided. 

d. Assurances (Form D). This form 

lists the statutory, regulatory, and policy 

requirements with which recipients of 

Institute funds must comply. 

e. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. 

Applicants other than units of State or 

local government are required to 

disclose whether they, or another entity 

that is part of the same organization as 

the applicant, have advocated a position 

before Congress on any issue, and to 

identify the specific subjects of their 

lobbying efforts (see section VI.A.7.). 

2. Project Abstract 

The abstract should highlight the 

purposes, goals, methods, and 

anticipated benefits of the proposed 

project. It should not exceed 1 singlespaced page on 81⁄2 by 11 inch paper. 

3. Program Narrative 

The program narrative for an 

application may not exceed 25 doublespaced pages on 81⁄2 by 11 inch paper. 

Margins must be at least 1 inch, and 

type size must be at least 12-point and 

12 cpi. The pages should be numbered. 

This page limit does not include the 

forms, the abstract, the budget narrative, 

and any appendices containing resumes 

and letters of cooperation or 

endorsement. Additional background 

material should be attached only if it is 

essential to impart a clear 

understanding of the proposed project. 

Numerous and lengthy appendices are 

strongly discouraged. 

The program narrative should address 

the following topics: 

a. Project Objectives. The applicant 

should include a clear, concise 

statement of what the proposed project 

is intended to accomplish. In stating the 

objectives of the project, applicants 

should focus on the overall 

programmatic objective (e.g., to enhance 

understanding and skills regarding a 

specific subject, or to determine how a 

certain procedure affects the court and 

litigants) rather than on operational 

objectives (e.g., provide training for 32 

judges and court managers, or review 

data from 300 cases). 

b. Program Areas to Be Covered. The 

applicant should note the Special 

Interest category or categories that are 

addressed by the proposed project (see 

section III.A.). 

c. Need for the Project. If the project 

is to be conducted in any specific 

location(s), the applicant should discuss 

the particular needs of the project site(s) 

to be addressed by the project and why 

those needs are not being met through 

the use of existing programs, 

procedures, services, or other resources. 

If the project is not site-specific, the 

applicant should discuss the problems 

that the proposed project would 

address, and why existing programs, 

procedures, services, or other resources 

cannot adequately resolve those 

problems. The discussion should 

include specific references to the 

relevant literature and to the experience 

in the field. 

d. Tasks, Methods and Evaluations. 

(1) Tasks and Methods. The applicant 

should delineate the tasks to be 

performed in achieving the project 

objectives and the methods to be used 

for accomplishing each task. For 

example: 

(a) For research and evaluation 

projects, the applicant should include 

the data sources, data collection 

strategies, variables to be examined, and 

analytic procedures to be used for 

conducting the research or evaluation 

and ensuring the validity and general 

applicability of the results. For projects 

involving human subjects, the 

discussion of methods should address 

the procedures for obtaining 

respondents’ informed consent, 

ensuring the respondents’ privacy and 

freedom from risk or harm, and 

protecting others who are not the 

subjects of research but would be 

affected by the research. If the potential 

exists for risk or harm to human 

subjects, a discussion should be 

included that explains the value of the 

proposed research and the methods to 

be used to minimize or eliminate such 

risk. 

(b) For education and training 

projects, the applicant should include 

the adult education techniques to be 

used in designing and presenting the 

program, including the teaching/ 

learning objectives of the educational 

design, the teaching methods to be used, 

and the opportunities for structured 

interaction among the participants; how 

faculty would be recruited, selected, 

and trained; the proposed number and 

length of the conferences, courses, 

seminars, or workshops to be conducted 

and the estimated number of persons 

who would attend them; the materials to 

be provided and how they would be 

developed; and the cost to participants. 

(c) For demonstration projects, the 

applicant should include the 

demonstration sites and the reasons 

they were selected, or if the sites have 

not been chosen, how they would be 

identified and their cooperation 

obtained; and how the program or 

procedures would be implemented and 

monitored. 

(d) For technical assistance projects, 

the applicant should explain the types 

of assistance that would be provided; 

the particular issues and problems for 

which assistance would be provided; 

how requests would be obtained and the 

type of assistance determined; how 

suitable providers would be selected 

and briefed; how reports would be 

reviewed; and the cost to recipients. 

(2) Evaluation. Every project must 

include an evaluation plan to determine 

whether the project met its objectives. 

The evaluation should be designed to 

provide an objective and independent 

assessment of the effectiveness or 

usefulness of the training or services 

provided; the impact of the procedures, 

technology, or services tested; or the 

validity and applicability of the research 

conducted. In addition, where 

appropriate, the evaluation process 

should be designed to provide ongoing 

or periodic feedback on the 

effectiveness or utility of the project in 

order to promote its continuing 

improvement. The plan should present 

the qualifications of the evaluator(s); 

describe the criteria that would be used 

to evaluate the project’s effectiveness in 

meeting its objectives; explain how the 

evaluation would be conducted, 

including the specific data collection 

and analysis techniques to be used; 

discuss why this approach would be 

appropriate; and present a schedule for 

completion of the evaluation within the 

proposed project period. 

The evaluation plan should be 

appropriate to the type of project 

proposed. For example: 

(a) An evaluation approach suited to 

many research projects is a review by an 

advisory panel of the research 

methodology, data collection 

instruments, preliminary analyses, and 

products as they are drafted. The panel 

should be comprised of independent 

researchers and practitioners 

representing the perspectives affected 

by the proposed project. 

(b) The most valuable approaches to 

evaluating educational or training 

programs reinforce the participants’ 

learning experience while providing 

useful feedback on the impact of the 

program and possible areas for 

improvement. One appropriate 

evaluation approach is to assess the 

acquisition of new knowledge, skills, 

attitudes, or understanding through 

participant feedback on the seminar or 

training event. Such feedback might 

include a self-assessment of what was 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
52924 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

learned along with the participant’s 

response to the quality and effectiveness 

of faculty presentations, the format of 

sessions, the value or usefulness of the 

material presented, and other relevant 

factors. Another appropriate approach 

would be to use an independent 

observer who might request both verbal 

and written responses from participants 

in the program. When an education 

project involves the development of 

curricular materials, an advisory panel 

of relevant experts can be coupled with 

a test of the curriculum to obtain the 

reactions of participants and faculty as 

indicated above. 

(c) The evaluation plan for a 

demonstration project should 

encompass an assessment of program 

effectiveness (e.g., how well did it 

work?); user satisfaction, if appropriate; 

the cost-effectiveness of the program; a 

process analysis of the program (e.g., 

was the program implemented as 

designed, and/or did it provide the 

services intended to the targeted 

population?); the impact of the program 

(e.g., what effect did the program have 

on the court, and/or what benefits 

resulted from the program?); and the 

replicability of the program or 

components of the program. 

(d) For technical assistance projects, 

applicants should explain how the 

quality, timeliness, and impact of the 

assistance provided would be 

determined, and develop a mechanism 

for feedback from both the users and 

providers of the technical assistance. 

Evaluation plans involving human 

subjects should include a discussion of 

the procedures for obtaining 

respondents’ informed consent, 

ensuring the respondents’ privacy and 

freedom from risk or harm, and 

protecting others who are not the 

subjects of the evaluation but would be 

affected by it. Other than the provision 

of confidentiality to respondents, 

human subject protection issues 

ordinarily are not applicable to 

participants evaluating an education 

program. 

e. Project Management. The applicant 

should present a detailed management 

plan, including the starting and 

completion date for each task; the time 

commitments to the project of key staff 

and their responsibilities regarding each 

project task; and the procedures that 

would ensure that all tasks are 

performed on time, within budget, and 

at the highest level of quality. In 

preparing the project time line, Gantt 

Chart, or schedule, applicants should 

make certain that all project activities, 

including publication or reproduction of 

project products and their initial 

dissemination, would occur within the 

proposed project period. The 

management plan must also provide for 

the submission of Quarterly Progress 

and Financial Reports within 30 days 

after the close of each calendar quarter 

(i.e., no later than January 30, April 30, 

July 30, and October 30). 

Applicants should be aware that the 

Institute is unlikely to approve a limited 

extension of the grant period without 

very good cause. Therefore, the 

management plan should be as realistic 

as possible and fully reflect the time 

commitments of the proposed project 

staff and consultants. 

f. Products. The program narrative in 

the application should contain a 

description of the products to be 

developed (e.g., training curricula and 

materials, audiotapes, videotapes, 

DVDs, computer software, CD–ROM 

disks, articles, guidelines, manuals, 

reports, handbooks, benchbooks, or 

books), including when they would be 

submitted to the Institute. The budget 

should include the cost of producing 

and disseminating the product to each 

in-State SJI library (see Appendix A), 

State chief justice, State court 

administrator, and other appropriate 

judges or court personnel. 

(1) Dissemination Plan. The 

application must explain how and to 

whom the products would be 

disseminated; describe how they would 

benefit the State courts, including how 

they could be used by judges and court 

personnel; identify development, 

production, and dissemination costs 

covered by the project budget; and 

present the basis on which products and 

services developed or provided under 

the grant would be offered to the courts 

community and the public at large (i.e., 

whether products would be distributed 

at no cost to recipients, or if costs are 

involved, the reason for charging 

recipients and the estimated price of the 

product) (see section VI.A.11.b.). 

Ordinarily, applicants should schedule 

all product preparation and distribution 

activities within the project period. 

A copy of each product must be sent 

to the library established in each State 

to collect the materials developed with 

Institute support (see Appendix A). 

Applicants proposing to develop webbased products should provide for 

sending a hard-copy document to the 

SJI-designated libraries and other 

appropriate audiences to alert them to 

the availability of the Web site or 

electronic product (i.e., a written report 

with a reference to the Web site). 

Fifteen (15) copies of all project 

products must be submitted to the 

Institute, along with an electronic 

version in .html or .pdf format. 

(2) Types of Products and Press 

Releases. The type of product to be 

prepared depends on the nature of the 

project. For example, in most instances, 

the products of a research, evaluation, 

or demonstration project should include 

an article summarizing the project 

findings that is publishable in a journal 

serving the courts community 

nationally, an executive summary that 

would be disseminated to the project’s 

primary audience, or both. Applicants 

proposing to conduct empirical research 

or evaluation projects with national 

import should describe how they would 

make their data available for secondary 

analysis after the grant period (see 

section VI.A.14.a.). 

The curricula and other products 

developed through education and 

training projects should be designed for 

use outside the classroom so that they 

may be used again by the original 

participants and others in the course of 

their duties. 

In addition, recipients of project 

grants must prepare a press release 

describing the project and announcing 

the results, and distribute the release to 

a list of national and State judicial 

branch organizations. SJI will provide 

press release guidelines and a list of 

recipients to grantees at least 30 days 

before the end of the grant period. 

(3) Institute Review. Applicants must 

submit a final draft of all written grant 

products to the Institute for review and 

approval at least 30 days before the 

products are submitted for publication 

or reproduction. For products in a 

videotape or CD–ROM format, 

applicants must provide for Institute 

review of the product at the treatment, 

script, rough-cut, and final stages of 

development, or their equivalents. No 

grant funds may be obligated for 

publication or reproduction of a final 

grant product without the written 

approval of the Institute (see section 

VI.A.11.e.). 

(4) Acknowledgment, Disclaimer, and 

Logo. Applicants must also include in 

all project products a prominent 

acknowledgment that support was 

received from the Institute and a 

disclaimer paragraph based on the 

example provided in section 

VI.A.11.a.2. of the Guideline. The ‘‘SJI’’

logo must appear on the front cover of 

a written product, or in the opening 

frames of a video, unless the Institute 

approves another placement. 

g. Applicant Status. An applicant that 

is not a State or local court and has not 

received a grant from the Institute 

within the past three years should state 

whether it is either a national non-profit 

organization controlled by, operating in 

conjunction with, and serving the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52925 

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 II.). 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 nongovernmental entities. 

h. Staff Capability. The applicant 

should include a summary of the 

training and experience of the key staff 

members and consultants that qualify 

them for conducting and managing the 

proposed project. Resumes of identified 

staff should be attached to the 

application. If one or more key staff 

members and consultants are not known 

at the time of the application, a 

description of the criteria that would be 

used to select persons for these 

positions should be included. The 

applicant also should identify the 

person who would be responsible for 

managing and reporting on the financial 

aspects of the proposed project. 

i. Organizational Capacity. 

Applicants that have not received a 

grant from the Institute within the past 

three years should include a statement 

describing their capacity to administer 

grant funds, including the financial 

systems used to monitor project 

expenditures (and income, if any), and 

a summary of their past experience in 

administering grants, as well as any 

resources or capabilities that they have 

that would particularly assist in the 

successful completion of the project. 

Unless requested otherwise, an 

applicant that has received a grant from 

the Institute within the past three years 

should describe only the changes in its 

organizational capacity, tax status, or 

financial capability that may affect its 

capacity to administer a grant. 

