Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51927

Transportation, the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration, the

Consumer Product Safety Commission,

the Food and Drug Administration, the

Department of Commerce, the

Department of Agriculture, the Office of

the U.S. Trade Representative, and the

National Institute of Environmental

Health Sciences.

The Agenda of the public meeting

will include:

1. Introduction

2. Reports on recent international

meetings

—Meeting of the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) Advisory

Group on Harmonization, October

1–3, 1997, in Paris, France. The

agenda for this meeting includes

review and discussion of OECD

health and environmental hazard

classification proposals.

3. Preparation for upcoming meetings

—Meeting of the Coordinating Group

for the Harmonization of Chemical

Classification Systems (CG/HCCS),

November 24–26, 1997, in Toronto,

Canada. The agenda for this

meeting includes further

consideration of the clarification of

the scope of the GHS and of the

appropriate institutional

arrangements for updating and

maintaining the system. Papers for

the meeting are expected to become

available in early October and will

be placed in the public docket,

described below.

4. Public Comments

5. Concluding Remarks

Participants in the meeting may

submit written comments as well as

speak on topics relating to

harmonization of chemical classification

and labeling systems. All written

comments will be placed in the public

docket (OSHA docket H–022H). The

docket is open from 10 am until 4 pm,

Monday through Friday, and is located

at the Department of Labor, Room 2625,

200 Constitution Avenue NW,

Washington, D.C. (Telephone: 202–219–

7894; Fax: 202–219–5046). The public

may also consult the docket to review

previous Federal Register notices,

comments received to date, a working

‘‘thought starter’’ document of the CG/

HCCS on the scope of the harmonization

effort, U.S. government and stakeholder

comments on the ‘‘though starter’’ scope

clarification, Questions and Answers

about the GHS, and a response to

comments on the April 3 Federal

Register notice.

Dated: September 22, 1997.

Michael Metelits,

Director, Office of Environmental Policy,

Bureau of Oceans and International

Environmental and Scientific Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–26236 Filed 10–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–09–M

STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE

Grant Guideline

AGENCY: State Justice Institute.

ACTION: Final grant guideline.

SUMMARY: This guideline sets forth the

administrative, programmatic, and

financial requirements attendant to

Fiscal Year 1998 State Justice Institute

grants, cooperative agreements, and

contracts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David I. Tevelin, Executive Director, or

Richard Van Duizend, Deputy Director,

State Justice Institute, 1650 King St.

(Suite 600), Alexandria, VA 22314, by

phone ((703) 684–6100), fax ((703) 684–

7618), or e-mail (SJI@clark.net). The

guideline, forms, and other information

about SJI and its grants are available on

the Institute’s web site at http://

www.clark.net/pub/sji/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the State Justice Institute Act of 1984,

42 U.S.C. 10701, et seq., as amended,

the Institute is authorized to award

grants, cooperative agreements, and

contracts to State and local courts,

nonprofit organizations, and others for

the purpose of improving the quality of

justice in the State courts of the United

States.

Status of FY 1998 Appropriations

The Senate has approved an FY 1998

appropriation for SJI of $13.55 million.

The House Appropriations Committee

has approved a $3 million

appropriation. A House-Senate

conference will determine the Institute’s

final appropriation later this fall. The

scope of the grant program in this

Guideline and the funding targets noted

for specific programs may be adjusted

depending on the final funding figure.

Types of Grants Available and Funding

Schedules

The SJI grant program is designed to

be responsive to the most important

needs of the State courts. To meet the

full range of the courts’ diverse needs,

the Institute offers five different

categories of grants. The types of grants

available in FY 1998 and the funding

cycles for each program are provided

below:

Project Grants

These grants are awarded to support

innovative education, research,

demonstration, and technical assistance

projects that can improve the

administration of justice in State courts

nationwide. Except for ‘‘Single

Jurisdiction’’ project grants awarded

under section II.C. (see below), project

grants are intended to support

innovative projects of national

significance. As provided in section V.

of the Guideline, project grants may

ordinarily not exceed $200,000 a year;

however, grants in excess of $150,000

are likely to be rare, and awarded only

to support projects likely to have a

significant national impact.

Applicants must ordinarily submit a

concept paper (see section VI.) and an

application (see section VII.) in order to

obtain a project grant. As indicated in

Section VI.C., the Board may make an

‘‘accelerated’’ grant of less than $40,000

on the basis of the concept paper alone

when (1) the need for the project is clear

and (2) an application would likely

provide little additional information

about the operation of the project.

The FY 1998 mailing deadline for

most project grant concept papers is

November 24, 1997. Papers must be

postmarked or bear other evidence of

submission by that date. The Board of

Directors will meet in late February

1998 to invite formal applications based

on the most promising concept papers.

Applications will be due in May and

awards will be approved by the Board

in July.

Special funding cycles are established

for concept papers that follow up on the

Symposium on the Future of the

Juvenile Courts (see section II.B.2.h.),

the National Conference on Full Faith

and Credit (see section II.B.2.i.), and the

National Sentencing Symposium (see

section II.B.2.k.); and papers that

implement the national agenda on

assuring prompt and affordable justice

(see section II.B.2.e.). Those concept

papers must be mailed by March 12,

1998.

Single Jurisdiction Project Grants

Section II.C. of the Guideline allocates

funds for two types of ‘‘Single

Jurisdiction’’ grants.

Section II.C.1. reserves up to $300,000

for Projects Addressing a Critical Need

of a Single State or Local Jurisdiction.

To receive a grant under this program,

an applicant must demonstrate that (1)

the proposed project is essential to

meeting a critical need of the

jurisdiction and (2) the need cannot be

met solely with State and local

resources within the foreseeable future.
51928 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

Applicants are encouraged to submit

proposals to replicate approaches or

programs that have been evaluated as

effective under an SJI grant. Examples of

projects that could be replicated are

listed in Appendix IV. See ‘‘Issues

Raised for Comment’’ below, about

continuation of the Replication grant

program.

Section II.C.2. reserves up to $400,000

for Technical Assistance Grants. Under

this program, a State or local court may

receive a grant of up to $30,000 to

engage outside experts to provide

technical assistance to diagnose,

develop, and implement a response to a

jurisdiction’s problems.

Letters of application for a Technical

Assistance grant may be submitted at

any time. Applicants submitting letters

between October 1, 1997 and January

16, 1998 will be notified of the Board’s

decision by March 27, 1998; those

submitting letters between January 17,

1998 and March 13, 1998 will be

notified by May 29, 1998; and those

submitting letters between March 14,

1998 and June 12, 1998 will be notified

by August 28, 1998. Subject to the

availability of appropriations in FY

1998, applicants submitting letters

between June 13 and September 30,

1998 will be notified of the Board’s

decision by December 18, 1998.

Curriculum Adaptation Grants

A grant of up to $20,000 may be

awarded to a State or local court to

replicate or modify a model training

program developed with SJI funds. The

Guideline allocates up to $100,000 for

these grants in FY 1998. See section

II.B.2.b.ii.

Letters requesting Curriculum

Adaptation grants may be submitted at

any time during the fiscal year.

However, in order to permit the Institute

sufficient time to evaluate these

proposals, letters must be submitted no

later than 90 days before the projected

date of the training program. See section

II.B.2.b.ii.(c). See also ‘‘Issues Raised for

Comment’’ below, about the

continuation of the Curriculum

Adaptation grant program.

Scholarships

The Guideline allocates up to

$200,000 of FY 1998 funds for

scholarships to enable judges and court

managers to attend out-of-State

education and training programs. See

section II.B.2.b.iii.

The Guideline establishes four

deadlines for scholarship requests:

October 1, 1997 for training programs

beginning between January 1 and March

31, 1998; January 7, 1998 for programs

beginning between April 1 and June 30,

1998; April 1, 1998 for programs

beginning between July 1 and

September 30, 1998; and July 1, 1998 for

programs beginning between October 1

and December 31, 1998.

Renewal Grants

There are two types of renewal grants

available from SJI: Continuation grants

(see sections III.G., V.C. and D., and

IX.A.) and On-going Support grants (see

sections III.H., V.C. and D., and IX.B.).

Continuation grants are intended to

enhance the specific program or service

begun during the initial grant period.

On-going Support grants may be

awarded for up to a three-year period to

support national-scope projects that

provide the State courts with critically

needed services, programs, or products.

The Guideline establishes a target for

renewal grants of approximately 25% of

the total amount projected to be

available for grants in FY 1998. See

section IX. Grantees should accordingly

be aware that the award of a grant to

support a project does not constitute a

commitment to provide either

continuation funding or on-going

support.

An applicant for a continuation or ongoing support grant must submit a letter

notifying the Institute of its intent to

seek such funding, no later than 120

days before the end of the current grant

period. The Institute will then notify the

applicant of the deadline for its renewal

grant application. See section IX.

Special Interest Categories

The Guideline includes 12 Special

Interest categories, i.e., those topics that

the Board has identified as being of

particular importance to the State courts

this year. The selection of these

categories was based on the Board and

staff’s experience and observations over

the past year; the recommendations

received from judges, court managers,

lawyers, members of the public, and

other groups interested in the

administration of justice; and the issues

identified in recent years’ concept

papers and applications.

Section II.B.2. of the Guideline

includes the following Special Interest

categories:

Improving Public Confidence in the

Courts;

Education and Training for Judges and

Other Key Court Personnel (this

category includes Curriculum

Adaptation grants, Scholarships for

Judges and Key Court Personnel, and

National Conferences);

Dispute Resolution and the Courts;

Application of Technology;

Court Management, Financing, and

Planning;

Resolution of Current Evidentiary

Issues;

Substance Abuse and the Courts;

Children and Families in Court;

Improving the Courts’ Response to

Domestic Violence;

Improving Sentencing Practices;

Improving Court Security; and

The Relationship Between State and

Federal Courts.

Conferences

The Institute is soliciting proposals to

conduct two major national conferences:

a National Symposium on the Future of

Judicial Education, and a National

Conference on Unrepresented Litigants

in Court. See section II.B.2.b.iv.

Issues Raised for Comment

In the Proposed Guideline published

for public comment on August 20 (62

FR 44307), SJI requested comment on

three issues: consultant rates, and the

continuation of the Curriculum

Adaptation and Replication grant

programs.

Consultant Rates

The Proposed Guideline sought

comment on the Institute’s general

approach to examining and approving

the compensation paid to consultants

working under SJI grants, as well as on

three specific sets of questions:

(1) Should SJI lower the maximum

consultant rate that can be paid from

grant funds to below $900 a day? If so,

what is the highest rate that should be

permitted? Are there certain criteria that

would justify the top rate, wherever it

is set?

(2) Should practicing lawyers, as well

as other legal and court officials, be

expected to provide their services to SJIsupported grants without

compensation? What circumstances

might justify an exception to this

expectation?

(3) Are there other approaches that

might better balance SJI’s need to

exercise financial restraint with its

interest in encouraging the highest

quality experts to work on Institutesupported projects?

SJI received two comments on this

issue, from the National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges and

the National Center for State Courts.

Both comments recommended retaining

the $900 daily rate as the maximum

ceiling. The Council also observed that

‘‘lawyers practicing in the private sector

could and perhaps should offer some of

their time to the public sector on a pro

bono basis.’’ The Institute will retain its

present approach to approving

consultant rates but, absent

extraordinary circumstances, will not
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51929

approve the payment of SJI funds to a

practicing attorney who is participating

in a judicial education or court

improvement project.

Curriculum Adaptation Grants

In the Proposed Guideline, SJI noted

that the number of Curriculum

Adaptation (CA) requests submitted in

recent years has dropped sharply, from

17 in FY 1995 to 4 in FY 1997. As a

result, the amount allocated for CA

grants in the Proposed Guideline was

reduced from $175,000 in FY 1997 to

$100,000 in FY 1998. The Board noted

its special interest in receiving

comments from State judicial educators

about whether the program should be

discontinued or whether it might be

modified in some way to increase its

usefulness.

The Institute received comments from

a number of individual State judicial

educators as well as the National

Association of State Judicial Educators

and the National Center for State Courts,

all of whom requested that the program

be continued. The Final Guideline

continues the program, at the $100,000

level.

Replication Grants

Last fiscal year, SJI added the

Replication grant program to the

Guideline. The program permits State

and local courts to request up to $30,000

to adapt programs, procedures, or

strategies that have been evaluated as

successes under prior SJI grants. No

court, however, requested a Replication

grant in FY 1997. The Proposed

Guideline continued the program, but

dropped the $30,000 limitation, which

some observers believe may have been

too low to accomplish the goals of the

program. The Board invited comment,

particularly from State and local courts,

about whether the program should be

discontinued, modified in the way

proposed, or modified in some other

way to attract more applications.

A number of commenters suggested

that not many people knew about the

program. The National Center for State

Courts endorsed the recommendation

that the $30,000 limit be removed. The

Final Guideline continues the program

as proposed.

No changes other than technical

corrections have been made in the Final

Guideline.

Recommendations to Grant Writers

Over the past 11 years, Institute staff

have reviewed approximately 3,300

concept papers and 1,600 applications.

On the basis of those reviews, inquiries

from applicants, and the views of the

Board, the Institute offers the following

recommendations to help potential

applicants present workable,

understandable proposals that can meet

the funding criteria set forth in this

Guideline.

The Institute suggests that applicants

make certain that they address the

questions and issues set forth below

when preparing a concept paper or

application. Concept papers and

applications should, however, be

presented in the formats specified in

sections VI. and VII. of the Guideline,

respectively.

1. What Is the Subject or Problem You

Wish To Address

Describe the subject or problem and

how it affects the courts and the public.

Discuss how your approach will

improve the situation or advance the

state of the art or knowledge, and

explain why it is the most appropriate

approach to take. When statistics or

research findings are cited to support a

statement or position, the source of the

citation should be referenced in a

footnote or a reference list.

2. What Do You Want To Do

Explain the goal(s) of the project in

simple, straightforward terms. The goals

should describe the intended

consequences or expected overall effect

of the proposed project (e.g., to enable

judges to sentence drug-abusing

offenders more effectively, or to dispose

of civil cases within 24 months), rather

than the tasks or activities to be

conducted (e.g., hold three training

sessions, or install a new computer

system).

To the greatest extent possible, an

applicant should avoid a specialized

vocabulary that is not readily

understood by the general public.

Technical jargon does not enhance a

paper.

3. How Will You Do It

Describe the methodology carefully so

that what you propose to do and how

you would do it are clear. All proposed

tasks should be set forth so that a

reviewer can see a logical progression of

tasks, and relate those tasks directly to

the accomplishment of the project’s

goal(s). When in doubt about whether to

provide a more detailed explanation or

to assume a particular level of

knowledge or expertise on the part of

the reviewers, provide the additional

information. A description of project

tasks also will help identify necessary

budget items. All staff positions and

project costs should relate directly to

the tasks described. The Institute

encourages applicants to attach letters of

cooperation and support from the courts

and related agencies that will be

involved in or directly affected by the

proposed project.

4. How Will You Know It Works

Include an evaluation component that

will determine whether the proposed

training, procedure, service, or

technology accomplished the objectives

it was designed to meet. Concept papers

and applications should present the

criteria that will be used to evaluate the

project’s effectiveness; identify program

elements which will require further

modification; and describe how the

evaluation will be conducted, when it

will occur during the project period,

who will conduct it, and what specific

measures will be used. In most

instances, the evaluation should be

conducted by persons not connected

with the implementation of the

procedure, training, service, or

technique, or the administration of the

project.

The Institute has also prepared a more

thorough list of recommendations to

grant writers regarding the development

of project evaluation plans. Those

recommendations are available from the

Institute upon request.

5. How Will Others Find Out About It

Include a plan to disseminate the

results of the training, research, or

demonstration beyond the jurisdictions

and individuals directly affected by the

project. The plan should identify the

specific methods which will be used to

inform the field about the project, such

as the publication of law review or

journal articles, or the distribution of

key materials. A statement that a report

or research findings ‘‘will be made

available to’’ the field is not sufficient.

The specific means of distribution or

dissemination as well as the types of

recipients should be identified.

Reproduction and dissemination costs

are allowable budget items.

6. What Are the Specific Costs Involved

The budget in both concept papers

and applications should be presented

clearly. Major budget categories such as

personnel, benefits, travel, supplies,

equipment, and indirect costs should be

identified separately. The components

of ‘‘Other’’ or ‘‘Miscellaneous’’ items

should be specified in the application

budget narrative, and should not

include set-asides for undefined

contingencies.

7. What, if any, Match Is Being Offered?

Courts and other units of State and

local government (not including

publicly-supported institutions of

higher education) are required by the
51930 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

State Justice Institute Act to contribute

a match (cash, non-cash, or both) of at

least 50 percent of the grant funds

requested from the Institute. All other

applicants also are encouraged to

provide a matching contribution to

assist in meeting the costs of a project.

The match requirement works as

follows: If, for example, the total cost of

a project is anticipated to be $150,000,

a State or local court or executive

branch agency may request up to

$100,000 from the Institute to

implement the project. The remaining

$50,000 (50% of the $100,000 requested

from SJI) must be provided as match.

Cash match includes funds directly

contributed to the project by the

applicant, or by other public or private

sources. It does not include income

generated from tuition fees or the sale of

project products. Non-cash match refers

to in-kind contributions by the

applicant, or other public or private

sources. This includes, for example, the

monetary value of time contributed by

existing personnel or members of an

advisory committee (but not the time

spent by participants in an educational

program attending program sessions).

When match is offered, the nature of the

match (cash or in-kind) should be

explained and, at the application stage,

the tasks and line items for which costs

will be covered wholly or in part by

match should be specified.

8. Which of the Two Budget Forms

Should Be Used

Section VII.A.3. of the SJI Grant

Guideline encourages use of the

spreadsheet format of Form C1 if the

application requests $100,000 or more.

Form C1 also works well for projects

with discrete tasks, regardless of the

dollar value of the project. Form C, the

tabular format, is preferred for projects

lacking a number of discrete tasks, or for

projects requiring less than $100,000 of

Institute funding. Generally, use the

form that best lends itself to

representing most accurately the budget

estimates for the project.

9. How Much Detail Should Be Included

in the Budget Narrative?

The budget narrative of an application

should provide the basis for computing

all project-related costs, as indicated in

section VII.D. of the SJI Grant Guideline.

To avoid common shortcomings of

application budget narratives,

applicants should include the following

information:

Personnel estimates that accurately

provide the amount of time to be spent

by personnel involved with the project

and the total associated costs, including

current salaries for the designated

personnel (e.g., Project Director, 50% for

one year, annual salary of $50,000 =

$25,000). If salary costs are computed

using an hourly or daily rate, the annual

salary and number of hours or days in

a work-year should be shown.

Estimates for supplies and expenses

supported by a complete description of

the supplies to be used, the nature and

extent of printing to be done,

anticipated telephone charges, and other

common expenditures, with the basis

for computing the estimates included

(e.g., 100 reports × 75 pages each × .05/

page = $375.00). Supply and expense

estimates offered simply as ‘‘based on

experience’’ are not sufficient.

In order to expedite Institute review

of the budget, make a final comparison

of the amounts listed in the budget

narrative with those listed on the budget

form. In the rush to complete all parts

of the application on time, there may be

many last-minute changes;

unfortunately, when there are

discrepancies between the budget

narrative and the budget form or the

amount listed on the application cover

sheet, it is not possible for the Institute

to verify the amount of the request. A

final check of the numbers on the form

against those in the narrative will

preclude such confusion.

10. What Travel Regulations Apply to

the Budget Estimates

Transportation costs and per diem

rates must comply with the policies of

the applicant organization, and a copy

of the applicant’s travel policy should

be submitted as an appendix to the

application. If the applicant does not

have a travel policy established in

writing, then travel rates must be

consistent with those established by the

Institute or the Federal Government (a

copy of the Institute’s travel policy is

available upon request). The budget

narrative should state which regulations

are in force for the project.

The budget narrative also should

include the estimated fare, the number

of persons traveling, the number of trips

to be taken, and the length of stay. The

estimated costs of travel, lodging,

ground transportation, and other

subsistence should be listed and

explained separately. It is preferable for

the budget to be based on the actual

costs of traveling to and from the project

or meeting sites. If the points of origin

or destination are not known at the time

the budget is prepared, an average

airfare may be used to estimate the

travel costs. For example, if it is

anticipated that a project advisory

committee will include members from

around the country, a reasonable airfare

from a central point to the meeting site,

or the average of airfares from each coast

to the meeting site may be used.

Applicants should arrange travel so as

to be able to take advantage of advancepurchase price discounts whenever

possible.

11. May Grant Funds Be Used To

Purchase Equipment?

Generally, grant funds may be used to

purchase only the equipment that is

necessary to demonstrate a new

technological application in a court, or

that is otherwise essential to

accomplishing the objectives of the

project. The budget narrative must list

the equipment to be purchased and

explain why the equipment is necessary

to the success of the project. Written

prior approval is required when the

amount of computer hardware to be

purchased or leased exceeds $10,000, or

the software to be purchased exceeds

$3000.

12. To What Extent May Indirect Costs

Be Included in the Budget Estimates

It is the policy of the Institute that all

costs should be budget directly;

however, if an applicant has been

approved by a Federal agency within

the last two years, an indirect cost

recovery estimate may be included in

the budget. A copy of the approved rate

agreement should be submitted as an

appendix to the application.

If an applicant does not have an

approved rate agreement, an indirect

cost rate proposal should be prepared in

accordance with Section XI.H.4. of the

Grant Guideline, based on the

applicant’s audited financial statements

for the prior fiscal year. (Applicants

lacking an audit should budget all

project costs directly.) If an indirect cost

rate proposal is to be submitted, the

budget should reflect estimates based on

that proposal. Obviously, this requires

that the proposal be completed at the

time of application so that the

appropriate estimates may be included;

however, grantees have until three

months after the project start date to

submit the indirect cost proposal to the

Institute for approval. An indirect cost

rate worksheet on computer diskette is

available from the Institute upon

request.

13. What Meeting Costs May Be Covered

With Grant Funds

SJI grant funds may cover the

reasonable cost of meeting rooms,

necessary audio-visual equipment,

meeting supplies, and working meals.

However, they cannot be used to

reimburse the cost of coffee or other

types of refreshment breaks, or for

alcoholic beverages.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51931

14. Does the Budget Truly Reflect All

Costs Required To Complete the Project

After preparing the program narrative

portion of the application, applicants

may find it helpful to list all the major

tasks or activities required by the

proposed project, including the

preparation of products, and note the

individual expenses, including

personnel time, related to each. This

will help to ensure that, for all tasks

described in the application (e.g.,

development of a videotape, research

site visits, distribution of a final report),

the related costs appear in the budget

and are explained correctly in the

budget narrative.