If the applicant is a non-profit 

organization (other than a university), it 

must also provide documentation of its 

501(c) tax-exempt status as determined 

by the Internal Revenue Service and a 

copy of a current certified audit report. 

For purposes of this requirement, 

‘‘current’’ means no earlier than two 

years prior to the present calendar year. 

If a current audit report is not 

available, the Institute will require the 

organization to complete a financial 

capability questionnaire, which must be 

signed by a Certified Public Accountant. 

Other applicants may be required to 

provide a current audit report, a 

financial capability questionnaire, or 

both, if specifically requested to do so 

by the Institute. 

j. Statement of Lobbying Activities. 

Non-governmental applicants must 

submit the Institute’s Disclosure of 

Lobbying Activities Form, which 

documents whether they, or another 

entity that is a part of the same 

organization as the applicant, have 

advocated a position before Congress on 

any issue, and identifies the specific 

subjects of their lobbying efforts (see 

Appendix B). 

k. Letters of Cooperation or Support. 

If the cooperation of courts, 

organizations, agencies, or individuals 

other than the applicant is required to 

conduct the project, the applicant 

should attach written assurances of 

cooperation and availability to the 

application, or send them under 

separate cover. To ensure sufficient time 

to bring them to the Board’s attention, 

letters of support sent under separate 

cover must be received by the deadlines 

set below in subsection A.5. 

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 

information or schedules may be 

attached if they are essential to 

obtaining a clear understanding of the 

proposed budget. Numerous and 

lengthy appendices are strongly 

discouraged. 

The budget narrative should cover the 

costs of all components of the project 

and clearly identify costs attributable to 

the project evaluation. Under OMB 

grant guidelines incorporated by 

reference in this Guideline, grant funds 

may not be used to purchase alcoholic 

beverages. 

a. Justification of Personnel 

Compensation. The applicant should set 

forth the percentages of time to be 

devoted by the individuals who would 

staff the proposed project, the annual 

salary of each of those persons, and the 

number of work days per year used for 

calculating the percentages of time or 

daily rates of those individuals. The 

applicant should explain any deviations 

from current rates or established written 

organizational policies. If grant funds 

are requested to pay the salary and 

related costs for a current employee of 

a court or other unit of government, the 

applicant should explain why this 

would not constitute a supplantation of 

State or local funds in violation of 42 

U.S.C. 10706(d)(1). An acceptable 

explanation may be that the position to 

be filled is a new one established in 

conjunction with the project or that the 

grant funds would support only the 

portion of the employee’s time that 

would be dedicated to new or additional 

duties related to the project. 

b. Fringe Benefit Computation. The 

applicant should provide a description 

of the fringe benefits provided to 

employees. If percentages are used, the 

authority for such use should be 

presented, as well as a description of the 

elements included in the determination 

of the percentage rate. 

c. Consultant/Contractual Services 

and Honoraria. The applicant should 

describe the tasks each consultant 

would perform, the estimated total 

amount to be paid to each consultant, 

the basis for compensation rates (e.g., 

the number of days multiplied by the 

daily consultant rates), and the method 

for selection. Rates for consultant 

services must be set in accordance with 

section VII.I.2.c. Prior written Institute 

approval is required for any consultant 

rate in excess of $800 per day; Institute 

funds may not be used to pay a 

consultant more than $1,100 per day. 

Honorarium payments must be justified 

in the same manner as consultant 

payments. 

d. Travel. Transportation costs and 

per diem rates must comply with the 

policies of the applicant organization. If 

the applicant does not have an 

established travel policy, then travel 

rates must be consistent with those 

established by the Institute or the 

Federal Government (a copy of the 

Institute’s travel policy is available 

upon request). The budget narrative 

should include an explanation of the 

rate used, including the components of 

the per diem rate and the basis for the 

estimated transportation expenses. The 

purpose of the travel should also be 

included in the narrative. 

e. Equipment. Grant funds may be 

used to purchase only the equipment 

necessary to demonstrate a new 

technological application in a court or 

that is otherwise essential to 

accomplishing the objectives of the 

project. Equipment purchases to support 

basic court operations ordinarily will 

not be approved. The applicant should 

describe the equipment to be purchased 

or leased and explain why the 

acquisition of that equipment is 

essential to accomplish the project’s 

goals and objectives. The narrative 

should clearly identify which 

equipment is to be leased and which is 

to be purchased. The method of 

procurement should also be described. 

Purchases of automated data processing 

equipment must comply with section 

VII.I.2.b. 

f. Supplies. The applicant should 

provide a general description of the 

supplies necessary to accomplish the 

goals and objectives of the grant. In 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
52926 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

addition, the applicant should provide 

the basis for the amount requested for 

this expenditure category. 

g. Construction. Construction 

expenses are prohibited except for the 

limited purposes set forth in section 

VI.A.16.b. Any allowable construction 

or renovation expense should be 

described in detail in the budget 

narrative. 

h. Telephone. Applicants should 

include anticipated telephone charges, 

distinguishing between monthly charges 

and long distance charges in the budget 

narrative. Also, applicants should 

provide the basis used to calculate the 

monthly and long distance estimates. 

i. Postage. Anticipated postage costs 

for project-related mailings, including 

distribution of the final product(s), 

should be described in the budget 

narrative. The cost of special mailings, 

such as for a survey or for announcing 

a workshop, should be distinguished 

from routine operational mailing costs. 

The bases for all postage estimates 

should be included in the budget 

narrative. 

j. Printing/Photocopying. Anticipated 

costs for printing or photocopying 

project documents, reports, and 

publications should be included in the 

budget narrative, along with the bases 

used to calculate these estimates. 

k. Indirect Costs. Recoverable indirect 

costs are limited to no more than 75% 

of a grantee’s direct personnel costs, i.e. 

salaries plus fringe benefits (see section 

VII.I.4.). 

Applicants should describe the 

indirect cost rates applicable to the 

grant in detail. If costs often included 

within an indirect cost rate are charged 

directly (e.g., a percentage of the time of 

senior managers to supervise project 

activities), the applicant should specify 

that these costs are not included within 

its approved indirect cost rate. These 

rates must be established in accordance 

with section VII.I.4. If the applicant has 

an indirect cost rate or allocation plan 

approved by any Federal granting 

agency, a copy of the approved rate 

agreement must be attached to the 

application. 

l. Match. Applicants that do not 

contemplate making matching 

contributions continuously throughout 

the course of the project or on a task-bytask basis must provide a schedule 

within 30 days after the beginning of the 

project period indicating at what points 

during the project period the matching 

contributions would be made (see 

sections VI.A.8., and VII.E.1.). 

5. Submission Requirements 

a. Every applicant must submit an 

original and three 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; 

Form C; the Application Abstract; the 

Program Narrative; the Budget 

Narrative; and any necessary 

appendices. 

Letters of application may be 

submitted at any time. Applications will 

be considered on a rolling basis. 

Applications received less than 30 days 

before a quarterly Board meeting will be 

considered at the next Board meeting. 

Please mark Project Application on the 

application package envelope and send 

it to: State Justice Institute, 1650 King 

Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314. 

Receipt of each application will be 

acknowledged by letter or email. 

b. Applicants submitting more than 

one application may include material 

that would be identical in each 

application in a cover letter. This 

material will be incorporated by 

reference into each application and 

counted against the 25-page limit for the 

program narrative. A copy of the cover 

letter should be attached to each copy 

of the application. 

B. Technical Assistance (TA) Grants 

1. Application Procedures 

For a summary of the application 

procedures for TA Grants, visit the 

Institute’s Web site 

(www.statejustice.org) and click On-Line 

Tutorials, then Technical Assistance 

Grant. 

In lieu of formal applications, 

applicants for TA Grants may submit, at 

any time, an original and three copies of 

a detailed letter describing the proposed 

project. Letters from individual trial or 

appellate courts must be signed by the 

presiding judge or manager of that court. 

Letters from State court systems must be 

signed by the Chief Justice or State 

Court Administrator. Letters from 

regional court associations must be 

signed by the president of the 

association. 

2. Application Format 

Although there is no prescribed form 

for the letter, or a minimum or 

maximum page limit, letters of 

application should include the 

following information: 

a. Need for Funding. What is the 

critical need facing the applicant? How 

would the proposed technical assistance 

help the applicant meet this critical 

need? Why cannot State or local 

resources fully support the costs of the 

required consultant services? 

b. Project Description. What tasks 

would the consultant be expected to 

perform, and how would they be 

accomplished? Which organization or 

individual would be hired to provide 

the assistance, and how was this 

consultant selected? If a consultant has 

not yet been identified, what procedures 

and criteria would be used to select the 

consultant (applicants are expected to 

follow their jurisdictions’ normal 

procedures for procuring consultant 

services)? What specific tasks would the 

consultant(s) and court staff undertake? 

What is the schedule for completion of 

each required task and the entire 

project? How would the applicant 

oversee the project and provide 

guidance to the consultant, and who at 

the court or regional court association 

would be responsible for coordinating 

all project tasks and submitting 

quarterly progress and financial status 

reports? 

If the consultant has been identified, 

the applicant should provide a letter 

from that individual or organization 

documenting interest in and availability 

for the project, as well as the 

consultant’s ability to complete the 

assignment within the proposed time 

frame and for the proposed cost. The 

consultant must agree to submit a 

detailed written report to the court and 

the Institute upon completion of the 

technical assistance. 

c. Likelihood of Implementation. 

What steps have been or would be taken 

to facilitate implementation of the 

consultant’s recommendations upon 

completion of the technical assistance? 

For example, if the support or 

cooperation of specific court officials or 

committees, other agencies, funding 

bodies, organizations, or a court other 

than the applicant would be needed to 

adopt the changes recommended by the 

consultant and approved by the court, 

how would they be involved in the 

review of the recommendations and 

development of the implementation 

plan? 

d. Support for the Project from the 

State Supreme Court or its Designated 

Agency or Council. If a State or local 

court submits a request for technical 

assistance, it must include written 

concurrence on the need for the 

technical assistance. This concurrence 

may be a copy of SJI Form B (see 

Appendix B) 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, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52927 

or would designate the local court or a 

specified agency or council to receive 

the funds directly. 

3. Budget and Matching State 

Contribution 

A completed Form E, ‘‘Line-Item 

Budget Form’’ (see Appendix C), and 

budget narrative must be included with 

the letter requesting technical 

assistance. The estimated cost of the 

technical assistance services should be 

broken down into the categories listed 

on the budget form rather than 

aggregated under the Consultant/ 

Contractual category. 

The budget narrative should provide 

the basis for all project-related costs, 

including the basis for determining the 

estimated consultant costs, if 

compensation of the consultant is 

required (e.g., the number of days per 

task times the requested daily 

consultant rate). Applicants should be 

aware that consultant rates above $800 

per day must be approved in advance by 

the Institute, and that no consultant will 

be paid more than $1,100 per day from 

Institute funds. In addition, the budget 

should provide for submission of two 

copies of the consultant’s final report to 

the Institute. 

Recipients of TA Grants do not have 

to submit an audit report but must 

maintain appropriate documentation to 

support expenditures (see section 

VI.A.3.). 

4. Submission Requirements 

Letters of application may be 

submitted at any time. Applications will 

be considered on a rolling basis. 

Applications received less than 30 days 

before a quarterly Board meeting will be 

considered at the next Board meeting. 

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 Grant Committee, letters sent 

under separate cover must be received 

by the same date as the technical 

assistance request being supported. 

C. Curriculum Adaptation and Training 

(CAT) Grants 

1. Application Procedures 

For a summary of the application 

procedures for CAT Grants, visit the 

Institute’s Web site 

(www.statejustice.org) and click on OnLine Tutorials, then Curriculum 

Adaptation and Training Grant. 

In lieu of formal applications, 

applicants should submit an original 

and three photocopies of a detailed 

letter. 

2. Application Format 

Although there is no prescribed 

format for the letter, or a minimum or 

maximum page limit, letters of 

application should include the 

following information: a. For adaptation 

of a curriculum: 

(1) Project Description. What is the 

title of the model curriculum to be 

adapted and who originally developed 

it? Why is this education program 

needed at the present time? What are 

the project’s goals? What are the 

learning objectives of the adapted 

curriculum? What program components 

would be implemented, and what types 

of modifications, if any, are anticipated 

in length, format, learning objectives, 

teaching methods, or content? Who 

would be responsible for adapting the 

model curriculum? Who would the 

participants be, how many would there 

be, how would they be recruited, and 

from where would they come (e.g., from 

a single local jurisdiction, from across 

the State, from a multi-State region, 

from across the nation)? 

(2) Need for Funding. Why are 

sufficient State or local resources 

unavailable to fully support the 

modification and presentation of the 

model curriculum? What is the potential 

for replicating or integrating the adapted 

curriculum in the future using State or 

local funds, once it has been 

successfully adapted and tested? 

(3) Likelihood of Implementation. 

What is the proposed timeline, 

including the project start and end 

dates? On what date(s) would the 

judicial branch education program be 

presented? What process would be used 

to modify and present the program? 