Recommendations to Grantees

The Institute’s staff works with

grantees to help assure the smooth

operation of the project and compliance

with the Guideline. On the basis of

monitoring more than 1,300 grants, the

Institute staff offers the following

suggestions to aid grantees in meeting

the administrative and substantive

requirements of their grants.

1. After the Grant Has Been Awarded,

When Are the First Quarterly Reports

Due

Quarterly Progress Reports and

Financial Status Reports must be

submitted within 30 days after the end

of every calendar quarter—i.e. no later

than January 30, April 30, July 30, and

October 30—regardless of the project’s

start date. The reporting periods covered

by each quarterly report end 30 days

before the respective deadline for the

report. When an award period begins

December 1, for example, the first

Quarterly Progress Report describing

project activities between December 1

and December 31 will be due on January

30. A Financial Status Report should be

submitted even if funds have not been

obligated or expended.

By documenting what has happened

over the past three months, Quarterly

Progress Reports provide an opportunity

for project staff and Institute staff to

resolve any questions before they

become problems, and make any

necessary changes in the project time

schedule, budget allocations, etc. The

Quarterly Project Report should

describe project activities, their

relationship to the approved timeline,

and any problems encountered and how

they were resolved, and outline the

tasks scheduled for the coming quarter.

It is helpful to attach copies of relevant

memos, draft products, or other

requested information. An original and

one copy of a Quarterly Progress Report

and attachments should be submitted to

the Institute.

Additional Quarterly Progress Report

or Financial Status Report forms may be

obtained from the grantee’s Program

Manager at SJI, or photocopies may be

made from the supply received with the

award.

2. Do Reporting Requirements Differ for

Renewal Grants

Recipients of a continuation or ongoing support grant are required to

submit quarterly progress and financial

status reports on the same schedule and

with the same information as recipients

of a grant for a single new project.

A continuation grant and each yearly

grant under an on-going support award

should be considered as a separate

phase of the project. The reports should

be numbered on a grant rather than

project basis. Thus, the first quarterly

report filed under a continuation grant

or a yearly increment of an on-going

support award should be designated as

number one, the second as number two,

and so on, through the final progress

and financial status reports due within

90 days after the end of the grant period.

3. What Information About Project

Activities should be Communicated to

SJI

In general, grantees should provide

prior notice of critical project events

such as advisory board meetings or

training sessions so that the Institute

Program Manager can attend if possible.

If methodological, schedule, staff,

budget allocations, or other significant

changes become necessary, the grantee

should contact the Program Manager

prior to implementing any of these

changes, so that possible questions may

be addressed in advance. Questions

concerning the financial requirements

section of the Guideline, quarterly

financial reporting, or payment requests,

should be addressed to the Grants

Financial Manager listed in the award

letter.

It is helpful to include the grant

number assigned to the award on all

correspondence to the Institute.

4. Why Is It Important to Address the

Special Conditions That Are Attached

to the Award Document

In some instances, a list of special

conditions is attached to the award

document. Special conditions may be

imposed to establish a schedule for

reporting certain key information, to

assure that the Institute has an

opportunity to offer suggestions at

critical stages of the project, and to

provide reminders of some, but not all

of the requirements contained in the

Grant Guideline. Accordingly, it is

important for grantees to check the

special conditions carefully and discuss

with their Program Manager any

questions or problems they may have

with the conditions. Most concerns

about timing, response time, and the

level of detail required can be resolved

in advance through a telephone

conversation. The Institute’s primary

concern is to work with grantees to

assure that their projects accomplish

their objectives, not to enforce rigid

bureaucratic requirements. However, if

a grantee fails to comply with a special

condition or with other grant

requirements, the Institute may, after

proper notice, suspend payment of grant

funds or terminate the grant.

Sections X., XI., and XII. of the Grant

Guideline contain the Institute’s

administrative and financial

requirements. Institute Finance Division

staff are always available to answer

questions and provide assistance

regarding these provisions.

5. What is a Grant Adjustment

A Grant Adjustment is the Institute’s

form for acknowledging the satisfaction

of special conditions, or approving

changes in grant activities, schedule,

staffing, sites, or budget allocations

requested by the project director. It also

may be used to correct errors in grant

documents, add small amounts to a

grant award, or deobligate funds from

the grant.

6. What Schedule should be Followed in

Submitting Requests for

Reimbursements or Advance Payments

Requests for reimbursements or

advance payments may be made at any

time after the project start date and

before the end of the 90-day close-out

period. However, the Institute follows

the U.S. Treasury’s policy limiting

advances to the minimum amount

required to meet immediate cash needs.

Given normal processing time, grantees

should not seek to draw down funds for

periods greater than 30 days from the

date of the request.

7. Do Procedures for Submitting

Requests for Reimbursement or Advance

Payment Differ for Renewal Grants

The basic procedures are the same for

any grant. A continuation grant or the

yearly grant under an on-going support

award should be considered as a

separate phase of the project. Payment

requests should be numbered on a grant

rather than a project basis. The first

request for funds from a continuation

grant or a yearly increment under an ongoing support award should be

designated as number one, the second as
51932 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

number two, and so on through the final

payment request for that grant.

8. If Things Change During the Grant

Period, Can Funds Be Reallocated From

One Budget Category to Another

The Institute recognizes that some

flexibility is required in implementing a

project design and budget. Thus,

grantees may shift funds among direct

cost budget categories. When any one

reallocation or the cumulative total of

reallocations are expected to exceed five

percent of the approved project budget,

a grantee must specify the proposed

changes, explain the reasons for the

changes, and request Institute approval.

The same standard applies to renewal

grants. In addition, prior written

Institute approval is required to shift

leftover funds from the original award to

cover activities to be conducted under

the renewal award, or to use renewal

grant monies to cover costs incurred

during the original grant period.

9. What is the 90-Day Close-out Period

Following the last day of the grant, a

90-day period is provided to allow for

all grant-related bills to be received and

posted, and grant funds drawn down to

cover these expenses. No obligations of

grant funds may be incurred during this

period. The last day on which an

expenditure of grant funds can be

obligated is the end date of the grant

period. Similarly, the 90-day period is

not intended as an opportunity to finish

and disseminate grant products. This

should occur before the end of the grant

period.

During the 90 days following the end

of the award period, all monies that

have been obligated should be

expended. All payment requests must

be received by the end of the 90-day

‘‘close-out-period.’’ Any unexpended

monies held by the grantee that remain

after the 90-day follow-up period must

be returned to the Institute. Any funds

remaining in the grant that have not

been drawn down by the grantee will be

deobligated.

10. Are Funds Granted by SJI ‘‘Federal’’

Funds

The State Justice Institute Act

provides that, except for purposes

unrelated to this question, ‘‘the Institute

shall not be considered a department,

agency, or instrumentality of the Federal

Government.’’ 42 U.S.C. § 10704(c)(1).

Because SJI receives appropriations

from Congress, some grantee auditors

have reported SJI grants funds as ‘‘Other

Federal Assistance.’’ This classification

is acceptable to SJI but is not required.

11. If SJI Is Not a Federal Agency, Do

OMB Circulars Apply With Respect to

Audits

Except to the extent that they are

inconsistent with the express provisions

of the SJI Grant Guideline, Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

Circulars A–110, A–21, A–87, A–88, A–

102, A–122, and A–133 are incorporated

into the Grant Guideline by reference.

Because the Institute’s enabling

legislation specifically requires the

Institute to ‘‘conduct, or require each

recipient to provide for, an annual fiscal

audit’’ (see 42 U.S.C. 10711(c)(1)), the

Grant Guideline sets forth options for

grantees to comply with this statutory

requirement. (See Section XI.J.)

SJI will accept audits conducted in

accordance with the Single Audit Act of

1984 as amended and OMB Circular A–

133, in satisfaction of the annual fiscal

audit requirement. Grantees that are

required to undertake these audits in

conjunction with Federal grants may

include SJI funds as part of the audit

even if the receipt of SJI funds would

not require such audits. This approach

gives grantees an option to fold SJI

funds into the governmental audit rather

than to undertake a separate audit to

satisfy SJI’s Guideline requirements.

In sum, educational, governmental

and nonprofit organizations that receive

payments from the Institute that are

sufficient to meet the applicability

thresholds of OMB Circular A–133 must

have their annual audit conducted in

accordance with Government Auditing

Standards issued by the Comptroller

General of the United States rather than

with generally accepted auditing

standards. Grantees in this category that

receive amounts below the minimum

threshold referenced in Circular A–133

must also submit an annual audit to SJI,

but they would have the option to

conduct an audit of the entire grantee

organization in accordance with

generally accepted auditing standards;

include SJI funds in an audit of Federal

funds conducted in accordance with the

Single Audit Act of 1984 as amended

and OMB Circular A–133; or conduct an

audit of only the SJI funds in

accordance with generally accepted

auditing standards. (See Guideline

Section XI.J.) A copy of the above-noted

circular may be obtained by calling

OMB at (202) 395–7250.

12. Does SJI Have a CFDA Number?

Auditors often request that a grantee

provide the Institute’s Catalog of Federal

Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for

guidance in conducting an audit in

accordance with Government

Accounting Standards.

Because SJI is not a Federal agency, it

has not been issued such a number, and

there are no additional compliance tests

to satisfy under the Institute’s audit

requirements beyond those of a standard

governmental audit.

Moreover, because SJI is not a Federal

agency, SJI funds should not be

aggregated with Federal funds to

determine if the applicability threshold

of Circular A–133 has been reached. For

example, if in fiscal year 1996 grantee

‘‘X’’ received $10,000 in Federal funds

from a Department of Justice (DOJ) grant

program and $20,000 in grant funds

from SJI, the minimum A–133 threshold

would not be met. The same distinction

would preclude an auditor from

considering the additional SJI funds in

determining what Federal requirements

apply to the DOJ funds.

Grantees who are required to satisfy

either the Single Audit Act, OMB

Circulars A–128, or A–133 and who

include SJI grant funds in those audits,

need to remember that because of its

status as a private non-profit

corporation, SJI is not on routing lists of

cognizant Federal agencies. Therefore,

the grantee needs to submit a copy of

the audit report prepared for such a

cognizant Federal agency directly to SJI.

The Institute’s audit requirements may

be found in Section XI.J. of the Grant

Guideline.