Who would serve as faculty, and how 

were they selected? What measures 

would be taken to facilitate subsequent 

presentations of the program? [Note: 

Ordinarily, an independent evaluation 

of a curriculum adaptation project is not 

required; however, the results of any 

evaluation should be included in the 

final report.] 

(4) Expressions of Interest by Judges 

and/or Court Personnel. Does the 

proposed program have the support of 

the court system or association 

leadership, and of judges, court 

managers, and judicial branch education 

personnel who are expected to attend? 

[Note: Applicants may demonstrate this 

by attaching letters of support.] 

(5) Chief Justice’s Concurrence. Local 

courts should attach a concurrence form 

signed by the Chief Justice of the State 

or his or her designee. (See Appendix B, 

Form B.) 

b. For training assistance: 

(1) Need for Funding. What is the 

court reform or initiative prompting the 

need for training? How would the 

proposed training help the applicant 

implement planned changes at the 

court? Why cannot State or local 

resources fully support the costs of the 

required training? 

(2) Project Description. What tasks 

would the trainer(s) be expected to 

perform, and how would they be 

accomplished? Which organization or 

individual would be hired, if in-house 

personnel are not the trainers, to 

provide the training, and how was the 

trainer selected? If a trainer has not yet 

been identified, what procedures and 

criteria would be used to select the 

trainer? [Note: Applicants are expected 

to follow their jurisdictions’ normal 

procedures for procuring consultant 

services.] What specific tasks would the 

trainer and court staff or regional court 

association members undertake? What 

presentation methods will be used? 

What is the schedule for completion of 

each required task and the entire 

project? How would the applicant 

oversee the project and provide 

guidance to the trainer, and who at the 

court or affiliated with the regional 

court association would be responsible 

for coordinating all project tasks and 

submitting quarterly progress and 

financial status reports? 

If the trainer 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 trainer’s 

ability to complete the assignment 

within the proposed time frame and for 

the proposed cost. The trainer must 

agree to submit a detailed written report 

to the court and the Institute upon 

completion of the technical assistance. 

(3) Likelihood of Implementation. 

What steps have been or would be taken 

to coordinate the implementation of the 

new reform, initiative, etc. and the 

training to support the same? For 

example, if the support or cooperation 

of specific court or regional court 

association officials or committees, 

other agencies, funding bodies, 

organizations, or a court other than the 

applicant would be needed to adopt the 

reform and initiate the training 

proposed, how would they be involved 

in the review of the recommendations 

and development of the implementation 

plan? 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
52928 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

(4) Support for the Project from the 

State Supreme Court or its Designated 

Agency or Council. If a State or local 

court submits an application, it must 

include written concurrence on the 

need for the technical assistance. This 

concurrence may be a copy of SJI Form 

B (see Appendix B) signed by the Chief 

Justice of the State Supreme Court or the 

Chief Justice’s designee, or a letter from 

the State Chief Justice or designee. The 

concurrence may be submitted with the 

applicant’s letter or under separate 

cover prior to consideration of the 

application. The concurrence also must 

specify whether the State Supreme 

Court would receive, administer, and 

account for the grant funds, if awarded, 

or would designate the local court or a 

specified agency or council to receive 

the funds directly. 

4. Budget and Matching State 

Contribution 

Applicants should attach a copy of 

budget Form E (see Appendix C) and a 

budget narrative (see subsection A.4. 

above) that describes the basis for the 

computation of all project-related costs 

and the source of the match offered. 

5. Submission Requirements 

Letters of application may be 

submitted at any time. Applications will 

be considered on a rolling basis. 

Applications received less than 30 days 

before a quarterly Board meeting will be 

considered at the next Board meeting. 

For curriculum adaptation requests, 

applicants should allow at least 60 days 

between the Board meeting and the date 

of the proposed program to allow 

sufficient time for needed planning. For 

example, a court that plans to conduct 

an education program in June 2007 

should submit its application no later 

than 30 days before the Board’s winter 

(March) meeting. 

D. Scholarships 

1. Limitations 

An applicant may apply for a 

scholarship for only one educational 

program during any given application 

cycle. Applicants may not receive more 

than one scholarship in a three-year 

period unless the course specifically 

assumes multi-year participation or the 

course is part of a graduate degree 

program in judicial studies in which the 

applicant is currently enrolled (neither 

exception should be taken as a 

commitment on the part of the SJI Board 

to approve serial scholarships). 

Scholarship funds may be used only 

to cover the costs of tuition, 

transportation, and reasonable lodging 

expenses (not to exceed $150 per night, 

including taxes). Transportation 

expenses may include round-trip coach 

airfare or train fare. Scholarship 

recipients are strongly encouraged to 

take advantage of excursion or other 

special airfares (e.g., reductions offered 

when a ticket is purchased 21 days in 

advance of the travel date) when making 

their travel arrangements. Recipients 

who drive to a program site may receive 

$.445/mile up to the amount of the 

advanced-purchase round-trip airfare 

between their homes and the program 

sites. Funds to pay tuition, 

transportation, and lodging expenses in 

excess of $1,500 and other costs of 

attending the program—such as 

conference fees, meals, materials, 

transportation to and from airports, and 

local transportation (including rental 

cars)—at the program site must be 

obtained from other sources or borne by 

the scholarship recipient. Scholarship 

applicants are encouraged to check 

other sources of financial assistance and 

to combine aid from various sources 

whenever possible. 

A scholarship is not transferable to 

another individual. It may be used only 

for the course specified in the 

application unless the applicant’s 

request to attend a different course that 

meets the eligibility requirements is 

approved in writing by the Institute. 

Decisions on such requests will be made 

within 30 days after the receipt of the 

request letter. 

2. Eligibility Requirements 

For a summary of the scholarship 

award process, visit the Institute’s Web 

site at www.statejustice.org and click on 

On-Line Tutorials, then Scholarship. 

a. Recipients. Scholarships can be 

awarded only to full-time judges of State 

or local trial and appellate courts; fulltime professional, State, or local court 

personnel with management 

responsibilities; and supervisory and 

management probation personnel in 

judicial branch probation offices. Senior 

judges, part-time judges, quasi-judicial 

hearing officers including referees and 

commissioners, administrative law 

judges, staff attorneys, law clerks, line 

staff, law enforcement officers, and 

other executive branch personnel are 

not eligible to receive a scholarship. 

b. Courses. A scholarship can be 

awarded only for: (1) A course 

presented in a State other than the one 

in which the applicant resides or works, 

or (2) an online course. The course must 

be designed to enhance the skills of new 

or experienced judges and court 

managers; or be offered by a recognized 

graduate program for judges or court 

managers. The annual or mid-year 

meeting of a State or national 

organization of which the applicant is a 

member does not qualify as an out-ofState educational program for 

scholarship purposes, even though it 

may include workshops or other 

training sessions. 

Applicants are encouraged not to wait 

for the decision on a scholarship to 

register for an educational program they 

wish to attend. 

3. Forms 

a. Scholarship Application—Form S1 

(Appendix D). The Scholarship 

Application requests basic information 

about the applicant and the educational 

program the applicant would like to 

attend. It also addresses the applicant’s 

commitment to share the skills and 

knowledge gained with local court 

colleagues and to submit an evaluation 

of the program the applicant attends. 

The Scholarship Application must bear 

the original signature of the applicant. 

Faxed or photocopied signatures will 

not be accepted. 

b. Scholarship Application 

Concurrence—Form S2 (Appendix D). 

Judges and court managers applying for 

scholarships must submit the written 

concurrence of the Chief Justice of the 

State’s Supreme Court (or the Chief 

Justice’s designee) on the Institute’s 

Judicial Education Scholarship 

Concurrence form (see Appendix D). 

The signature of the presiding judge of 

the applicant’s court cannot be 

substituted for that of the Chief Justice 

or the Chief Justice’s designee. Court 

managers, other than elected clerks of 

court, also must submit a letter of 

support from their immediate 

supervisors. 

4. Submission Requirements 

Scholarship applications must be 

submitted during the periods specified 

below: 

January 1 and February 23, 2007, for 

programs beginning between April 1 

and June 30, 2007; 

April 2 and May 25, 2007 for 

programs beginning between July 1 and 

September 30, 2007; 

July 2 and August 24, 2007 for 

programs beginning between October 1 

and December 31, 2007; and 

October 1 and November 30, 2007 for 

programs beginning between January 1 

and March 31, 2008. 

No exceptions or extensions will be 

granted. Applications sent prior to the 

beginning of an application period will 

be treated as having been sent one week 

after the beginning of that application 

period. All the required items must be 

received for an application to be 

considered. If the Concurrence form or 

letter of support is sent separately from 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52929 

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. 

E. Partner Grants 

SJI and its funding partners may 

meld, pick and choose, or waive their 

application procedures, grant cycles, or 

grant requirements to expedite the 

award of jointly-funded grants targeted 

at emerging or high priority problems 

confronting State and local courts. As 

often as not, SJI may solicit brief 

proposals from potential grantees to 

shop among fellow financial partners as 

a first step. Should SJI be chosen as the 

lead grant manager, Project Grant 

application procedures will apply to the 

proposed Partner Grant. As with Project 

Grants, Partner Grants will be targeted at 

initiatives likely to have a significant 

national impact. 

V. Application Review Procedures 

A. Preliminary Inquiries 

The Institute staff will answer 

inquiries concerning application 

procedures. The staff contact will be 

named in the Institute’s letter or e-mail 

acknowledging receipt of the 

application. 

B. Selection Criteria 

1. Project Grant Applications 

a. Project Grant applications will be 

rated on the basis of the criteria set forth 

below. The Institute will accord the 

greatest weight to the following criteria: 

(1) The soundness of the 

methodology; 

(2) The demonstration of need for the 

project; 

(3) The appropriateness of the 

proposed evaluation design; 

(4) If applicable, the key findings and 

recommendations of the most recent 

evaluation and the proposed responses 

to those findings and recommendations; 

(5) The applicant’s management plan 

and organizational capabilities; 

(6) The qualifications of the project’s 

staff; 

(7) 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; 

(8) The degree to which the findings, 

procedures, training, technology, or 

other results of the project can be 

transferred to other jurisdictions; 

(9) The reasonableness of the 

proposed budget; and 

(10) The demonstration of cooperation 

and support of other agencies that may 

be affected by the project. 

(11) The proposed project’s 

relationship to one of the Special 

Interest categories set forth in section 

III.A. 

b. In determining which projects to 

support, the Institute will also consider 

whether the applicant is a State court, 

a national court support or education 

organization, a non-court unit of 

government, or other type of entity 

eligible to receive grants under the 

Institute’s enabling legislation (see 

section II.); the availability of financial 

assistance from other sources for the 

project; the amount of the applicant’s 

match; the extent to which the proposed 

project would also benefit the Federal 

courts or help State courts enforce 

Federal constitutional and legislative 

requirements; and the level of 

appropriations available to the Institute 

in the current year and the amount 

expected to be available in succeeding 

fiscal years. 

2. Technical Assistance (TA) Grant 

Applications 

TA Grant applications will be rated 

on the basis of the following criteria: 

a. Whether the assistance would 

address a critical need of the applicant; 

b. The soundness of the technical 

assistance approach to the problem; 

c. The qualifications of the 

consultant(s) to be hired, or the specific 

criteria that will be used to select the 

consultant(s); 

d. The commitment of the court or 

association to act on the consultant’s 

recommendations; and 

e. The reasonableness of the proposed 

budget. 

The Institute also will consider factors 

such as the level and nature of the 

match that would be provided, diversity 

of subject matter, geographic diversity, 

the level of appropriations available to 

the Institute in the current year, and the 

amount expected to be available in 

succeeding fiscal years. 

3. Curriculum Adaptation and Training 

(CAT) Grant Applications 

CAT Grant applications will be rated 

on the basis of the following criteria: 

a. For curriculum adaptation projects: 

(1) The goals and objectives of the 

proposed project; 

(2) The need for outside funding to 

support the program; 

(3) The appropriateness of the 

approach in achieving the project’s 

educational objectives; 

(4) The likelihood of effective 

implementation and integration of the 

modified curriculum into ongoing 

educational programming; and 

(5) Expressions of interest by the 

judges and/or court personnel who 

would be directly involved in or 

affected by the project. 

b. For training assistance: 

(1) Whether the training would 

address a critical need of the court or 

association; 

(2) The soundness of the training 

approach to the problem; 

(3) The qualifications of the trainer(s) 

to be hired, or the specific criteria that 

will be used to select the trainer(s); 

(4) The commitment of the court or 

association to the training program; and 

(5) The reasonableness of the 

proposed budget. 

The Institute will also consider factors 

such as the reasonableness of the 

amount requested, compliance with 

match requirements, diversity of subject 

matter, geographic diversity, the level of 

appropriations available in the current 

year, and the amount expected to be 

available in succeeding fiscal years. 

4. Scholarships 

Scholarships will be approved only 

for programs that either (1) enhance the 

skills of judges and court managers; or 

(2) are part of a graduate degree program 

for judges or court personnel. 