The following Grant Guideline is

adopted by the State Justice Institute for

FY 1998:

State Justice Institute Grant Guideline

Table of Contents

I. BACKGROUND

II. SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM

III. DEFINITIONS

IV. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD

V. TYPES OF PROJECTS AND GRANTS;

SIZE OF AWARDS

VI. CONCEPT PAPER SUBMISSION

REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW PROJECTS

VII. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR

NEW PROJECTS

VIII. APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES

IX. RENEWAL FUNDING PROCEDURES

AND REQUIREMENTS

X. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

XI. FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS

XII. GRANT ADJUSTMENTS

APPENDIX I LIST OF STATE CONTACTS

REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF

INSTITUTE GRANTS TO STATE AND

LOCAL COURTS

APPENDIX II SJI LIBRARIES:

DESIGNATED SITES AND CONTACTS

APPENDIX III ILLUSTRATIVE LIST OF

MODEL CURRICULA

APPENDIX IV ILLUSTRATIVE LIST OF

REPLICABLE PROJECTS

APPENDIX V JUDICIAL EDUCATION

SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION FORMS

APPENDIX VI PRELIMINARY BUDGET

FORM (Form E)
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51933

APPENDIX VII CERTIFICATE OF STATE

APPROVAL FORM (Form B)

I. Background

The Institute was established by

Public Law 98–620 to improve the

administration of justice in the State

courts in the United States. Incorporated

in the State of Virginia as a private,

nonprofit corporation, the Institute is

charged, by statute, with the

responsibility to:

A. Direct a national program of

financial assistance designed to assure

that each citizen of the United States is

provided ready access to a fair and

effective system of justice;

B. Foster coordination and

cooperation with the Federal judiciary;

C. Promote recognition of the

importance of the separation of powers

doctrine to an independent judiciary;

and

D. Encourage education for judges and

support personnel of State court systems

through national and State

organizations, including universities.

To accomplish these broad objectives,

the Institute is authorized to provide

funds to State courts, national

organizations which support and are

supported by State courts, national

judicial education organizations, and

other organizations that can assist in

improving the quality of justice in the

State courts.

The Institute is supervised by an 11-

member Board of Directors appointed by

the President, by and with the consent

of the Senate. The Board is statutorily

composed of six judges, a State court

administrator, and four members of the

public, no more than two of whom can

be of the same political party.

Through the award of grants,

contracts, and cooperative agreements,

the Institute is authorized to perform the

following activities:

A. Support research, demonstrations,

special projects, technical assistance,

and training to improve the

administration of justice in the State

courts;

B. Provide for the preparation,

publication, and dissemination of

information regarding State judicial

systems;

C. Participate in joint projects with

Federal agencies and other private

grantors;

D. Evaluate or provide for the

evaluation of programs and projects

funded by the Institute to determine

their impact upon the quality of

criminal, civil, and juvenile justice and

the extent to which they have

contributed to improving the quality of

justice in the State courts;

E. Encourage and assist in furthering

judicial education;

F. Encourage, assist, and serve in a

consulting capacity to State and local

justice system agencies in the

development, maintenance, and

coordination of criminal, civil, and

juvenile justice programs and services;

and

G. Be responsible for the certification

of national programs that are intended

to aid and improve State judicial

systems.

II. Scope of the Program

During FY 1998, the Institute will

consider applications for funding

support that address any of the areas

specified in its enabling legislation. The

Board, however, has designated 12

program categories as being of ‘‘special

interest.’’ See section II.B.

A. Authorized Program Areas

The Institute is authorized to fund

projects addressing one or more of the

following program areas listed in the

State Justice Institute Act, the Battered

Women’s Testimony Act, the Judicial

Training and Research for Child

Custody Litigation Act, and the

International Parental Kidnapping

Crime Act.

1. Assistance to State and local court

systems in establishing appropriate

procedures for the selection and

removal of judges and other court

personnel and in determining

appropriate levels of compensation;

2. Education and training programs

for judges and other court personnel for

the performance of their general duties

and for specialized functions, and

national and regional conferences and

seminars for the dissemination of

information on new developments and

innovative techniques;

3. Research on alternative means for

using judicial and nonjudicial personnel

in court decisionmaking activities,

implementation of demonstration

programs to test such innovative

approaches, and evaluations of their

effectiveness;

4. Studies of the appropriateness and

efficacy of court organizations and

financing structures in particular States,

and support to States to implement

plans for improved court organization

and financing;

5. Support for State court planning

and budgeting staffs and the provision

of technical assistance in resource

allocation and service forecasting

techniques;

6. Studies of the adequacy of court

management systems in State and local

courts, and implementation and

evaluation of innovative responses to

records management, data processing,

court personnel management, reporting

and transcription of court proceedings,

and juror utilization and management;

7. Collection and compilation of

statistical data and other information on

the work of the courts and on the work

of other agencies which relates to and

affects the work of courts;

8. Studies of the causes of trial and

appellate court delay in resolving cases,

and establishing and evaluating

experimental programs for reducing

case processing time;

9. Development and testing of

methods for measuring the performance

of judges and courts, and experiments in

the use of such measures to improve the

functioning of judges and the courts;

10. Studies of court rules and

procedures, discovery devices, and

evidentiary standards to identify

problems with the operation of such

rules, procedures, devices, and

standards, and the development of

alternative approaches to better

reconcile the requirements of due

process with the need for swift and

certain justice, and testing of the utility

of those alternative approaches;

11. Studies of the outcomes of cases

in selected areas to identify instances in

which the substance of justice meted

out by the courts diverges from public

expectations of fairness, consistency, or

equity, and the development, testing,

and evaluation of alternative approaches

to resolving cases in such problem

areas;

12. Support for programs to increase

court responsiveness to the needs of

citizens through citizen education,

improvement of court treatment of

witnesses, victims, and jurors, and

development of procedures for

obtaining and using measures of public

satisfaction with court processes to

improve court performance;

13. Testing and evaluating

experimental approaches to provide

increased citizen access to justice,

including processes which reduce the

cost of litigating common grievances,

and alternative techniques and

mechanisms for resolving disputes

between citizens;

14. Collection and analysis of

information regarding the admissibility

and quality of expert testimony on the

experiences of battered women offered

as part of the defense in criminal cases

under State law, as well as sources of

and methods to obtain funds to pay

costs incurred to provide such

testimony, particularly in cases

involving indigent women defendants;

15. Development of training materials

to assist battered women, operators of

domestic violence shelters, battered

women’s advocates, and attorneys to use

expert testimony on the experiences of
51934 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

battered women in appropriate cases,

and individuals with expertise in the

experiences of battered women to

develop skills appropriate to providing

such testimony;

16. Research regarding State judicial

decisions relating to child custody

litigation involving domestic violence;

17. Development of training curricula

to assist State courts to develop an

understanding of, and appropriate

responses to child custody litigation

involving domestic violence;

18. Dissemination of information and

training materials and provision of

technical assistance regarding the issues

listed in paragraphs 14–17 above;

19. Development of national, regional,

and in-State training and educational

programs dealing with criminal and

civil aspects of interstate and

international parental child abduction;

20. Other programs, consistent with

the purposes of the State Justice

Institute Act, as may be deemed

appropriate by the Institute, including

projects dealing with the relationship

between Federal and State court systems

such as where there is concurrent StateFederal jurisdiction and where Federal

courts, directly or indirectly, review

State court proceedings.

Funds will not be made available for

the ordinary, routine operation of court

systems or programs in any of these

areas.

B. Special Interest Program Categories

1. General Description

The Institute is interested in funding

both innovative programs and programs

of proven merit that can be replicated in

other jurisdictions. Although

applications in any of the statutory

program areas are eligible for funding in

FY 1998, the Institute is especially

interested in funding those projects that:

a. Formulate new procedures and

techniques, or creatively enhance

existing arrangements to improve the

courts;

b. Address aspects of the State

judicial systems that are in special need

of serious attention;

c. Have national significance by

developing products, services, and

techniques that may be used in other

States; and

d. Create and disseminate products

that effectively transfer the information

and ideas developed to relevant

audiences in State and local judicial

systems, or provide technical assistance

to facilitate the adaptation of effective

programs and procedures in other State

and local jurisdictions.

A project will be identified as a

‘‘Special Interest’’ project if it meets the

four criteria set forth above and (1) it

falls within the scope of the ‘‘special

interest’’ program areas designated

below, or (2) information coming to the

attention of the Institute from the State

courts, their affiliated organizations, the

research literature, or other sources

demonstrates that the project responds

to another special need or interest of the

State courts.

Concept papers and applications

which address a ‘‘Special Interest’’

category will be accorded a preference

in the rating process. (See the selection

criteria listed in sections VI.B.,

‘‘Concept Paper Submission

Requirements for New Projects,’’ and

VIII.B., ‘‘Application Review

Procedures.’’)

2. Specific Categories

The Board has designated the areas

set forth below as ‘‘Special Interest’’

program categories. The order of listing

does not imply any ordering of priorities

among the categories.

a. Improving Public Confidence in the

Courts: This category includes

demonstration, evaluation, research,

and education projects designed to

improve the responsiveness of courts to

public concerns regarding the fairness,

accessibility, timeliness, and

comprehensibility of the court process,

and test innovative methods for

increasing the public’s confidence in the

State courts.

The Institute is particularly interested

in supporting innovative projects that

examine, develop, and test methods that

trial or appellate courts may use to:

• Improve service to individual

litigants and trial participants, including

innovative methods for handling cases

involving unrepresented litigants fairly

and effectively; (See also section

II.B.2.b.iv.(b) regarding a National

Conference on Unrepresented Litigants

in the Courts.)

• Test methods for more clearly and

effectively communicating information

to litigants and the public about judicial

decisions, the trial and appellate court

process, and court operations;

• Eliminate race, ethnic, and gender

bias in the courts;

• Address court-community problems

resulting from the influx of legal and

illegal immigrants, including projects to

inform judges about the effects of recent

Federal and State legislation regarding

immigrants; design and assess

procedures for use in custody,

visitation, and other domestic relations

cases when key family members or

property are outside the United States;

and develop protocols to facilitate

service of process, the enforcement of

orders of judgment, and the disposition

of criminal and juvenile cases when a

non-U.S. citizen or corporation is

involved;

• Demonstrate and evaluate

approaches courts can use to implement

the concept of restorative justice,

including methods for involving the

community in the sentencing process,

such as community impact statements,

community oversight of compliance

with community service and probation

conditions, or other innovative courtcommunity links focused on the

sentencing process;

• Test the impact of methods for

improving juror comprehension in

criminal and civil cases, such as use of

specially qualified juries in complex

cases, delivery of instructions

throughout the trial, testimony by courtappointed neutral experts, and access to

technology in the jury room to permit

review of computerized exhibits of

evidence presented in the case;

• Determine the incidence and causes

of jury nullification and identify

appropriate measures that judges can

take to induce jurors to follow the law;

• Assess the impact of live television

coverage of trials on court proceedings,

public understanding, and fairness to

litigants, and develop materials to assist

jurors in dealing with the media during

or following a trial.

Institute funds may not be used to

directly or indirectly support legal

representation of individuals in specific

cases

Previous SJI-supported projects that

address these issues include:

Enhancing Court-Community

Relationships: A National Town Hall

Meeting Videoconference and projects

to implement the action plans

developed at the conference;

educational materials for court

employees on serving the public;

surveys and focus groups to identify

concerns about the courts and assess

how courts are serving the needs of the

public; a demonstration of the use of

community volunteers to monitor adult

probationers and to monitor

guardianships; evaluation of

community-based court programs in

New York City; and guidelines for courtannexed day-care systems;

Serving Unrepresented Litigants:

Preparing guidebooks for court-based

programs to assist pro se litigants and to

respond to individuals and groups

unwilling to comply with legal and

administrative procedures; developing

local and Statewide self-service centers,

touchscreen computer kiosks,

videotapes, and written materials to

assist unrepresented litigants; assessing

effective and efficient methods for

providing legal representation to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51935

indigent parties in criminal and family

cases; and examining the methods

courts in rural communities can use to

assure access and fairness for

immigrants;

Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in

the Courts: Presenting a National

Conference on Eliminating Race and

Ethnic Bias in the Courts and

supporting projects to implement the

action plans developed at the

conference; examining the applicability

of various dispute resolution procedures

to different cultural groups; and

developing educational programs and

materials for judges and court staff on

diversity and related issues;

Facilitating the Use of Qualified Court

Interpreters: Preparing a manual and

other materials for managing and

coordinating court interpretation

services; developing basic and graduate

level curricula and other materials for

training and assisting court interpreters;

and assessing the feasibility and

effectiveness of interpreting in court via

the telephone;

Improving Jury Service and Jury

System Management: Developing a

manual for implementing innovations in

jury selection, use, and management;

preparing a guide for making juries

accessible to persons with disabilities;

documenting methods for reducing juror

stress; and assessing the effect of

allowing jurors to discuss the evidence

prior to the deliberations on the verdict.

b. Education and Training for Judges

and Other Key Court Personnel: The

Institute is interested in supporting an

array of projects that will continue to

strengthen and broaden the availability

of court education programs at the State,

regional, and national levels. This

category is divided into four

subsections: (i) Innovative Educational

Programs; (ii) Curriculum Adaptation

Projects; (iii) Scholarships; and (iv)

National Conferences.

i. Innovative Educational Programs.

This category includes support for the

development and testing of educational

programs for judges or court personnel

that address key substantive and

administrative issues of concern to the

nation’s courts, or help local courts or

State court systems develop or enhance

their capacity to deliver quality

continuing education. Programs may be

designed for presentation at the local,

State, regional, or national level.

Ordinarily, court education programs

should be based on some form of

assessment of the needs of the target

audience; include clearly stated learning

objectives that delineate the new

knowledge or skills that participants

will acquire; incorporate adult

education principles and multiple

teaching/learning methods; and result in

the development of a curriculum as

defined in section III.J.

(a) The Institute is particularly

interested in the development of

education programs that:

• Include innovative self-directed

learning packages for use by judges and

court personnel, and distance-learning

approaches to assist those who do not

have ready access to classroom-centered

programs. These packages and

approaches should include the

appropriate use of various media and

technologies such as Internet-based

programming, interactive CD-ROM or

floppy disk-based programs, videos, or

other audio and visual media, supported

by written materials or manuals. They

also should include a meaningful

program evaluation and a selfevaluation process that assesses preand post-program knowledge and skills;

(See also section II.B.2.b.iv.(a) inviting

proposals for a National Symposium on

the Future of Court Education.)

• Familiarize faculty with the effective

use of instructional technology

including methods for effectively

presenting information through distance

learning approaches including the

Internet, videos, and satellite

teleconferences;

• Assist local courts, State court

systems, and court systems in a

geographic region to develop or enhance

a comprehensive program of continuing

education, training, and career

development for judges and court

personnel as an integral part of court

operations;

• Test the effectiveness of including

experiential instructional approaches in

court education programs such as field

studies and use of community

resources; and

• Encourage intergovernmental

teambuilding, collaboration, and

planning among the judicial, executive,

and legislative branches of government,

or courts within a metropolitan area or

multi-State region; (See also section

II.B.2.e.ii., inviting proposals to support

teambuilding among courts, criminal

justice agencies and service providers.)

(b) The Institute also is interested in

supporting the development and testing

of curricula on issues of critical

importance to the courts, including

those listed in the other Special Interest

categories described in this Chapter.

ii. Curriculum Adaptation Projects. (a)

Description of the Program. The Board

is reserving up to $100,000 to provide

support for projects that adapt and

implement model curricula previously

developed with SJI support. An

illustrative list of the curricula that may

be appropriate for the adaptation is

contained in Appendix III.

The goal of the Curriculum

Adaptation program is to provide State

and local courts with sufficient support

to modify a model curriculum, course

module, or national or regional

conference program developed with SJI

funds to meet a State’s or local

jurisdiction’s educational needs.

Generally, it is anticipated that the

adapted curriculum would become part

of the grantee’s ongoing educational

offerings, and that local instructors

would receive the training needed to

enable them to make future

presentations of the curriculum.

Only State or local courts may apply

for Curriculum Adaptation funding.

Grants to support adaptation of

educational programs previously

developed with SJI funds are limited to

no more than $20,000 each. As with

other awards to State or local courts,

cash or in-kind match must be provided

in an amount equal to at least 50% of

the grant amount requested.

(b) Review Criteria. Curriculum

Adaptation grants will be awarded on

the basis of criteria including: the goals

and objectives of the proposed project;

the need for outside funding to support

the program; the appropriateness of the

educational approach in achieving the

project’s educational objectives; the

likelihood of effective implementation

and integration into the State’s or local

jurisdiction’s ongoing educational

programming; and expressions of

interest by the judges and/or court

personnel who would be directly

involved in or affected by the project. In

making curriculum adaptation awards,

the Institute will also consider factors

such as the reasonableness of the

amount requested, compliance with

match requirements, diversity of subject

matter, geographic diversity, the level of

appropriations available in the current

year, and the amount expected to be

available in succeeding fiscal years.

(c) Application Procedures. In lieu of

concept papers and formal applications,

applicants should submit a detailed

letter and three photocopies. Although

there is no prescribed form for the letter,

or a minimum or maximum page limit,

letters of application should include the

following information to assure that

each of the review criteria listed above

is addressed:

• Project Description. What is the title

of the model curriculum to be adapted

and who developed it? What are the

project’s goals and learning objectives?

Why is this education program needed

at the present time? What program

components would be implemented,

and what types of modifications, if any,
51936 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

are anticipated in length, format, and

content? Who will be responsible for

adapting the model curriculum? Who

will the participants be, how many will

there be, how will they be recruited, and

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

across the State, from a single local

jurisdiction, from a multi-State region)?

• Need for Funding. Why are

sufficient State or local resources

unavailable to fully support the

modification and presentation of the

model curriculum? What is the potential

for replicating or integrating the

program in the future using State or

local funds, once it has been

successfully adapted and tested?

• Likelihood of Implementation.

What is the proposed timeline for

modifying and presenting the program?

Who would serve as faculty and how

were they selected? What measures will

be taken to facilitate subsequent

presentations of the adapted program?

(Ordinarily, an independent evaluation

of a curriculum adaptation project is not

necessary; however, the results of any

evaluation should be included in the

final report.)

• Expressions of Interest By Judges

and/or Court Personnel. Does the

proposed program have the support of

the court system leadership, and of

judges, court managers, and judicial

education personnel who are expected

to attend? (This may be demonstrated by

attaching letters of support.)

• Budget and Matching State

Contribution. Applicants should attach

a copy of budget Form E (see Appendix

V) and a budget narrative (see Section

VII.B.) that describes the basis for the

computation of all project-related costs

and the source of the match offered.

• Chief Justice’s Concurrence. Local

courts should attach a concurrence form

signed by the Chief Justice of the State

or his or her designee. (See Form B,

Appendix VI.)

Letters of application may be

submitted at any time. However,

applicants should allow at least 90 days

between the date of submission and the

date of the proposed program to allow

sufficient time for needed planning.

The Board of Directors has delegated

its authority to approve Curriculum

Adaptation grants to its Judicial

Education Committee. The Committee

anticipates acting upon applications

within 45 days after receipt. Grant funds

will be available only after Committee

approval, and negotiation of the final

terms of the grant.

(d) Grantee Responsibilities. A

recipient of a Curriculum Adaptation

grant must:

(1) Comply with the same quarterly

reporting requirements as other Institute

grantees (see Section X.L.);

(2) Include in each grant product a

prominent acknowledgment that

support was received from the Institute,

along with the ‘‘SJI’’ logo and a

disclaimer paragraph (See section X.Q.);

and

(3) Submit two copies of the manuals,

handbooks, or conference packets

developed under the grant at the

conclusion of the grant period, along

with a final report that includes any

evaluation results and explains how the

grantee intends to present the program

in the future.

iii. Scholarships for Judges and Court

Personnel. The Institute is reserving up

to $200,000 to support a scholarship

program for State court judges and court

managers.

(a) Program Description/Scholarship

Amounts. The purposes of the Institute

scholarship program are to: enhance the

knowledge, skills, and abilities of judges

and court managers; enable State court

judges and court managers to attend outof-State educational programs

sponsored by national and State

providers that they could not otherwise

attend because of limited State, local

and personal budgets; and provide

States, judicial educators, and the

Institute with evaluative information on

a range of judicial and court-related

education programs.

Scholarships will be granted to

individuals only for the purpose of

attending an out-of-State educational

program within the United States. The

annual or midyear meeting of a State or

national organization of which the

applicant is a member does not qualify

as an out-of-State educational program

for scholarship purposes, even though it

may include workshops or other

training sessions.

A scholarship may cover the cost of

tuition and transportation up to a

maximum total of $1,500 per

scholarship. (Transportation expenses

include round-trip coach airfare or train

fare. Recipients who drive to the site of

the program may receive $.31/mile up to

the amount of the advanced purchase

round-trip airfare between their home

and the program site.) Funds to pay

tuition and transportation expenses in

excess of $1,500, and other costs of

attending the program such as lodging,

meals, materials, and local

transportation (including rental cars) at

the site of the education program, must

be obtained from other sources or be

borne by the scholarship recipient.

Scholarship applicants are

encouraged to check other sources of

financial assistance and to combine aid

from various sources whenever possible.

Scholarship recipients are also

encouraged to check with their tax

advisor to determine whether the

scholarship constitutes taxable income

under Federal and State law.

(b) Eligibility Requirements. Because

of the limited amount of funds

available, scholarships can be awarded

only to full-time judges of State or local

trial and appellate courts; full-time

professional, State or local court

personnel with management

responsibilities; and supervisory and

management probation personnel in

judicial branch probation offices. Senior

judges, part-time judges, quasi-judicial

hearing officers including referees and

commissioners, State administrative law

judges, staff attorneys, law clerks, line

staff, law enforcement officers, and

other executive branch personnel are

not eligible to receive a scholarship.

(c) Application Procedures. Judges

and court managers interested in

receiving a scholarship must submit the

Institute’s Judicial Education

Scholarship Application Form (Form

S1, see Appendix V). An applicant may

apply for a scholarship for only one

educational program during any one

application cycle. Applications must be

submitted by:

October 1, 1997, for programs

beginning between January 1 and March

31, 1998; January 7, 1998, for programs

beginning between April 1 and June 30,

1998; April 1, 1998, for programs

beginning between July 1 and

September 30, 1998; and July 1, 1998,

for programs beginning between October

1 and December 31, 1998; and Subject

to the availability of appropriations,

October 1, 1998, for programs beginning

between January 1 and March 31, 1999.

No exceptions or extensions will be

granted. Applicants are encouraged not

to wait for the decision on the

scholarship to register for the

educational program they wish to

attend.

(d) Concurrence Requirement. All

scholarship applicants must obtain the

written concurrence of the Chief Justice

of their State’s Supreme Court (or the

Chief Justice’s designee) on the

Institute’s Judicial Education

Scholarship Concurrence form (Form

S2, see Appendix V). Court managers,

other than elected clerks of court, also

must submit a letter of support from

their supervisor. The Concurrence form

may accompany the application or be

sent separately. However, the original

signed Concurrence form must be

received by the Institute within two

weeks after the appropriate application

mailing deadline (i.e. by October 15,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51937

1997, or January 21, April 15, July 15,

or October 15, 1998). No application

will be reviewed if a signed

Concurrence form has not been received

by the required date.