Scholarships will be awarded on the 

basis of: 

a. The date on which the application 

and concurrence (and support letter, if 

required) were sent (‘‘first come, first 

serve’’); 

b. The unavailability of State or local 

funds or scholarship funds from another 

source to cover the costs of attending 

the program, or participating online; 

c. The absence of educational 

programs in the applicant’s State 

addressing the topic(s) covered by the 

educational program for which the 

scholarship is being sought; 

d. Geographic balance among the 

recipients; 

e. The balance of scholarships among 

educational providers and programs; 

f. The balance of scholarships among 

the types of courts and court personnel 

(trial judge, appellate judge, trial court 

administrator) represented; and 

g. the level of appropriations available 

to the Institute in the current year and 

the amount expected to be available in 

succeeding fiscal years. 

The postmark or courier receipt will 

be used to determine the date on which 

the application form and other required 

items were sent. 

5. Partner Grants 

It seems probable that the selection 

criteria for Partner Grants will be driven 

by the collective priorities of the 

‘‘bankers’ roundtable’’ that forms 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
52930 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

around this grant-making opportunity 

and the collective assessments of 

roundtable participants regarding the 

needs and capabilities of court and 

court-related organizations. Having 

settled on priorities, SJI and its financial 

partners will likely contact the courts or 

court-related organizations most 

acceptable as pilots, laboratories, 

consultants, or the like. Should SJI be 

chosen as the lead grant manager, 

Project Grant application review 

procedures will apply to the proposed 

Partner Grant. 

C. Review and Approval Process 

1. Project Grant Applications 

The Institute’s Board of Directors will 

review the applications competitively. 

The Institute staff will prepare a 

narrative summary and a rating sheet 

assigning points for each relevant 

selection criterion. The staff will present 

the narrative summaries and rating 

sheets to the Board for its review. The 

Board will review all application 

summaries and decide which projects it 

will fund. The decision to fund a project 

is solely that of the Board of Directors. 

The Chairman of the Board will sign 

approved awards on behalf of the 

Institute. 

2. Technical Assistance (TA) and 

Curriculum Adaptation and Training 

(CAT) Grant Applications 

The Institute staff will prepare a 

narrative summary of each application 

and a rating sheet assigning points for 

each relevant selection criterion. The 

Board of Directors has delegated its 

authority to approve TA and CAT 

Grants to the committee established for 

each program. The committee will 

review the applications competitively. 

The Chairman of the Board will sign 

approved awards on behalf of the 

Institute. 

3. Scholarships 

A committee of the Institute’s Board 

of Directors will review scholarship 

applications quarterly. The Board of 

Directors has delegated its authority to 

approve scholarships to the committee 

established for the program. The 

committee will review the applications 

competitively. In the event of a tie vote, 

the Chairman will serve as the tiebreaker. 

The Chairman of the Board will sign 

approved awards on behalf of the 

Institute. 

4. Partner Grants 

SJI’s internal process for the review 

and approval of Partner Grants will 

depend upon negotiations with fellow 

financiers. SJI may use its procedures, a 

partner’s procedures, a mix of both, or 

entirely unique procedures. All Partner 

Grants will have to be approved by the 

Board of Directors on whatever schedule 

makes sense at the time. 

D. Return Policy 

Unless a specific request is made, 

unsuccessful applications will not be 

returned. Applicants are advised that 

Institute records are subject to the 

provisions of the Federal Freedom of 

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. 

E. Notification of Board Decision 

1. The Institute will send written 

notice to applicants concerning all 

Board decisions to approve, defer, or 

deny their respective applications. For 

all applications (except scholarships), 

the Institute also will convey the key 

issues and questions that arose during 

the review process. A decision by the 

Board to deny an application may not be 

appealed, but it does not prohibit 

resubmission of a proposal based on 

that application in a subsequent funding 

cycle. The Institute will also notify the 

State court administrator when grants 

are approved by the Board to support 

projects that will be conducted by or 

involve courts in that State. 

2. The Institute intends to notify each 

scholarship applicant of the Board 

committee’s decision within 30 days 

after the close of the relevant 

application period. 

F. Response to Notification of Approval 

With the exception of those approved 

for scholarships, applicants have 30 

days from the date of the letter notifying 

them that the Board has approved their 

application to respond to any revisions 

requested by the Board. If the requested 

revisions (or a reasonable schedule for 

submitting such revisions) have not 

been submitted to the Institute within 

30 days after notification, the approval 

may be rescinded and the application 

presented to the Board for 

reconsideration. In the event an issue 

will only be resolved after award, such 

as the selection of a consultant, the final 

award document will include a Special 

Condition that will require additional 

grantee reporting and Institute review 

and approval. Special Conditions, in the 

form of incentives or sanctions, may 

also be used in situations where past 

poor performance by a grantee 

necessitates increased grant oversight. 

VI. Compliance Requirements 

The State Justice Institute Act 

contains limitations and conditions on 

grants, contracts, and cooperative 

agreements awarded by the Institute. 

The Board of Directors has approved 

additional policies governing the use of 

Institute grant funds. These statutory 

and policy requirements are set forth 

below. 

A. Recipients of Project Grants 

1. Advocacy 

No funds made available by the 

Institute may be used to support or 

conduct training programs for the 

purpose of advocating particular 

nonjudicial public policies or 

encouraging nonjudicial political 

activities (42 U.S.C. 10706(b)). 

2. Approval of Key Staff 

If the qualifications of an employee or 

consultant assigned to a key project staff 

position are not described in the 

application or if there is a change of a 

person assigned to such a position, the 

recipient must submit a description of 

the qualifications of the newly assigned 

person to the Institute. Prior written 

approval of the qualifications of the new 

person assigned to a key staff position 

must be received from the Institute 

before the salary or consulting fee of 

that person and associated costs may be 

paid or reimbursed from grant funds. 

3. Audit 

Recipients of project and continuation 

grants must provide for an annual fiscal 

audit which includes an opinion on 

whether the financial statements of the 

grantee present fairly its financial 

position and its financial operations are 

in accordance with generally accepted 

accounting principles (see section VII.K. 

for the requirements of such audits). 

Scholarship recipients, Curriculum 

Adaptation and Training Grants, and 

Technical Assistance Grants are not 

required to submit an audit, but they 

must maintain appropriate 

documentation to support all 

expenditures. 

4. Budget Revisions 

Budget revisions among direct cost 

categories that: (a) Transfer grant funds 

to an unbudgeted cost category, or (b) 

individually or cumulatively exceed 

five percent of the approved original 

budget or the most recently approved 

revised budget require prior Institute 

approval. Failure to comply with these 

requirements could result in the 

termination of a grantee’s award. 

5. Conflict of Interest 

Personnel and other officials 

connected with Institute-funded 

programs must adhere to the following 

requirements: 

a. No official or employee of a 

recipient court or organization shall 

participate personally through decision, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52931 

approval, disapproval, recommendation, 

the rendering of advice, investigation, or 

otherwise in any proceeding, 

application, request for a ruling or other 

determination, contract, grant, 

cooperative agreement, claim, 

controversy, or other particular matter 

in which Institute funds are used, 

where, to his or her knowledge, he or 

she or his or her immediate family, 

partners, organization other than a 

public agency in which he or she is 

serving as officer, director, trustee, 

partner, or employee or any person or 

organization with whom he or she is 

negotiating or has any arrangement 

concerning prospective employment, 

has a financial interest. 

b. In the use of Institute project funds, 

an official or employee of a recipient 

court or organization shall avoid any 

action which might result in or create 

the appearance of: 

(1) Using an official position for 

private gain; or 

(2) affecting adversely the confidence 

of the public in the integrity of the 

Institute program. 

c. Requests for proposals or 

invitations for bids issued by a recipient 

of Institute funds or a subgrantee or 

subcontractor will provide notice to 

prospective bidders that the contractors 

who develop or draft specifications, 

requirements, statements of work, and/ 

or requests for proposals for a proposed 

procurement will be excluded from 

bidding on or submitting a proposal to 

compete for the award of such 

procurement. 

6. Inventions and Patents 

If any patentable items, patent rights, 

processes, or inventions are produced in 

the course of Institute-sponsored work, 

such fact shall be promptly and fully 

reported to the Institute. Unless there is 

a prior agreement between the grantee 

and the Institute on disposition of such 

items, the Institute shall determine 

whether protection of the invention or 

discovery shall be sought. The Institute 

will also determine how the rights in 

the invention or discovery, including 

rights under any patent issued thereon, 

shall be allocated and administered in 

order to protect the public interest 

consistent with ‘‘Government Patent 

Policy’’ (President’s Memorandum for 

Heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies, February 18, 1983, and 

statement of Government Patent Policy). 

7. Lobbying 

a. Funds awarded to recipients by the 

Institute shall not be used, indirectly or 

directly, to influence Executive Orders 

or similar promulgations by Federal, 

State or local agencies, or to influence 

the passage or defeat of any legislation 

by Federal, State or local legislative 

bodies (42 U.S.C. 10706(a)). 

b. It is the policy of the Board of 

Directors to award funds only to support 

applications submitted by organizations 

that would carry out the objectives of 

their applications in an unbiased 

manner. Consistent with this policy and 

the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 10706, the 

Institute will not knowingly award a 

grant to an applicant that has, directly 

or through an entity that is part of the 

same organization as the applicant, 

advocated a position before Congress on 

the specific subject matter of the 

application. 

8. Matching Requirements 

All grantees other than scholarship 

recipients are required to provide a 

match. A match is the portion of project 

costs not borne by the Institute. Match 

includes both cash and in-kind 

contributions. Cash match is the direct 

outlay of funds by the grantee or a third 

party to support the project. Examples 

of cash match are the dedication of 

funds to support a new employee or 

purchase new equipment to carry out 

the project or the application of project 

income (e.g., tuition or the proceeds of 

sales of grant products) generated 

during the grant period to grant costs. 

In-kind match consists of 

contributions of time and/or services of 

current staff members, space, supplies, 

etc., made to the project by the grantee 

or others (e.g., advisory board members) 

working directly on the project or that 

portion of the grantee’s Federally 

approved indirect cost rate that exceeds 

the Guideline’s limit of permitted 

charges (75% of salaries and benefits). 

Under normal circumstances, 

allowable match may be incurred only 

during the project period. When 

appropriate, and with the prior written 

permission of the Institute, match may 

be incurred from the date of the Board 

of Directors’ approval of an award. 

Match does not include the time of 

participants attending an education 

program. The amount and nature of 

required match depends on the type 

grant (see section III.). 

The grantee is responsible for 

ensuring that the total amount of match 

proposed is actually contributed. If a 

proposed contribution is not fully met, 

the Institute may reduce the award 

amount accordingly, in order to 

maintain the ratio originally provided 

for in the award agreement (see section 

VII.E.1.). 

The Board of Directors looks favorably 

upon any unrequired match contributed 

by applicants when making grant 

decisions. 

The match requirement may be 

waived in exceptionally rare 

circumstances upon the request of the 

Chief Justice of the highest court in the 

State or the highest ranking official in 

the requesting organization and 

approval by the Board of Directors (42 

U.S.C. 10705(d)). The Board of Directors 

encourages all applicants to provide the 

maximum amount of cash and in-kind 

match possible, even if a waiver is 

approved. The amount and nature of 

match are criteria in the grant selection 

process (see section V.B.1.b.). 

9. Nondiscrimination 

No person may, on the basis of race, 

sex, national origin, disability, color, or 

creed be excluded from participation in, 

denied the benefits of, or otherwise 

subjected to discrimination under any 

program or activity supported by 

Institute funds. Recipients of Institute 

funds must immediately take any 

measures necessary to effectuate this 

provision. 

10. Political Activities 

No recipient may contribute or make 

available Institute funds, program 

personnel, or equipment to any political 

party or association, or the campaign of 

any candidate for public or party office. 

Recipients are also prohibited from 

using funds in advocating or opposing 

any ballot measure, initiative, or 

referendum. Officers and employees of 

recipients shall not intentionally 

identify the Institute or recipients with 

any partisan or nonpartisan political 

activity associated with a political party 

or association, or the campaign of any 

candidate for public or party office (42 

U.S.C. 10706(a)). 

11. Products 

a. Acknowledgment, Logo, and 

Disclaimer. (1) Recipients of Institute 

funds must acknowledge prominently 

on all products developed with grant 

funds that support was received from 

the Institute. The ‘‘SJI’’ logo must 

appear on the front cover of a written 

product, or in the opening frames of a 

video product, unless another 

placement is approved in writing by the 

Institute. This includes final products 

printed or otherwise reproduced during 

the grant period, as well as reprintings 

or reproductions of those materials 

following the end of the grant period. A 

camera-ready logo sheet is available 

from the Institute upon request. 

(2) Recipients also must display the 

following disclaimer on all grant 

products: ‘‘This [document, film, 

videotape, etc.] was developed under 

[grant/cooperative agreement] number 

SJI-[insert number] from the State 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
52932 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

Justice Institute. The points of view 

expressed are those of the [author(s), 

filmmaker(s), etc.] and do not 

necessarily represent the official 

position or policies of the State Justice 

Institute.’’

b. Charges for Grant-Related 

Products/Recovery of Costs. (1) When 

Institute funds fully cover the cost of 

developing, producing, and 

disseminating a product (e.g., a report, 

curriculum, videotape, or software), the 

product should be distributed to the 

field without charge. When Institute 

funds only partially cover the 

development, production, or 

dissemination costs, the grantee may, 

with the Institute’s prior written 

approval, recover its costs for 

developing, producing, and 

disseminating the material to those 

requesting it, to the extent that those 

costs were not covered by Institute 

funds or grantee matching 

contributions. 

(2) Applicants should disclose their 

intent to sell grant-related products in 

the application. Grantees must obtain 

the written prior approval of the 

Institute of their plans to recover project 

costs through the sale of grant products. 

Written requests to recover costs 

ordinarily should be received during the 

grant period and should specify the 

nature and extent of the costs to be 

recouped, the reason that such costs 

were not budgeted (if the rationale was 

not disclosed in the approved 

application), the number of copies to be 

sold, the intended audience for the 

products to be sold, and the proposed 

sale price. If the product is to be sold 

for more than $25, the written request 

also should include a detailed 

itemization of costs that will be 

recovered and a certification that the 

costs were not supported by either 

Institute grant funds or grantee 

matching contributions. 

(3) In the event that the sale of grant 

products results in revenues that exceed 

the costs to develop, produce, and 

disseminate the product, the revenue 

must continue to be used for the 

authorized purposes of the Institutefunded project or other purposes 

consistent with the State Justice 

Institute Act that have been approved by 

the Institute (see section VII.G.). 

c. Copyrights. Except as otherwise 

provided in the terms and conditions of 

an Institute award, a recipient is free to 

copyright any books, publications, or 

other copyrightable materials developed 

in the course of an Institute-supported 

project, but the Institute shall reserve a 

royalty-free, nonexclusive and 

irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, 

or otherwise use, and to authorize 

others to use, the materials for purposes 

consistent with the State Justice 

Institute Act. 

d. Distribution. In addition to the 

distribution specified in the grant 

application, grantees shall send: 

(1) Fifteen (15) copies of each final 

product developed with grant funds to 

the Institute, unless the product was 

developed under either a Technical 

Assistance or a Curriculum Adaptation 

and Training Grant, in which case 

submission of 2 copies is required; 

(2) An electronic version of the 

product in .html or .pdf format to the 

Institute; and 

(3) One copy of each final product 

developed with grant funds to the 

library established in each State to 

collect materials prepared with Institute 

support. A list of the libraries is 

contained in Appendix A. Labels for 

these libraries are available on the 

Institute’s Web site, 

www.statejustice.org. 

(4) Bound copies of products, rather 

than hard copies in ring binders, to SJI 

depository libraries, where possible and 

cost-effective. Grantees that develop 

web-based electronic products must 

send a hard-copy document to the SJIdesignated libraries and other 

appropriate audiences to alert them to 

the availability of the Web site or 

electronic product. Recipients of 

Technical Assistance and Curriculum 

Adaptation and Training Grants are not 

required to submit final products to 

State libraries. 

(5) A press release describing the 

project and announcing the results to a 

list of national and State judicial branch 

organizations provided by the Institute. 

e. Institute Approval. No grant funds 

may be obligated for publication or 

reproduction of a final product 

developed with grant funds without the 

written approval of the Institute. 

Grantees shall submit a final draft of 

each written product to the Institute for 

review and approval. The draft must be 

submitted at least 30 days before the 

product is scheduled to be sent for 

publication or reproduction to permit 

Institute review and incorporation of 

any appropriate changes required by the 

Institute. Grantees must provide for 

timely reviews by the Institute of 

videotape, DVD or CD–ROM products at 

the treatment, script, rough cut, and 

final stages of development or their 

equivalents. 

f. Original Material. All products 

prepared as the result of Institutesupported projects must be originallydeveloped material unless otherwise 

specified in the award documents. 

Material not originally developed that is 

included in such products must be 

properly identified, whether the 

material is in a verbatim or extensive 

paraphrase format. 

12. Prohibition Against Litigation 

Support 

No funds made available by the 

Institute may be used directly or 

indirectly to support legal assistance to 

parties in litigation, including cases 

involving capital punishment. 

13. Reporting Requirements 

a. Recipients of Institute funds other 

than scholarships must submit 

Quarterly Progress and Financial Status 

Reports within 30 days of the close of 

each calendar quarter (that is, no later 

than January 30, April 30, July 30, and 

October 30). 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. Failure to comply with 

the requirements of this provision could 

result in the termination of a grantee’s 

award. 

b. The quarterly Financial Status 

Report must be submitted in accordance 

with section VII.H.2. of this Guideline. 

A final project Progress Report and 

Financial Status Report shall be 

submitted within 90 days after the end 

of the grant period in accordance with 

section VII.L.1. of this Guideline. 

14. Research 

a. Availability of Research Data for 

Secondary Analysis. Upon request, 

grantees must make available for 

secondary analysis a diskette(s) or data 

tape(s) containing research and 

evaluation data collected under an 

Institute grant and the accompanying 

code manual. Grantees may recover the 

actual cost of duplicating and mailing or 

otherwise transmitting the data set and 

manual from the person or organization 

requesting the data. Grantees may 

provide the requested data set in the 

format in which it was created and 

analyzed. 

b. Confidentiality of Information. 

Except as provided by Federal law other 

than the State Justice Institute Act, no 

recipient of financial assistance from SJI 

may use or reveal any research or 

statistical information furnished under 

the Act by any person and identifiable 

to any specific private person for any 

purpose other than the purpose for 

which the information was obtained. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52933 

Such information and copies thereof 

shall be immune from legal process, and 

shall not, without the consent of the 

person furnishing such information, be 

admitted as evidence or used for any 

purpose in any action, suit, or other 

judicial, legislative, or administrative 

proceedings. 

c. Human Subject Protection. Human 

subjects are defined as 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. All research involving 

human subjects shall be conducted with 

the informed consent of those subjects 

and in a manner that will ensure their 

privacy and freedom from risk or harm 

and the protection of persons who are 

not subjects of the research but would 

be affected by it, unless such procedures 

and safeguards would make the research 

impractical. In such instances, the 

Institute must approve procedures 

designed by the grantee to provide 

human subjects with relevant 

information about the research after 

their involvement and to minimize or 

eliminate risk or harm to those subjects 

due to their participation. 

15. State and Local Court Applications 

Each application for funding from a 

State or local court must be approved, 

consistent with State law, by the State’s 

Supreme Court, or its designated agency 

or council. The Supreme Court or its 

designee shall receive, administer, and 

be accountable for all funds awarded on 

the basis of such an application (42 

U.S.C. 10705(b)(4)). 

16. Supplantation and Construction 

To ensure that funds are used to 

supplement and improve the operation 

of State courts, rather than to support 

basic court services, funds shall not be 

used for the following purposes: 

a. To supplant State or local funds 

supporting a program or activity (such 

as paying the salary of court employees 

who would be performing their normal 

duties as part of the project, or paying 

rent for space which is part of the 

court’s normal operations); 

b. To construct court facilities or 

structures, except to remodel existing 

facilities or to demonstrate new 

architectural or technological 

techniques, or to provide temporary 

facilities for new personnel or for 

personnel involved in a demonstration 

or experimental program; or 

c. Solely to purchase equipment. 

17. Suspension or Termination of 

Funding 

After providing a recipient reasonable 

notice and opportunity to submit 

written documentation demonstrating 

why fund termination or suspension 

should not occur, the Institute may 

terminate or suspend funding of a 

project that fails to comply substantially 

with the Act, the Guideline, or the terms 

and conditions of the award (42 U.S.C. 

10708(a)). 

18. Title to Property 

At the conclusion of the project, title 

to all expendable and nonexpendable 

personal property purchased with 

Institute funds shall vest in the recipient 

court, organization, or individual that 

purchased the property if certification is 

made to and approved by the Institute 

that the property will continue to be 

used for the authorized purposes of the 

Institute-funded project or other 

purposes consistent with the State 

Justice Institute Act. If such certification 

is not made or the Institute disapproves 

such certification, title to all such 

property with an aggregate or individual 

value of $1,000 or more shall vest in the 

Institute, which will direct the 

disposition of the property. 

B. Recipients of Technical Assistance 

(TA) and Curriculum Adaptation and 

Training (CAT) Grants 

Recipients of TA and CAT Grants 

must comply with the requirements 

listed in section VI.A. (except the 

requirements pertaining to audits in 

subsection A.3. above and product 

dissemination and approval in 

subsection A.11.d. and e. above) and the 

reporting requirements below: 

1. Technical Assistance (TA) Grant 

Reporting Requirements 

Recipients of TA Grants 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 two copies of the consultant’s 

written report. 

2. Curriculum Adaptation and Training 

(CAT) Grant Reporting Requirements 

Recipients of CAT Grants must submit 

one copy of the agenda or schedule, 

outline of presentations and/or relevant 

instructor’s notes, copies of overhead 

transparencies, power point 

presentations, or other visual aids, 

exercises, case studies and other 

background materials, hypotheticals, 

quizzes, and other materials involving 

the participants, manuals, handbooks, 

conference packets, evaluation forms, 

and suggestions for replicating the 

program, including possible faculty or 

the preferred qualifications or 

experience of those selected as faculty, 

developed under the grant at the 

conclusion of the grant period, along 

with a final report that includes any 

evaluation results and explains how the 

grantee intends to present the 

educational program in the future, as 

well as two copies of the consultant’s or 

trainer’s report. 

C. Scholarship Recipients 

1. Scholarship recipients are 

responsible for disseminating the 

information received from the course to 

their court colleagues locally and, if 

possible, throughout the State (e.g., by 

developing a formal seminar, circulating 

the written material, or discussing the 

information at a meeting or conference). 

Recipients also must submit to the 

Institute a certificate of attendance at 

the program, an evaluation of the 

educational program they attended, and 

a copy of the notice of any scholarship 

funds received from other sources. A 

copy of the evaluation must be sent to 

the Chief Justice of the scholarship 

recipient’s State. A State or local 

jurisdiction may impose additional 

requirements on scholarship recipients. 

2. To receive the funds authorized by 

a scholarship award, recipients must 

submit a Scholarship Payment Voucher 

(Form S3) together with a tuition 

statement from the program sponsor, a 

transportation fare receipt (or statement 

of the driving mileage to and from the 

recipient’s home to the site of the 

educational program), and a lodging 

receipt. 

Scholarship Payment Vouchers must 

be submitted within 90 days after the 

end of the course which the recipient 

attended. 

3. Scholarship recipients are 

encouraged to check with their tax 

advisors to determine whether the 

scholarship constitutes taxable income 

under Federal and State law. 

D. Partner Grants 

The compliance requirements for 

Partner Grant recipients will depend 

upon the agreements struck between the 

grant financiers and between lead 

financiers and grantees. Should SJI be 

the lead, the compliance requirements 

for Project Grants will apply. 

VII. Financial Requirements 

A. Purpose 

The purpose of this section is to 

establish accounting system 

requirements and offer guidance on 

procedures to assist all grantees, 

subgrantees, contractors, and other 

organizations in: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
52934 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

1. Complying with the statutory 

requirements for the award, 

disbursement, and accounting of funds; 

2. Complying with regulatory 

requirements of the Institute for the 

financial management and disposition 

of funds; 

3. Generating financial data to be used 

in planning, managing, and controlling 

projects; and 

4. Facilitating an effective audit of 

funded programs and projects. 

B. References 

Except where inconsistent with 

specific provisions of this Guideline, the 

following circulars are applicable to 

Institute grants and cooperative 

agreements under the same terms and 

conditions that apply to Federal 

grantees. The circulars supplement the 

requirements of this section for 

accounting systems and financial 

record-keeping and provide additional 

guidance on how these requirements 

may be satisfied (circulars may be 

obtained on the OMB Web site at 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb). 

1. Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–21, Cost Principles 

for Educational Institutions. 

2. Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–87, Cost Principles 

for State and Local Governments. 

3. Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–88, Indirect Cost 

Rates, Audit and Audit Follow-up at 

Educational Institutions. 

4. Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–102, Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for 

Grants-in-Aid to State and Local 

Governments. 

5. Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–110, Grants and 

Agreements with Institutions of Higher 

Education, Hospitals and Other NonProfit Organizations. 

6. Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–122, Cost Principles 

for Non-profit Organizations. 

7. Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–128, Audits of State 

and Local Governments. 

8. Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–133, Audits of 

Institutions of Higher Education and 

Other Non-profit Institutions. 

C. Supervision and Monitoring 

Responsibilities 

1. Grantee Responsibilities 

All grantees receiving awards from 

the Institute are responsible for the 

management and fiscal control of all 

funds. Responsibilities include 

accounting for receipts and 

expenditures, maintaining adequate 

financial records, and refunding 

expenditures disallowed by audits. 