(e) Review Procedures/Selection

Criteria. The Board of Directors has

delegated the authority to approve or

deny scholarships to its Judicial

Education Committee. The Institute

intends to notify each applicant whose

scholarship has been approved within

60 days after the relevant application

deadline. The Committee will reserve

sufficient funds each quarter to assure

the availability of scholarships

throughout the year.

The factors that the Institute will

consider in selecting scholarship

recipients are:

• The applicant’s need for education

in the particular course subject and how

the applicant would apply the

information/skills gained;

• The direct benefits to the

applicant’s court or the State’s court

system that would be derived from the

applicant’s participation in the specific

educational program, including a

description of the current legal,

procedural, administrative, or other

problems affecting the State’s courts that

are related to topics to be addressed at

the educational;

• The absence of educational

programs in the applicant’s State

addressing the particular topic;

• How the applicant will disseminate

the knowledge gained (e.g., by

developing/teaching a course or

providing in-service training for judges

or court personnel at the State or local

level);

• The length of time that the

applicant intends to serve as a judge or

court manager, assuming reelection or

reappointment, where applicable;

• The likelihood that the applicant

would be able to attend the program

without a scholarship;

• The unavailability of State or local

funds to cover the costs of attending the

program;

• The quality of the educational

program to be attended as demonstrated

by the sponsoring organization’s

experience in judicial education,

evaluations by participants or other

professionals in the field, or prior SJI

support for this or other programs

sponsored by the organization;

• Geographic balance;

• The balance of scholarships among

types of applicants and courts;

• The balance of scholarships among

educational programs; and

• The level of appropriations

available to the Institute in the current

year and the amount expected to be

available in succeeding fiscal years.

(f) Non-transferability. A scholarship

is not transferable to another individual.

It may be used only for the course

specified in the application unless the

recipient submits a letter requesting to

attend a different course. The letter

must explain the reasons for the change;

the need for the information or skills to

be provided by the new course; how the

information or skills will be used to

benefit the individual, his or her court,

and/or the courts of the State; and how

the knowledge or skills gained will be

disseminated. Requests to use a

scholarship for a different course must

be approved by the Judicial Education

Committee of the Institute’s Board of

Directors. Ordinarily, decisions on such

requests will be made within 30 days

after the receipt of the request letter.

(g) Responsibilities of Scholarship

Recipients. In order to receive the funds

authorized by a scholarship award,

recipients must submit a Scholarship

Payment Voucher (Form S3) together

with a tuition statement from the

program sponsor, and a transportation

fare receipt (or statement of the driving

mileage to and from the recipient’s

home to the site of the educational

program). Recipients also must submit

to the Institute a certificate of

attendance at the program, an

evaluation of the educational program

they attended, and a copy of the notice

of any scholarship funds received from

other sources. A copy of the evaluation

must be sent to the Chief Justice of their

State.

A State or a local jurisdiction may

impose additional requirements on

scholarship recipients that are

consistent with SJI’s criteria and

requirements, e.g., a requirement to

serve as faculty on the subject at a Stateor locally- sponsored judicial education

program.

iv. National Conferences. This

category includes support for national

conferences on topics of major concern

to State court judges and personnel

across the nation. Applicants are

encouraged to consider the use of

videoconference and other technologies

to increase participation and limit travel

expenses in planning and presenting

conferences. In planning a conference,

applicants should provide for a written,

video, or computer-based product that

would widely disseminate information,

findings, and any recommendations

resulting from the conference.

The Institute is particularly interested

in supporting:

(a) A National Symposium on the

Future of Court Education to provide

guidance to the courts, judicial

education providers, the Institute, and

other grantmaking organizations. The

Symposium should provide a forum for

discussing:

• The best methods for using

technologically-based educational

approaches, and the most effective ways

of integrating those approaches into

effective court education programs;

• The design and implementation of

programs that address all adult learning

styles;

• The incorporation of educational

programs and opportunities as an

integral part of on-going court

operations;

• The appropriate and effective use of

experiential learning approaches;

• The most practical and informative

methods for evaluating learning and its

impact on the knowledge and skills of

individual learners, the effect on the

operations of their courts, and the

impact on the quality of the services

provided to those who use the courts;

and

• How judicial education may change

over the next 10 to 20 years, strategic

plans for realizing those changes, and

recommendations for how SJI, other

grantmakers, and adult education

providers can assist in implementing

those changes.

(b) A National Conference on

Unrepresented Litigants in Court

involving judges, court managers,

policymakers, bar leaders, scholars and

the public, to:

• Develop a clearer understanding of

the proportion and nature of litigants

who choose to represent themselves in

courts;

• Obtain information about the nature

and effectiveness of innovative

programs, procedures, programs, and

materials developed by jurisdictions

throughout the country;

• Identify problem areas that remain;

and

• Prepare action plans and

recommendations on how to address

those problems at the local, State, and

national levels.

c. Dispute Resolution and the Courts:

This category includes research,

evaluation, and demonstration projects

to evaluate or enhance the effectiveness

of court-connected dispute resolution

programs. The Institute is interested in

projects that facilitate comparison

among research studies by using similar

measures and definitions; address the

nature and operation of ADR programs

within the context of the court system

as a whole; and compare dispute

resolution processes to attorney

settlement as well as trial. Specific

topics of interest include:
51938 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

• Determining the appropriate timing

for referrals to dispute resolution

services to enhance settlements and

reduce time to disposition;

• Assessing the effect of different

referral methods including any

differences in outcome between

voluntary and mandatory referrals;

• Comparing the appropriateness and

effectiveness of facilitative and

evaluative mediation in various types of

cases;

• Testing innovative approaches that

provide rural courts and other underserved areas with adequate courtconnected dispute resolution services;

• Evaluating innovative courtconnected dispute resolution programs

for resolving specific types of cases such

as guardianship petitions, probate

proceedings, land-use disputes, and

complex and multi-party litigation;

• Testing of methods that courts can

use to assure the quality of courtconnected dispute resolution programs;

and

• Developing guidelines on what

actions by non-lawyer mediators may

constitute the unauthorized practice of

law.

Applicants should be aware that the

Institute will not provide operational

support for on-going ADR programs or

start-up costs of non-innovative ADR

programs. Courts also should be advised

that it is preferable for the applicant to

use its funds to support the operational

costs of an innovative program and

request Institute funds to support

related technical assistance, training,

and evaluation elements of the program.

In previous funding cycles, the

Institute has supported projects to

evaluate the use of mediation in civil,

domestic relations, juvenile, medical

malpractice, appellate, and minor

criminal cases, as well as in resolving

grievances of court employees. SJI

grants also have supported assessments

of the impact of private judging on State

courts; multi-door courthouse programs;

arbitration of civil cases; screening and

intake procedures for mediation; the

relationship of mediator training and

qualifications to case outcome and party

satisfaction; early referrals to mediation

in divorce proceedings; and trial and

appellate level civil settlement

programs.

In addition, SJI has supported two

national conferences on court-connected

dispute resolution; a national ADR

resource center and a national database

of court-connected dispute resolution

programs; training programs for judges

and mediators; the testing of Statewide

and trial court-based ADR monitoring/

evaluation systems and implementation

manuals; the promulgation and

implementation of principles and

policies regarding the qualifications,

selection, and training of courtconnected neutrals; development of

standards for court-annexed mediation

programs; and an examination of the

applicability of various dispute

resolution procedures to different

cultural groups.

d. Application of Technology: This

category includes the testing of

innovative applications of technology to

improve the operation of court

management systems and judicial

practices at both the trial and appellate

court levels.

The Institute seeks to support local

experiments with promising but

untested applications of technology in

the courts that include an evaluation of

the impact of the technology in terms of

costs, benefits, and staff workload, and

a training component to assure that staff

is appropriately educated about the

purpose and use of the new technology.

In this context, ‘‘untested’’ refers to

novel applications of technology

developed for the private sector and

other fields that have not previously

been applied to the courts.

The Institute is particularly interested

in supporting efforts to:

• Evaluate the use of the Internet for

case and document filing, and develop

model rules governing electronic filing

and notice;

• Establish standards for judicial

electronic data interchange (EDI), and

test local, Statewide, and/or interstate

demonstrations of the courts’ use of EDI;

• Demonstrate and evaluate the use of

videoconferencing technology to present

testimony by witnesses in remote

locations, and appellate arguments (but

see the limitations specified below); and

• Assess the impact of the use of

multimedia CD–ROM-based briefs on

the courts, parties, counsel, and the trial

or appellate process.

Ordinarily, the Institute will not

provide support for the purchase of

equipment or software in order to

implement a technology that is

commonly used by courts, such as

videoconferencing between courts and

jails, optical imaging for recordkeeping,

and automated management information

systems. (See also section XI.H.2.b.

regarding other limits on the use of

grant funds to purchase equipment and

software.)

In previous funding cycles, grants

have been awarded to support projects

that: demonstrate and evaluate the

availability of electronic forms and

information on the Internet to assist pro

se litigants; access to case data via the

Internet; electronic filing and document

transfer; an electronic document

management system; a court

management information display

system; the integration of bar-coding

technology with an existing automated

case management system; an on-bench

automated system for generating and

processing court orders; an automated

judicial education management system;

a document management system for

small courts using imaging technology;

a computerized citizen intake and

referral service; an ‘‘analytic judicial

desktop system’’ to assist judges in

making sentencing decisions; and the

use of automated teller machines for

paying jurors.

Grants have also supported national

court technology conferences; a court

technology laboratory to provide judges

and court managers an opportunity to

test automated court-related hardware

and software; a technical information

service to respond to specific inquiries

concerning court-related technologies;

development of recommendations for

electronic transfer of court documents,

model rules on the use of computergenerated demonstrative evidence and

electronic documentary evidence, and

guidelines on privacy and public access

to electronic court information and on

court access to the information

superhighway; implementation and

evaluation of a Statewide automated

integrated case docketing and recordkeeping system; and computer

simulation models to assist State courts

in evaluating potential strategies for

improving civil caseflow.

e. Court Planning, Management,

Financing: The Institute is interested in

supporting projects that explore

emerging issues that will affect the State

courts as they enter the 21st Century, as

well as projects that develop and test

innovative approaches for managing the

courts, securing and managing the

resources required to fully meet the

responsibilities of the judicial branch,

and institutionalizing long-range

planning processes. In particular the

Institute is interested in:

i. Demonstration, evaluation,

education, research, and technical

assistance projects to:

• Develop, implement, and assess

innovative case management techniques

for specialized calendars including but

not limited to drug courts, domestic

violence courts, juvenile courts, and

family courts;

• Facilitate communication,

information sharing, and coordination

between the juvenile and criminal

courts;

• Assess the effects of innovative

management approaches designed to

assure quality services to court users;
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51939

• Strengthen the leadership skills of

presiding judges and court managers;

• Develop and test methods for

facilitating and implementing change

and for encouraging excellence in court

operations;

• Demonstrate and assess the

effective use of staff teams in court

operations;

• Institutionalize long-range planning

approaches in individual States and

local jurisdictions, including

development of an ongoing internal

capacity to conduct environmental

scanning, trends analysis, and

benchmarking; and

• Develop and test mechanisms for

linking assessments of effectiveness

such as the Trial Court Performance

Standards to fiscal planning and

budgeting, including service efforts and

accomplishments approaches (SEA),

performance audits, and performance

budgeting; and

• Test innovative programs and

procedures for providing clear and open

communications between the judicial

and legislative branches of government.

ii. Education, technical assistance,

and other projects to facilitate the

establishment, maintenance, and

institutionalization of effective

partnerships among courts, criminal

justice agencies, treatment providers,

and other organizations (e.g., shelters for

victims of domestic violence) that

promote effective responses to

particular types of cases or classes of

offenders. These partnerships can take

many forms such as drug courts, family

violence coordinating councils, sex

offender management teams, and

intermediate sanctions working groups.