2. Responsibilities of State Supreme 

Court 

a. Each application for funding from 

a State or local court must be approved, 

consistent with State law, by the State’s 

Supreme Court, or its designated agency 

or council. 

b. The State Supreme Court or its 

designee shall receive all Institute funds 

awarded to such courts; be responsible 

for assuring proper administration of 

Institute funds; and be responsible for 

all aspects of the project, including 

proper accounting and financial recordkeeping by the subgrantee. These 

responsibilities include: 

(1) Reviewing Financial Operations. 

The State Supreme Court or its designee 

should be familiar with, and 

periodically monitor, its subgrantees’

financial operations, records system, 

and procedures. Particular attention 

should be directed to the maintenance 

of current financial data. 

(2) Recording Financial Activities. 

The subgrantee’s grant award or contract 

obligation, as well as cash advances and 

other financial activities, should be 

recorded in the financial records of the 

State Supreme Court or its designee in 

summary form. Subgrantee expenditures 

should be recorded on the books of the 

State Supreme Court or evidenced by 

report forms duly filed by the 

subgrantee. Matching contributions 

provided by subgrantees should 

likewise be recorded, as should any 

project income resulting from program 

operations. 

(3) Budgeting and Budget Review. The 

State Supreme Court or its designee 

should ensure that each subgrantee 

prepares an adequate budget as the basis 

for its award commitment. The State 

Supreme Court should maintain the 

details of each project budget on file. 

(4) Accounting for Match. The State 

Supreme Court or its designee will 

ensure that subgrantees comply with the 

match requirements specified in this 

Guideline (see section VI.A.8.). 

(5) Audit Requirement. The State 

Supreme Court or its designee is 

required to ensure that subgrantees meet 

the necessary audit requirements set 

forth by the Institute (see sections K. 

below and VI.A.3.). 

(6) Reporting Irregularities. The State 

Supreme Court, its designees, and its 

subgrantees are responsible for 

promptly reporting to the Institute the 

nature and circumstances surrounding 

any financial irregularities discovered. 

D. Accounting System 

The grantee is responsible for 

establishing and maintaining an 

adequate system of accounting and 

internal controls and for ensuring that 

an adequate system exists for each of its 

subgrantees and contractors. An 

acceptable and adequate accounting 

system: 

1. Properly accounts for receipt of 

funds under each grant awarded and the 

expenditure of funds for each grant by 

category of expenditure (including 

matching contributions and project 

income); 

2. Assures that expended funds are 

applied to the appropriate budget 

category included within the approved 

grant; 

3. Presents and classifies historical 

costs of the grant as required for 

budgetary and evaluation purposes; 

4. Provides cost and property controls 

to assure optimal use of grant funds; 

5. Is integrated with a system of 

internal controls adequate to safeguard 

the funds and assets covered, check the 

accuracy and reliability of the 

accounting data, promote operational 

efficiency, and assure conformance with 

any general or special conditions of the 

grant; 

6. Meets the prescribed requirements 

for periodic financial reporting of 

operations; and 

7. Provides financial data for 

planning, control, measurement, and 

evaluation of direct and indirect costs. 

E. Total Cost Budgeting and Accounting 

Accounting for all funds awarded by 

the Institute must be structured and 

executed on a Total Project Cost basis. 

That is, total project costs, including 

Institute funds, State and local matching 

shares, and any other fund sources 

included in the approved project budget 

serve as the foundation for fiscal 

administration and accounting. Grant 

applications and financial reports 

require budget and cost estimates on the 

basis of total costs. 

1. Timing of Matching Contributions 

Matching contributions need not be 

applied at the exact time of the 

obligation of Institute funds. Ordinarily, 

the full matching share must be 

obligated during the award period; 

however, with the written permission of 

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-byVerDate Aug<31>2005 18:48 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07SEN2.SGM 07SEN2

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52935 

task basis, are required to submit a 

schedule within 30 days after the 

beginning of the project period 

indicating at what points during the 

project period the matching 

contributions will be made. If a 

proposed cash or in-kind match is not 

fully met, the Institute may reduce the 

award amount accordingly to maintain 

the ratio of grant funds to matching 

funds stated in the award agreement. 

2. Records for Match 

All grantees must maintain records 

that clearly show the source, amount, 

and timing of all matching 

contributions. In addition, if a project 

has included, within its approved 

budget, contributions which exceed the 

required matching portion, the grantee 

must maintain records of those 

contributions in the same manner as it 

does Institute funds and required 

matching shares. For all grants made to 

State and local courts, the State 

Supreme Court has primary 

responsibility for grantee/subgrantee 

compliance with the requirements of 

this section (see subsection C.2. above). 

F. Maintenance and Retention of 

Records 

All financial records, including 

supporting documents, statistical 

records, and all other information 

pertinent to grants, subgrants, 

cooperative agreements, or contracts 

under grants, must be retained by each 

organization participating in a project 

for at least three years for purposes of 

examination and audit. State Supreme 

Courts may impose record retention and 

maintenance requirements in addition 

to those prescribed in this section. 

1. Coverage 

The retention requirement extends to 

books of original entry, source 

documents supporting accounting 

transactions, the general ledger, 

subsidiary ledgers, personnel and 

payroll records, canceled checks, and 

related documents and records. Source 

documents include copies of all grant 

and subgrant awards, applications, and 

required grantee/subgrantee financial 

and narrative reports. Personnel and 

payroll records shall include the time 

and attendance reports for all 

individuals reimbursed under a grant, 

subgrant or contract, whether they are 

employed full-time or part-time. Time 

and effort reports are required for 

consultants. 

2. Retention Period 

The three-year retention period starts 

from the date of the submission of the 

final expenditure report. 

3. Maintenance 

Grantees and subgrantees are 

expected to see that records of different 

fiscal years are separately identified and 

maintained so that requested 

information can be readily located. 

Grantees and subgrantees are also 

obligated to protect records adequately 

against fire or other damage. When 

records are stored away from the 

grantee’s/subgrantee’s principal office, a 

written index of the location of stored 

records should be on hand, and ready 

access should be assured. 

4. Access 

Grantees and subgrantees must give 

any authorized representative of the 

Institute access to and the right to 

examine all records, books, papers, and 

documents related to an Institute grant. 

G. Project-Related Income 

Records of the receipt and disposition 

of project-related income must be 

maintained by the grantee in the same 

manner as required for the project funds 

that gave rise to the income and must be 

reported to the Institute (see subsection 

H.2. below). The policies governing the 

disposition of the various types of 

project-related income are listed below. 

1. Interest 

A State and any agency or 

instrumentality of a State, including 

institutions of higher education and 

hospitals, shall not be held accountable 

for interest earned on advances of 

project funds. When funds are awarded 

to subgrantees through a State, the 

subgrantees are not held accountable for 

interest earned on advances of project 

funds. Local units of government and 

nonprofit organizations that are grantees 

must refund any interest earned. 

Grantees shall ensure minimum 

balances in their respective grant cash 

accounts. 

2. Royalties 

The grantee/subgrantee may retain all 

royalties received from copyrights or 

other works developed under projects or 

from patents and inventions, unless the 

terms and conditions of the grant 

provide otherwise. 

3. Registration and Tuition Fees 

Registration and tuition fees may be 

considered as cash match with the prior 

written approval of the Institute. 

Estimates of registration and tuition 

fees, and any expenses to be offset by 

the fees, should be included in the 

application budget forms and narrative. 

4. Income From the Sale of Grant 

Products 

If the sale of products occurs during 

the project period, the income may be 

treated as cash match with the prior 

written approval of the Institute. The 

costs and income generated by the sales 

must be reported on the Quarterly 

Financial Status Reports and 

documented in an auditable manner. 

Whenever possible, the intent to sell a 

product should be disclosed in the 

application or reported to the Institute 

in writing once a decision to sell 

products has been made. The grantee 

must request approval to recover its 

product development, reproduction, 

and dissemination costs as specified in 

section VI.A.11.b. 

5. Other 

Other project income shall be treated 

in accordance with disposition 

instructions set forth in the grant’s terms 

and conditions. 

H. Payments and Financial Reporting 

Requirements 

1. Payment of Grant Funds 

The procedures and regulations set 

forth below are applicable to all 

Institute grant funds and grantees. 

a. Request for Advance or 

Reimbursement of Funds. Grantees will 

receive funds on a ‘‘check-issued’’ basis. 

Upon receipt, review, and approval of a 

Request for Advance or Reimbursement 

by the Institute, a check will be issued 

directly to the grantee or its designated 

fiscal agent. A request must be limited 

to the grantee’s immediate cash needs. 

The Request for Advance or 

Reimbursement, along with the 

instructions for its preparation, will be 

included in the official Institute award 

package. 

b. Termination of Advance and 

Reimbursement Funding. When a 

grantee organization receiving cash 

advances from the Institute: 

(1) Demonstrates an unwillingness or 

inability to attain program or project 

goals, or to establish procedures that 

will minimize the time elapsing 

between cash advances and 

disbursements, or cannot adhere to 

guideline requirements or special 

conditions; 

(2) Engages in the improper award 

and administration of subgrants or 

contracts; or 

(3) Is unable to submit reliable and/ 

or timely reports; the Institute may 

terminate advance financing and require 

the grantee organization to finance its 

operations with its own working capital. 

Payments to the grantee shall then be 

made by check to reimburse the grantee 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
52936 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

for actual cash disbursements. In the 

event the grantee continues to be 

deficient, the Institute may suspend 

reimbursement payments until the 

deficiencies are corrected. In extreme 

cases, grants may be terminated. 

c. Principle of Minimum Cash on 

Hand. Grantees should request funds 

based upon immediate disbursement 

requirements. Grantees should time 

their requests to ensure that cash on 

hand is the minimum needed for 

disbursements to be made immediately 

or within a few days. 

2. Financial Reporting 

a. General Requirements. To obtain 

financial information concerning the 

use of funds, the Institute requires that 

grantees/subgrantees submit timely 

reports for review. 

b. Due Dates and Contents. A 

Financial Status Report is required from 

all grantees, other than scholarship 

recipients, for each active quarter on a 

calendar-quarter basis. This report is 

due within 30 days after the close of the 

calendar quarter. It is designed to 

provide financial information relating to 

Institute funds, State and local matching 

shares, project income, and any other 

sources of funds for the project, as well 

as information on obligations and 

outlays. A copy of the Financial Status 

Report, along with instructions for its 

preparation, is included in each official 

Institute Award package. If a grantee 

requests substantial payments for a 

project prior to the completion of a 

given quarter, the Institute may request 

a brief summary of the amount 

requested, by object class, to support the 

Request for Advance or Reimbursement. 

3. Consequences of Non-Compliance 

With Submission Requirement 

Failure of the grantee to submit 

required financial and progress reports 

may result in suspension or termination 

of grant payments. 

I. Allowability of Costs 

1. General 

Except as may be otherwise provided 

in the conditions of a particular grant, 

cost allowability is determined in 

accordance with the principles set forth 

in OMB Circulars A–21, Cost Principles 

Applicable to Grants and Contracts with 

Educational Institutions; A–87, Cost 

Principles for State and Local 

Governments; and A–122, Cost 

Principles for Non-profit Organizations. 

No costs may be recovered to liquidate 

obligations incurred after the approved 

grant period. Circulars may be obtained 

on the OMB Web site at 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb. 

2. Costs Requiring Prior Approval 

a. Pre-agreement Costs. The written 

prior approval of the Institute is 

required for costs considered necessary 

but which occur prior to the start date 

of the project period. 

b. Equipment. Grant funds may be 

used to purchase or lease only that 

equipment essential to accomplishing 

the goals and objectives of the project. 

The written prior approval of the 

Institute is required when the amount of 

automated data processing (ADP) 

equipment to be purchased or leased 

exceeds $10,000 or software to be 

purchased exceeds $3,000. 

c. Consultants. The written prior 

approval of the Institute is required 

when the rate of compensation to be 

paid a consultant exceeds $800 a day. 

Institute funds may not be used to pay 

a consultant more than $1,100 per day. 

d. Budget Revisions. Budget revisions 

among direct cost categories that (i) 

transfer grant funds to an unbudgeted 

cost category or (ii) individually or 

cumulatively exceed five percent (5%) 

of the approved original budget or the 

most recently approved revised budget 

require prior Institute approval (see 

section VIII.A.1.). 

3. Travel Costs 

Transportation and per diem rates 

must comply with the policies of the 

grantee. If the grantee does not have an 

established written travel policy, then 

travel rates must be consistent with 

those established by the Institute or the 

Federal Government. Institute funds 

may not be used to cover the 

transportation or per diem costs of a 

member of a national organization to 

attend an annual or other regular 

meeting of that organization. 