Although many jurisdictions have

already undertaken one or more such

team efforts, the promise of these

collaborations has too often been

squandered as a result of the difficulties

the participating courts and agencies

face in reconciling their distinct and, in

some cases, adversarial responsibilities

with the idea of working together

toward a common goal.

The Institute anticipates joining

together with several Federal grant

agencies to support one or more

teambuilding projects that will help

each agency achieve its respective

statutory mission. These activities could

include:

• Preparing and presenting

educational programs to foster

development of effective teams;

• Delivering on-site technical

assistance to develop a team or enhance

an existing partnership;

• Providing information on

teambuilding through a national

resource center; and

• Preparing manuals, guides, and

other written and visual products to

assist the development and operation of

effective teams.

Applicants should address how they

would enter into collaborative

relationships with other organizations to

provide the diverse services and the full

range of necessary expertise to

interested jurisdictions in a timely

fashion.

iii. Demonstration, evaluation,

education, technical assistance, and

research projects to implement the

National Agenda on Assuring Prompt

and Affordable Justice being developed

under grant no. SJI–97–004, due to be

completed this fall. The key elements of

the agenda will be published in the

winter issue of SJI News. Concept

papers addressing this topic must be

mailed by March 12, 1998.

iv. The preparation of ‘‘think pieces’’

exploring possible changes in the court

process or judicial administration and

their implications for judges, court

managers, policymakers, and the public.

Grants supporting such projects are

limited to no more than $10,000. The

resulting essay should be directed to the

court community and be of publishable

quality.

Possible topics include, but are not

limited to: what the new ‘‘community

courts’’ can learn from the old justice of

the peace courts; the ramifications of

‘‘virtual trials’’ (i.e. proceedings in

which one or more trial participants

including the parties, counsel,

witnesses, the judge, and the jury may

not be physically in the courtroom); the

implications of the use of technologyenhanced courtroom presentations,

especially when there is an imbalance of

resources among the parties; the

appropriateness of modifying methods

of selecting, qualifying, and using juries;

and the uses of technology to better

prepare and inform jurors.

In previous funding cycles, the

Institute has supported national and

Statewide ‘‘future and the courts’’

conferences and training; curricula,

guidebooks, a video on visioning, and a

long-range planning guide for trial

courts; and technical assistance to

courts conducting futures and longrange planning.

SJI has also supported executive

management programs for teams of

judges and court administrators; a test of

the feasibility of implementing the Trial

Court Performance Standards in four

States; Appellate Court Performance

Standards and Measures; a TQM

guidebook and training materials for

trial courts; revision of the Standards on

Judicial Administration; projects

identifying the causes of delay in trial

and appellate courts; the preparation of

a national agenda for reducing litigation

cost and delay; the testing of various

types of weighted caseload systems; a

National Interbranch Conference on

Funding the State Courts; and National

Symposia on Court Management.

f. Resolution of Current Evidentiary

Issues: This category includes

educational programs, the development

of model rules and jury instructions,

and other projects to assist judges in

deciding questions regarding:

• The admissibility and effectiveness

of new forms of demonstrative evidence,

including computer simulations;

• The admissibility and weight to be

given to complex scientific or technical

evidence under the standards set forth

in Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

• The admissibility of genetic

evidence generally, and the findings of

the 1996 National Academy of Sciences

report evaluating forensic DNA

evidence, in particular; and

• The appropriateness of awards of

punitive damages.

In previous funding cycles, the

Institute has supported the analysis of

issues related to the use of expert

testimony in criminal cases involving

domestic violence; a computer-assisted

training program on evidentiary

problems for juvenile and family court

judges; training on medical/legal and

scientific evidence issues and regional

seminars on evidentiary questions; a

videotape and other materials on

scientific evidence; a workshop on the

use of DNA evidence in criminal

proceedings; and benchbooks on

evidentiary issues pertaining to

psychiatric evidence and testimony, and

to testimony by child witnesses.

g. Substance Abuse: This category

includes education, technical

assistance, research, and evaluation

projects to assist courts in handling a

large volume of substance abuse-related

criminal, civil, juvenile, and domestic

relations cases fairly and expeditiously

The Institute is particularly interested

in projects to:

• Assess the effect of managed healthcare plans on the availability and cost

of drug treatment services for courtenforced treatment programs, and assist

courts in shaping managed care plans to

enhance the availability of necessary

services at a reasonable cost;

• Prepare and test measures, forms,

and other tools to facilitate selfevaluation of court-enforced substance

abuse treatment programs; and

• Develop and deliver educational

programs or technical assistance to help

courts in designing, managing, or

evaluating drug court programs for
51940 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

adults or juveniles. (This does not

include providing support for planning,

establishing, operating, or enhancing a

local drug court. Applicants interested

in obtaining such operational support

should contact the Drug Court Program

Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice.)

The Institute has supported the

presentation of the 1995 National

Symposium on the Implementation and

Operation of Court-Enforced Drug

Treatment Programs as well as the 1991

National Conference on Substance

Abuse and the Courts, and efforts to

implement the State and local plans

developed at these Conferences.

It has also supported projects to

evaluate court-enforced treatment

programs, special court-ordered

programs for women offenders, and

other court-based alcohol and drug

assessment programs; test the

applicability of drug courts in nonurban sites; involve community groups

and families in drug court programs;

assess the impact of legislation and

court decisions dealing with drugaffected infants; develop strategies for

coping with increasing caseload

pressures, and benchbooks and other

educational materials on child abuse

and neglect cases involving parental

substance abuse and appropriate

sentences for pregnant substance

abusers; test the use of a dual diagnostic

treatment model for domestic violence

cases in which substance abuse was a

factor; and present local and regional

educational programs for judges and

other court personnel on substance

abuse and its treatment. In addition, SJI

has supported an information system

that permits courts, criminal justice

agencies, and drug treatment providers

to share information electronically.

h. Children and Families in Court:

This category includes education,

demonstration, evaluation, technical

assistance, and research projects to

identify and inform judges of

innovative, effective approaches for

handling cases involving children and

families. The Institute is particularly

interested in projects that:

i. Assist courts in addressing the

special needs of children in cases

involving family violence including the

development and testing of innovative

protocols, procedures, educational

programs, and other measures for

improving the capacity of courts to:

• Coordinate and adjudicate child

custody and family violence cases

involving the same family;

• Determine and address the service

needs of children exposed to family

violence and the methods for mitigating

those effects when issuing protection,

custody, visitation, or other orders; and

• Adjudicate and monitor child abuse

and neglect litigation and reconcile the

need to protect the child with the

requirement to make reasonable efforts

to maintain or reunite the family.

ii. Enhance the fairness and

effectiveness of proceedings regarding a

juvenile accused of committing a

delinquent or criminal offense,

including projects that:

• Prepare and test curricula and

materials for judges on how to manage

cases involving gang members fairly,

safely, and effectively, including the use

of appropriate procedures for

determining pre-adjudication release,

protecting witnesses, and developing

effective dispositions;

• Develop and test effective

approaches for the detention,

adjudication, and disposition of

juveniles under age 13 who are accused

of involvement in a violent offense; and

• Develop and test effective policies,

procedures, and educational materials

for judges regarding cases in which a

juvenile is tried as an adult.

iii. Improve the fairness and

effectiveness of proceedings to

determine custody, visitation, and

support issues, including projects that

develop and test guidelines, curricula,

and other materials to assist trial judges

in:

• Determining the best interest of a

child;

• Enforcing visitation orders fairly

and effectively; and

• Establishing and enforcing custody,

and support orders in cases in which a

child’s parents were never married to

each other.

iv. Improve the effectiveness and

operating efficiency of juvenile and

family courts, including projects to:

• Develop and test innovative

techniques for improving

communication, sharing information,

and coordinating juvenile and criminal

courts and divisions; and

• Implement the action agenda

developed at the National Symposium

on Reviewing the Past and Looking

Toward the Future of the Juvenile Court

held in Reno, Nevada on September

28—October 1, 1997. The key elements

in the agenda will be published in the

winter issue of SJI News. Concept

papers addressing this topic must be

mailed by March 12, 1998.

In previous funding cycles, the

Institute supported national and State

conferences on courts, children, and the

family; a review of juvenile courts in

light of the upcoming 100th anniversary

of the founding of the first juvenile

court; validation of a risk assessment

tool for juvenile offenders; a symposium

on the resolution of interstate child

welfare issues; and educational

materials on the questioning of child

witnesses, making reasonable efforts to

preserve families, adjudicating

allegations of child sexual abuse when

custody is in dispute, child

victimization, handling child abuse and

neglect cases when parental substance

abuse is involved, and on children as

the silent victims of spousal abuse.

Other Institute grants have supported

the development of computer-based

training on the Uniform Interstate

Family Support Act, and the

examination of supervised visitation

programs, effective court responses

when domestic violence and custody

disputes coincide, and foster care

review procedures.

In addition, the Institute has

supported projects to enhance

coordination of cases involving the

same family that are being heard in

different courts; assist States

considering establishment of a family

court; develop national and State-based

training materials for guardians ad

litem; examine the authority of the

juvenile court to enforce treatment

orders and the role of juvenile court

judges; test the use of differentiated case

management in juvenile court; and

develop innovative approaches for

coordinating services for children and

youth.

i. Improving the Courts’ Response to

Domestic Violence: This category

includes innovative education,

demonstration, technical assistance,

evaluation, and research projects to

improve the fair and effective

processing, consideration, and

disposition of cases concerning

domestic violence and gender-related

violent crimes, including projects on:

• The effective use and enforcement

of intra-and inter-State protective orders

including implementation of the courtrelated findings and recommendations

resulting from the National Conference

on Full Faith and Credit: A Passport to

Safety to be held in Albuquerque, NM

in October, 1997. The key findings and

recommendations from the conference

will be published in the winter issue of

SJI News. Concept papers proposing

projects that follow up on the

conference must be mailed by March 12,

1998;

• The effective use of information

contained in protection order files

stored in court electronic databases

consistent with the protection of the

privacy and safety of victims of

violence;

• The effectiveness of specialized

calendars or divisions for considering
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51941

domestic violence cases and related

matters, including their impact on

victims, offenders, and court operations;

• Determining when it may be

appropriate to refer a case involving

family violence for mediation and what

procedures and safeguards should be

employed;

• Effective ways to coordinate the

response to domestic violence and

gender-related crimes of violence among

courts, criminal justice agencies, and

social services programs, and to assure

that courts are fully accessible to

victims of domestic violence and other

gender-related violent crimes;

• Special precautions that should be

taken and information that should be

provided when participants referred by

the court to a parent education program

may include parents from violent

homes; and

• Effective sentencing approaches in

cases involving domestic violence and

other gender-related crimes.