4. Indirect Costs 

These are costs of an organization that 

are not readily assignable to a particular 

project but are necessary to the 

operation of the organization and the 

performance of the project. The cost of 

operating and maintaining facilities, 

depreciation, and administrative 

salaries are examples of the types of 

costs that are usually treated as indirect 

costs. Although the Institute’s policy 

requires all costs to be budgeted 

directly, it will accept indirect costs if 

a grantee has an indirect cost rate 

approved by a Federal agency as set 

forth below. However, recoverable 

indirect costs are limited to no more 

than 75% of a grantee’s direct personnel 

costs (salaries plus fringe benefits). 

a. Approved Plan Available. (1) A 

copy of an indirect cost rate agreement 

or allocation plan approved for a grantee 

during the preceding two years by any 

Federal granting agency on the basis of 

allocation methods substantially in 

accord with those set forth in the 

applicable cost circulars must be 

submitted to the Institute. 

(2) Where flat rates are accepted in 

lieu of actual indirect costs, grantees 

may not also charge expenses normally 

included in overhead pools, e.g., 

accounting services, legal services, 

building occupancy and maintenance, 

etc., as direct costs. 

b. Establishment of Indirect Cost 

Rates. To be reimbursed for indirect 

costs, a grantee must first establish an 

appropriate indirect cost rate. To do 

this, the grantee must prepare an 

indirect cost rate proposal and submit it 

to the Institute within three months 

after the start of the grant period to 

assure recovery of the full amount of 

allowable indirect costs. The rate must 

be developed in accordance with 

principles and procedures appropriate 

to the type of grantee institution 

involved as specified in the applicable 

OMB Circular. 

c. No Approved Plan. If an indirect 

cost proposal for recovery of indirect 

costs is not submitted to the Institute 

within three months after the start of the 

grant period, indirect costs will be 

irrevocably disallowed for all months 

prior to the month that the indirect cost 

proposal is received. 

J. Procurement and Property 

Management Standards 

1. Procurement Standards 

For State and local governments, the 

Institute has adopted the standards set 

forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular 

A–102. Institutions of higher education, 

hospitals, and other non-profit 

organizations will be governed by the 

standards set forth in Attachment O of 

OMB Circular A–110. 

2. Property Management Standards 

The property management standards 

as prescribed in Attachment N of OMB 

Circulars A–102 and A–110 apply to all 

Institute grantees and subgrantees 

except as provided in section VI.A.18. 

All grantees/subgrantees are required to 

be prudent in the acquisition and 

management of property with grant 

funds. If suitable property required for 

the successful execution of projects is 

already available within the grantee or 

subgrantee organization, expenditures of 

grant funds for the acquisition of new 

property will be considered 

unnecessary. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52937 

K. Audit Requirements 

1. Implementation 

Each recipient of a Project Grant must 

provide for an annual fiscal audit. This 

requirement also applies to a State or 

local court receiving a subgrant from the 

State Supreme Court. The audit may be 

of the entire grantee or subgrantee 

organization or of the specific project 

funded by the Institute. Audits 

conducted in accordance with the 

Single Audit Act of 1984 and OMB 

Circular A–128, or OMB Circular A–133, 

will satisfy the requirement for an 

annual fiscal audit. The audit must be 

conducted by an independent Certified 

Public Accountant, or a State or local 

agency authorized to audit government 

agencies. Grantees must send two copies 

of the audit report to the Institute. 

Grantees that receive funds from a 

Federal agency and satisfy audit 

requirements of the cognizant Federal 

agency must submit two copies of the 

audit report prepared for that Federal 

agency to the Institute in order to satisfy 

the provisions of this section. 

2. Resolution and Clearance of Audit 

Reports 

Timely action on recommendations 

by responsible management officials is 

an integral part of the effectiveness of an 

audit. Each grantee must have policies 

and procedures for acting on audit 

recommendations by designating 

officials responsible for: (1) Follow-up, 

(2) maintaining a record of the actions 

taken on recommendations and time 

schedules, (3) responding to and acting 

on audit recommendations, and (4) 

submitting periodic reports to the 

Institute on recommendations and 

actions taken. 

3. Consequences of Non-Resolution of 

Audit Issues 

Ordinarily, the Institute will not make 

a subsequent grant award to an 

applicant that has an unresolved audit 

report involving Institute awards. 

Failure of the grantee to resolve audit 

questions may also result in the 

suspension or termination of payments 

for active Institute grants to that 

organization. 

L. Close-Out of Grants 

1. Grantee Close-Out Requirements 

Within 90 days after the end date of 

the grant or any approved extension 

thereof (see subsection L.2. below), the 

following documents must be submitted 

to the Institute by grantees (other than 

scholarship recipients): 

a. Financial Status Report. The final 

report of expenditures must have no 

unliquidated obligations and must 

indicate the exact balance of 

unobligated funds. Any unobligated/ 

unexpended funds will be deobligated 

from the award by the Institute. Final 

payment requests for obligations 

incurred during the award period must 

be submitted to the Institute prior to the 

end of the 90-day close-out period. 

Grantees on a check-issued basis, who 

have drawn down funds in excess of 

their obligations/expenditures, must 

return any unused funds as soon as it is 

determined that the funds are not 

required. In no case should any unused 

funds remain with the grantee beyond 

the submission date of the final 

Financial Status Report. 

b. Final Progress Report. This report 

should describe the project activities 

during the final calendar quarter of the 

project and the close-out period, 

including to whom project products 

have been disseminated; provide a 

summary of activities during the entire 

project; specify whether all the 

objectives set forth in the approved 

application or an approved adjustment 

have been met and, if any of the 

objectives have not been met, explain 

why not; and discuss what, if anything, 

could have been done differently that 

might have enhanced the impact of the 

project or improved its operation. 

These reporting requirements apply at 

the conclusion of every grant other than 

a scholarship. 

2. Extension of Close-Out Period 

Upon the written request of the 

grantee, the Institute may extend the 

close-out period to assure completion of 

the grantee’s close-out requirements. 

Requests for an extension must be 

submitted at least 14 days before the 

end of the close-out period and must 

explain why the extension is necessary 

and what steps will be taken to assure 

that all the grantee’s responsibilities 

will be met by the end of the extension 

period. 

VIII. Grant Adjustments 

All requests for programmatic or 

budgetary adjustments requiring 

Institute approval must be submitted by 

the project director in a timely manner 

(ordinarily 30 days prior to the 

implementation of the adjustment being 

requested). All requests for changes 

from the approved application will be 

carefully reviewed for both consistency 

with this Guideline and the 

enhancement of grant goals and 

objectives. Failure to submit 

adjustments in a timely manner may 

result in the termination of a grantee’s 

award. 

A. Grant Adjustments Requiring Prior 

Written Approval 

The following grant adjustments 

require the prior written approval of the 

Institute: 

1. Budget revisions among direct cost 

categories that (a) transfer grant funds to 

an unbudgeted cost category or (b) 

individually or cumulatively exceed 

five percent (5%) of the approved 

original budget or the most recently 

approved revised budget (see section 

VII.I.2.d.). 

2. A change in the scope of work to 

be performed or the objectives of the 

project (see subsection D. below). 

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 subsection 

E. below). 

5. Satisfaction of special conditions, if 

required. 

6. A change in or temporary absence 

of the project director (see subsections 

F. and G. below). 

7. The assignment of an employee or 

consultant to a key staff position whose 

qualifications were not described in the 

application, or a change of a person 

assigned to a key project staff position 

(see section VI.A.2.). 

8. A change in or temporary absence 

of the person responsible for managing 

and reporting on the grant’s finances. 

9. A change in the name of the grantee 

organization. 

10. A transfer or contracting out of 

grant-supported activities (see 

subsection H. below). 

11. A transfer of the grant to another 

recipient. 

12. Preagreement costs (see section 

VII.I.2.a.). 

13. The purchase of automated data 

processing equipment and software (see 

section VII.I.2.b.). 

14. Consultant rates (see section 

VII.I.2.c.). 

15. A change in the nature or number 

of the products to be prepared or the 

manner in which a product would be 

distributed. 

B. Requests for Grant Adjustments 

All grantees must promptly notify 

their SJI program managers, in writing, 

of events or proposed changes that may 

require adjustments to the approved 

project design. In requesting an 

adjustment, the grantee must set forth 

the reasons and basis for the proposed 

adjustment and any other information 

the program manager determines would 

help the Institute’s review. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
52938 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

C. Notification of Approval/Disapproval 

If the request is approved, the grantee 

will be sent a Grant Adjustment signed 

by the Executive Director or his or her 

designee. If the request is denied, the 

grantee will be sent a written 

explanation of the reasons for the 

denial. 

D. Changes in the Scope of the Grant 

Major changes in scope, duration, 

training methodology, or other 

significant areas must be approved in 

advance by the Institute. A grantee may 

make minor changes in methodology, 

approach, or other aspects of the grant 

to expedite achievement of the grant’s 

objectives with subsequent notification 

of the SJI program manager. 

E. Date Changes 

A request to change or extend the 

grant period must be made at least 30 

days in advance of the end date of the 

grant. A revised task plan should 

accompany a request for an 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 VII.L.2.). 

F. Temporary Absence of the Project 

Director 

Whenever an absence of the project 

director is expected to exceed a 

continuous period of one month, the 

plans for the conduct of the project 

director’s duties during such absence 

must be approved in advance by the 

Institute. This information must be 

provided in a letter signed by an 

authorized representative of the grantee/ 

subgrantee at least 30 days before the 

departure of the project director, or as 

soon as it is known that the project 

director will be absent. The grant may 

be terminated if arrangements are not 

approved in advance by the Institute. 

G. Withdrawal of/Change in Project 

Director 

If the project director relinquishes or 

expects to relinquish active direction of 

the project, the Institute must be 

notified immediately. In such cases, if 

the grantee/subgrantee wishes to 

terminate the project, the Institute will 

forward procedural instructions upon 

notification of such intent. If the grantee 

wishes to continue the project under the 

direction of another individual, a 

statement of the candidate’s 

qualifications should be sent to the 

Institute for review and approval. The 

grant may be terminated if the 

qualifications of the proposed 

individual are not approved in advance 

by the Institute. 

H. Transferring or Contracting Out of 

Grant-Supported Activities 

No principal activity of a grantsupported project may be transferred or 

contracted out to another organization 

without specific prior approval by the 

Institute. All such arrangements must be 

formalized in a contract or other written 

agreement between the parties involved. 

Copies of the proposed contract or 

agreement must be submitted for prior 

approval of the Institute at the earliest 

possible time. The contract or agreement 

must state, at a minimum, the activities 

to be performed, the time schedule, the 

policies and procedures to be followed, 

the dollar limitation of the agreement, 

and the cost principles to be followed in 

determining what costs, both direct and 

indirect, will be allowed. The contract 

or other written agreement must not 

affect the grantee’s overall responsibility 

for the direction of the project and 

accountability to the Institute. 

State Justice Institute Board of 

Directors 

Robert A. Miller, Chairman, Chief 

Justice (ret.), Supreme Court of South 

Dakota, Pierre, SD. 

Joseph F. Baca, Vice-Chairman, Chief 

Justice (ret.), New Mexico Supreme 

Court, Albuquerque, NM. 

Sandra A. O’Connor, Secretary, States 

Attorney of Baltimore County, 

Towson, MD. 

Keith McNamara, Esq., Executive 

Committee Member, McNamara & 

McNamara, Columbus, OH. 

Terrence B. Adamson, Esq., Executive 

Vice-President, The National 

Geographic Society, Washington, DC. 

Robert N. Baldwin, Executive Vice 

President and General Counsel, 

National Center for State Courts, 

Richmond, VA. 

Carlos R. Garza, Esq., Administrative 

Judge (ret.), Round Rock, TX. 

Sophia H. Hall, Administrative 

Presiding Judge, Circuit Court of Cook 

County, Chicago, IL. 

Tommy Jewell, Presiding Children’s 

Court Judge (ret.), Albuquerque, NM. 

Arthur A. McGiverin, Chief Justice (ret.), 

Supreme Court of Iowa, Ottumwa, IA. 

Kevin Linskey, Executive Director (ex 

officio). 

Kevin Linskey, 

Executive Director. 

Appendix A—SJI Libraries: Designated 

Sites and Contacts 

Alabama 

Supreme Court Library 

Mr. Timothy A. Lewis, State Law Librarian, 

Alabama Supreme Court, Judicial Building, 

300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 

36104, (334) 242–4347, 

director@alalinc.net 

Alaska 

Anchorage Law Library 

Ms. Cynthia S. Fellows, State Law Librarian, 

Alaska State Court Law Library, 303 K 

Street, Anchorage, AK 99501, (907) 264–

0583, cfellows@courts.state.ak.us 

Arizona 

Supreme Court Library 

Ms. Lani Orosco, Staff Assistant, Arizona 

Supreme Court, Staff Attorney’s Office, 

Library, 1501 W. Washington, Suite 445, 

Phoenix, AZ 85007, (602) 542–5028, 

lorosco@supreme.sp.state.az.us 

Arkansas 

Administrative Office of the Courts 

Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, 

Administrative Office of the Courts, 

Supreme Court of Arkansas, Justice 

Building, 625 Marshall Street, Little Rock, 

AR 72201, (501) 682–9400, 

jd.gingerich@mail.state.ar.us 

California 

Administrative Office of the Courts 

Mr. William C. Vickrey, Administrative 

Director of the Courts, Administrative 

Office of the Courts, 455 Golden Gate 

Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, (415) 

865–4235, william.vickrey@jud.ca.gov 

Colorado 

Supreme Court Library 

Ms. Linda Gruenthal, Deputy Supreme Court 

Law Librarian, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, 

CO 80203, (303) 837–3720, 

cscltech@state.co.us 

Connecticut 

State Library 

Ms. Denise D. Jernigan, Law Librarian, 

Connecticut State Library, 231 Capitol 

Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106, (860) 757–

6598, djernigan@cslib.org 

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 

michael.mclaughlin@state.de.us 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52939 

District of Columbia 

Executive Office, District of Columbia Courts 

Ms. Anne B. Wicks, Executive Officer, 

District of Columbia Courts, 500 Indiana 

Avenue, NW., Suite 1500, Washington, DC 

20001, (202) 879–1700, Wicksab@dcsc.gov 

Florida 

Administrative Office of the Courts 

Ms. Elisabeth H. Goodner, State Courts 

Administrator, Office of the State Courts 

Administrator, Florida Supreme Court, 

Supreme Court Building, 500 South Duval 

Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399, (850) 922–

5081, goodnerl@flcourts.org 

Georgia 

Administrative Office of the Courts 

Mr. David Ratley, Director, Administrative 

Office of the Courts, 244 Washington 

Street, S.W., Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30334, 

(404) 656–5171, ratleydl@gaaoc.us 

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) 539–4964, 

Ann.S.Koto@courts.state.hi.us 

Idaho 

AOC Judicial Education Library/State Law 

Library 

Mr. Richard Visser, State Law Librarian, 

Idaho State Law Library, Supreme Court 

Building, 451 West State St., Boise, ID 

83720, (208) 334–3316, 

lawlibrary@isc.state.id.us 

Illinois 

Supreme Court Library 

Ms. Brenda Larison, Supreme Court of 

Illinois Library, 200 East Capitol Avenue, 

Springfield, IL 62701–1791, (217) 782–

2425, blarison@court.state.il.us 

Indiana 

Supreme Court Library 

Ms. Terri L. Ross, Supreme Court Librarian, 

Supreme Court Library, State House, Room 

316, Indianapolis, IN 46204, (317) 232–

2557, tross@courts.state.in.us 

Iowa 

Administrative Office of the Court 

Dr. Jerry K. Beatty, Director of Judicial 

Branch Education, Iowa Judicial Branch, 

Iowa Judicial Branch Building, 1111 East 

Court Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50319, (515) 

242–0190, jerry.beatty@jb.state.ia.us 

Kansas 

Supreme Court Library 

Mr. Fred Knecht, Law Librarian, Kansas 

Supreme Court Library, Kansas Judicial 

Center, 301 S.W. 10th Avenue, Topeka, KS 

66612, (785) 296–3257, 

knechtf@kscourts.org 

Kentucky 

State Law Library 

Ms. Vida Vitagliano, Cataloging and Research 

Librarian, Kentucky Supreme Court 

Library, 700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 200, 

Frankfort, KY 40601, (502) 564–4185, 

vidavitagliano@mail.aoc.state.ky.us 

Louisiana 

State Law Library 

Ms. Carol Billings, Director, Louisiana Law 

Library, Louisiana Supreme Court 

Building, 400 Royal Street, New Orleans, 

LA 70130, (504) 310–2401, 

cbillings@lasc.org 

Maine 

State Law and Legislative Reference Library 

Ms. Lynn E. Randall, State Law Librarian, 43 

State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333, 

(207) 287–1600, 

lynn.randall@legislature.maine.gov 

Maryland 

State Law Library 

Mr. Steve Anderson, Director, Maryland State 

Law Library, Court of Appeal Building, 361 

Rowe Boulevard, Annapolis, MD 21401, 

(410) 260–1430, 

steve.anderson@courts.state.md.us 

Massachusetts 

Middlesex Law Library 

Ms. Linda Hom, Librarian, Middlesex Law 

Library, Superior Court House, 40 

Thorndike Street, Cambridge, MA 02141, 

(617) 494–4148, midlawlib@yahoo.com 

Michigan 

Michigan Judicial Institute 

Dawn F. McCarty, Director, Michigan Judicial 

Institute, P.O. Box 30205, Lansing, MI 

48909, (517) 373–7509, 

mccartyd@courts.mi.gov 

Minnesota 

State Law Library (Minnesota Judicial Center) 

Ms. Barbara L. Golden, State Law Librarian, 

G25 Minnesota Judicial Center, 25 Rev. Dr. 

Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, St. Paul, 

MN 55155, (612) 297–2089, 

barb.golden@courts.state.mn.us 

Mississippi 

Mississippi Judicial College 

Hon. Leslie G. Johnson, Executive Director, 

Mississippi Judicial College, P.O. Box 

8850, University, MS 38677, (662) 915–

5955, lwleslie@olemiss.edu 

Montana 

State Law Library 

Ms. Judith Meadows, State Law Librarian, 

State Law Library of Montana, P.O. Box 

203004, Helena, MT 59620, (406) 444–

3660, jmeadows@state.mt.us 

Nebraska 

Administrative Office of the Courts 

Mr. Philip D. Gould, Director, Judicial 

Branch Education, Administrative Office of 

the Courts/Probation, 521 South 14th St., 

Suite 200, Lincoln, NE 68508–2707, (402) 

471–3072 (office)/(402) 471–3071 (fax), 

pgould@nsc.state.ne.us 

Nevada 

National Judicial College 

Mr. Randall Snyder, Law Librarian, National 

Judicial College, Judicial College Building, 

MS 358, Reno, NV 89557, (775) 327–8278, 

snyder@judges.org 

New Hampshire 

New Hampshire Law Library 

Ms. Mary Searles, Technical Services Law 

Librarian, New Hampshire Law Library, 

Supreme Court Building, One Noble Drive, 

Concord, NH 03301–6160, (603) 271–3777, 

msearles@courts.state.nh.us 

New Jersey 

New Jersey State Library 

Mr. Thomas O’Malley, Supervising Law 

Librarian, New Jersey State Law Library, 

185 West State Street, P.O. Box 520, 

Trenton, NJ 08625–0250, (609) 292–6230, 

tomalley@njstatelib.org 

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. Barbara Briggs, Law Librarian, Syracuse 

Supreme Court Law Library, 401 

Montgomery Street, Syracuse, NY 13202, 

(315) 671–1150, bbriggs@courts.state.ny.us 

North Carolina 

Supreme Court Library 

Mr. Thomas P. Davis, Librarian, North 

Carolina Supreme Court Library, 500 

Justice Building, 2 East Morgan Street, 

Raleigh, NC 27601, (919) 733–3425, 

tpd@sc.state.nc.us 

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, 

mkramer@ndcourts.com 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana 

Islands 

Ms. Margarita M. Palacios, Director of Courts, 

Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, P.O. Box 

502165, Saipan, MP 96950, (670) 235–

9700, supremecourt@saipan.com 

Ohio 

Supreme Court Library 

Mr. Ken Kozlowski, Director, Law Library, 

Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front 

Street, 11th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215–


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
52940 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

3431, (614) 387–9666, 

kozlowsk@sconet.state.oh.us 

Oklahoma 

Administrative Office of the Courts 

Mr. Howard W. Conyers, State Court 

Administrator, Administrative Office of the 

Courts, 1915 North Stiles Avenue, Suite 

305, Oklahoma City, OK 73105, (405) 521–

2450, conyersh@oscn.net 

Oregon 

Administrative Office of the Courts 

Ms. Kingsley W. Click, State Court 

Administrator, Oregon Judicial 

Department, Supreme Court Building, 1163 

State Street, Salem, OR 97301, (503) 986–

5500, kingsley.w.click@ojd.state.or.us 

Pennsylvania 

State Library of Pennsylvania 

Ms. Kathleen Kline, Collection Management 

Librarian, State Library of Pennsylvania, 

Bureau of State Library, 333 Market Street, 

Harrisburg, PA 17126–1745, (717) 787–

5718, kakline@state.pa.us 

Puerto Rico 

Office of Court Administration 

Alfredo Rivera-Mendoza, Esq., Director, Area 

of Planning and Management, Office of 

Court Administration, P.O. Box 917, Hato 

Rey, PR 00919 

Rhode Island 

Roger Williams University 

Ms. Gail Winson, Director of Law Library/ 

Associate Professor of Law, Roger Williams 

University, School of Law Library, 10 

Metacom Avenue, Bristol, RI 02809, 401/ 

254–4531, gwinson@law.rwu.edu 

South Carolina 

Coleman Karesh Law Library (University of 

South Carolina School of Law) 

Mr. Steve Hinckley, Director, Coleman 

Karesh Law Library, University of South 

Carolina, Main and Green Streets, 

Columbia, SC 29208, (803) 777–5944, 

hinckley@law.sc.edu 

South Dakota 

State Law Library 

Librarian, South Dakota State Law Library, 

500 East Capitol, Pierre, South Dakota 

57501, (605) 773–4898, 

donnis.deyo@ujs.state.sd.ud 

Tennessee 

Tennessee State Law Library 

Hon. Cornelia A. Clark, Executive Director, 

Administrative Office of the Courts, 511 

Union Street, Suite 600, Nashville, TN 

37219 (615) 741–2687, 

cclark@tscmail.state.tn.us 

Texas 

State Law Library 

Mr. Marcelino A. Estrada, Director, State Law 

Library, P.O. Box 12367, Austin, TX 78711, 

(512) 463–1722, 

tony.estrada@sll.state.tx.us 

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, Virgin 

Islands 00804 

Utah 

Utah State Judicial Administration Library 

Ms. Jessica Van Buren, Utah State Library, 

450 South State Street, P.O. Box 140220, 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114–0220, (801) 238–

7991 jessicavb@e-mail.utcourts.gov 

Vermont 

Supreme Court of Vermont 

Mr. Paul J. Donovan, Law Librarian, Vermont 

Department of Libraries, 109 State Street, 

Pavilion Office Building, Montpelier, VT 

05609, (802) 828–3268 

paul.donovan@dol.state.vt.us 

Virginia 

Administrative Office of the Courts 

Ms. Gail Warren, State Law Librarian, 

Virginia State Law Library, Supreme Court 

of Virginia, 100 North Ninth Street, 2nd 

Floor Richmond, VA 23219–2335 (804) 

786–2075, gwarren@courts.state.va.us 

Washington 

Washington State Law Library 

Ms. Kay Newman, State Law Librarian, 

Washington State Law Library, Temple of 

Justice, P.O. Box 40751, Olympia, WA 

98504–0751, (360) 357–2136 

kay.newman@courts.wa.gov 

West Virginia 

Supreme Court of Appeals Library 

Ms. Kaye Maerz, State Law Librarian, West 

Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals 

Library, 1900 Kanawha Boulevard East, 

Building 1, Room E–404, Charleston, WV 

25305 (304) 558–2607, 

klm@courts.state.wv.us 

Wisconsin 

State Law Library 

Ms. Jane Colwin, State Law Librarian, State 

Law Library, 120 M.L.K. Jr. Boulevard, 

Madison, WI 53703, (608) 261–2340, 

jane.colwin@wicourts.gov 

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, 

Kcarls@state.wy.us 

National 

American Judicature Society 

Ms. Deborah Sulzbach, Acquisitions 

Librarian, Drake University, Law Library, 

Opperman Hall, 2507 University Avenue, 

Des Moines, IA 50311–4505, (515) 271–

3784, deborah.sulzbach@drake.edu 

National Center for State Courts 

Ms. Joan Cochet, Library Specialist, National 

Center for State Courts, 300 Newport 

Avenue, Williamsburg, VA 23185–4147, 

(757) 259–1826 library@ncsc.dni.us 

JERITT 

Dr. Maureen E. Conner, Executive Director, 

The JERITT Project, Michigan State 

University, 1407 S. Harrison Road, Suite 

330 Nisbet, East Lansing, MI 48823–5239, 

(517) 353–8603, (517) 432–3965 (fax), 

connerm@msu.edu Web site: http:// 

jeritt.msu.edu 

BILLING CODE 6820–SC–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52941 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN07SE06.002</GPH>
52942 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN07SE06.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52943 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN07SE06.004</GPH>
52944 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN07SE06.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52945 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN07SE06.006</GPH>
52946 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN07SE06.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52947 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN07SE06.008</GPH>
52948 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN07SE06.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52949 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN07SE06.010</GPH>
52950 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN07SE06.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52951 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN07SE06.012</GPH>
52952 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN07SE06.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 52953 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN07SE06.014</GPH>
52954 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices 

[FR Doc. 06–7398 Filed 9–6–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–SC–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN07SE06.015</GPH>