Institute funds may not be used to

provide operational support to programs

offering direct services or compensation

to victims of crimes. (Applicants

interested in obtaining such operational

support should contact the Office for

Victims of Crime (OVC), Office of

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice, or the agency in their State that

awards OVC funds to State and local

victim assistance and compensation

programs.)

In previous funding cycles, the

Institute supported national and State

conferences on family violence and the

courts as well as projects to implement

the action plans developed at these

conferences; symposia and guides on

the implementation of the full faith and

credit requirements included in the

Violence Against Women Act; curricula

for judges on a range of topics regarding

the handling of family violence, rape,

and sexual assault cases; and

preparation of descriptions of

innovative court practices in family

violence cases, including programs for

battered mothers and their children, and

procedures for coordinating multiple

cases involving a single family.

The Institute also has funded

evaluations of the effectiveness of

specialized domestic violence

calendars, court-ordered treatment for

family violence offenders, the use of

alternatives to adjudication in child

abuse cases, and procedures to improve

the effectiveness of civil protection

orders for family violence victims;

development of recommendations on

how to improve access to rural courts

for victims of family violence, and to

collect and report dispositional and

other data concerning family violence

cases; research and judicial education

on the use of mediation in domestic

relations cases involving allegations of

violence, the relevancy of culture in

adjudicating and disposing of family

violence cases, and effective sentencing

of sex offenders; videotapes and other

educational programs for the parties in

divorce actions and their children;

analyses of the issues related to the use

of expert testimony in criminal cases

involving domestic violence; and

development of electronic links among

courts, criminal justice agencies, and

service providers to share information

and assist victims of violence.

j. Improving Sentencing Practices.

This category includes education,

demonstration, technical assistance,

evaluation, and research projects to

address and implement the findings and

recommendations reached at the

National Symposium on Sentencing:

The Judicial Response to Crime, to be

held in San Diego, CA on November 1–

4, 1997. The key findings and

recommendations will be published in

the winter issue of SJI News. Concept

papers submitted under this category

must be mailed by March 12, 1998.

k. Improving Court Security. This

category includes demonstration,

evaluation, technical assistance,

education, and research projects to

enhance the security of courthouses and

the people who use and work in them.

The Institute is particularly interested in

supporting innovative projects to:

• Develop policies, protocols, and

procedures designed to prevent

harassment, threats, and incidents

endangering the lives and property of

judges, court employees, jurors,

litigants, witnesses, and other members

of the public in court facilities;

• Evaluate innovative applications of

technology to prevent courthouse

incidents that endanger the lives and

property of judges, court personnel, and

courtroom participants; and

• Develop and test model training

programs that will assist judges and

court personnel in protecting their

safety and that of jurors, litigants,

witnesses, and other members of the

public in court facilities, and in

managing cases involving individuals or

organizations unwilling to cooperate

with legal or administrative procedures.

In previous funding cycles, the

Institute has supported a demonstration

project to organize sharing of court

security staff between counties; a court

security clearinghouse; and an

educational program and benchbook on

the common law court movement.

l. The Relationship Between State and

Federal Courts: This category includes

education, research, demonstration, and

evaluation projects designed to facilitate

appropriate and effective

communication, cooperation, and

coordination between State and Federal

courts. The Institute is particularly

interested in innovative projects that:

i. Develop and test curricula and

disseminate information regarding

effective methods being used at the trial

court, State, and Circuit levels to

coordinate cases and administrative

activities; and

ii. Develop and test new approaches

to:

• Implement the habeas corpus

provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of

1996;

• Handle capital habeas corpus cases

fairly and efficiently;

• Coordinate and process mass tort

cases fairly and efficiently at the trial

and appellate levels;

• Coordinate the adjudication of

related State and Federal criminal cases;

• Coordinate related State and

Federal cases that may be brought under

the Violence Against Women Act;

• Exchange information and

coordinate calendars among State and

Federal courts; and

• Share facilities, jury pools,

alternative dispute resolution programs,

information regarding persons on

pretrial release or probation, and court

services.

In previous funding cycles, the

Institute has supported national and

regional conferences on State-Federal

judicial relationships, a national

conference on mass tort litigation, and

the Chief Justices’ Special Committee on

Mass Tort Litigation.

In addition, the Institute has

supported projects testing the use

common electronic filing process for the

State and Federal courts in New Mexico,

and other methods of State and Federal

trial and appellate court cooperation;

developing judicial impact statement

procedures for national legislation

affecting State courts; establishing

procedures for facilitating certification

of questions of law; assessing the impact

on the State courts of diversity cases

and cases brought under section 1983,

the procedures used in Federal habeas

corpus review of State court criminal

cases, and the factors that motivate

litigants to select Federal or State courts;

and the mechanisms for transferring

cases between Federal and State courts,

as well as the methods for effectively

consolidating, deciding, and managing

complex litigation.

The Institute has also supported a

clearinghouse of information on State

constitutional law decisions;

educational programs for State judges

on coordination of Federal bankruptcy
51942 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

cases with State litigation; and the

assignment of specialized law clerks to

trial courts hearing capital cases in

order to improve the fairness and

efficiency of death penalty litigation at

the trial level.

C. Single Jurisdiction Projects

The Board will consider supporting a

limited number of projects submitted by

State or local courts that address the

needs of only the applicant State or

local jurisdiction. The Institute has

established two categories of Single

Jurisdiction Projects:

1. Projects Addressing a Critical Need of

a Single State or Local Jurisdiction

a. Description of the Program. The

Board will set aside up to $300,000 to

support projects submitted by State or

local courts that address the needs of

only the applicant State or local

jurisdiction. A project under this section

may address any of the topics included

in the Special Interest Categories or

Statutory Program Areas.

Concept papers for single jurisdiction

projects may be submitted by a State

court system, an appellate court, or a

limited or general jurisdiction trial

court. All awards under this category

are subject to the matching requirements

set forth in section X.B.1.

In particular, the Institute is

interested in awarding replication grants

to support the implementation of

programs, procedures, or strategies that

have been developed, demonstrated, or

evaluated by SJI-supported projects. (A

list of examples of such projects is

contained in Appendix IV.) Ordinarily,

the Institute will not provide support

solely for the purchase of equipment or

software.

b. Application Procedures. Concept

papers and applications requesting

funds for projects under this section

must meet the requirements of sections

VI. (‘‘Concept Paper Submission

Requirements for New Projects’’) and

VII. (‘‘Application Requirements’’),

respectively, and must demonstrate that:

i. The proposed project is essential to

meeting a critical need of the

jurisdiction; and

ii. The need cannot be met solely with

State and local resources within the

foreseeable future.

2. Technical Assistance Grants

a. Description of the Program. The

Board will set aside up to $400,000 to

support the provision of technical

assistance to State and local courts. The

exact amount to be awarded for these

grants will depend on the number and

quality of the applications submitted in

this category and other categories of the

Guideline. The Committee will reserve

sufficient funds each quarter to assure

the availability of technical assistance

grants throughout the year. The program

is designed to provide State and local

courts with sufficient support to obtain

technical assistance to diagnose a

problem, develop a response to that

problem, and initiate implementation of

any needed changes.

Technical Assistance grants are

limited to no more than $30,000 each,

and may cover the cost of obtaining the

services of expert consultants; travel by

a team of officials from one court to

examine a practice, program, or facility

in another jurisdiction that the

applicant court is interested in

replicating; or both. Technical

assistance grant funds ordinarily may

not be used to support production of a

videotape. Normally, the technical

assistance must be completed within 12

months after the start-date of the grant.

b. Eligibility for Technical Assistance

Grants. Only a State or local court may

apply for a Technical Assistance grant.

As with other awards to State or local

courts, cash or in-kind match must be

provided equal to at least 50% of the

grant amount.

c. Review Criteria. Technical

Assistance grants will be awarded on

the basis of criteria including: Whether

the assistance would address a critical

need of the court; the soundness of the

technical assistance approach to the

problem; the qualifications of the

consultant(s) to be hired, or the specific

criteria that will be used to select the

consultant(s); commitment on the part

of the court to act on the consultant’s

recommendations; and the

reasonableness of the proposed budget.

The Institute also will consider factors

such as the level and nature of the

match that would be provided, diversity

of subject matter, geographic diversity,

the level of appropriations available to

the Institute in the current year, and the

amount expected to be available in

succeeding fiscal years.

The Board has delegated its authority

to approve these grants to its Technical

Assistance Committee.

d. Application Procedures. In lieu of

formal applications, applicants for

Technical Assistance grants may

submit, at any time, an original and

three copies of a detailed letter

describing the proposed project and

addressing the issues listed below.

Letters from an individual trial or

appellate court must be signed by the

presiding judge or manager of that court.

Letters from the State court system must

be signed by the Chief Justice or State

Court Administrator.

Although there is no prescribed form

for the letter nor a minimum or

maximum page limit, letters of

application should include the

following information to assure that

each of the criteria is addressed:

i. Need for Funding. What is the

critical need facing the court? How will

the proposed technical assistance help

the court meet this critical need? Why

cannot State or local resources fully

support the costs of the required

consultant services?

ii. Project Description. What tasks

would the consultant be expected to

perform and how would they be

accomplished? Which organization or

individual would be hired to provide

the assistance and how was this

consultant selected? If a consultant has

not yet been identified, what procedures

and criteria would be used to select the

consultant? (Applicants are expected to

follow their jurisdiction’s normal

procedures for procuring consultant

services.) What is the time frame for

completion of the technical assistance?

How would the court oversee the project

and provide guidance to the consultant,

and who at the court would be

responsible for coordinating all project

tasks and submitting quarterly progress

and financial status reports?

If the consultant has been identified,

the applicant should provide a letter

from that individual or organization

documenting interest in and availability

for the project, as well as the

consultant’s ability to complete the

assignment within the proposed time

period and for the proposed cost. The

consultant must agree to submit a

detailed written report to the court and

the Institute upon completion of the

technical assistance.

iii. Likelihood of Implementation.

What steps have been/will be taken to

facilitate implementation of the

consultant’s recommendations upon

completion of the technical assistance?

For example, if the support or

cooperation of specific court officials or

committees, other agencies, funding

bodies, organizations, or a court other

than the applicant will be needed to

adopt the changes recommended by the

consultant and approved by the court,

how will they be involved in the review

of the recommendations and

development of the implementation

plan?

iv. Budget and Matching State

Contribution. A completed Form E,

‘‘Preliminary Budget’’ (see Appendix V)

and budget narrative must be included

with the applicant’s letter requesting

technical assistance. The estimated cost

of the technical assistance services

should be broken down into the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51943

categories listed on the budget form

rather than aggregated under the

Consultant/Contractual category.

The budget narrative should provide

the basis for all project-related costs,

including the basis for determining the

estimated consultant costs, if

compensation of the consultant is

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

times the requested daily consultant

rate). Applicants should be aware that

consultant rates above $300 per day

must be approved in advance by the

Institute, and that grant funds cannot be

paid to a consultant at a rate in excess

of $900 per day.

Ordinarily, attorneys in private

practice are expected to provide

consulting services to court

improvement or education projects on a

pro bono basis.

In addition, the budget should

provide for submission of two copies of

the consultant’s final report to the

Institute.

Recipients of technical assistance

grants do not have to submit an audit,

but must maintain appropriate

documentation to support expenditures.

(See section X.M.)

v. Support for the Project from the

State Supreme Court or its Designated

Agency or Council. Written concurrence

on the need for the technical assistance

must be submitted. This concurrence

may be a copy of SJI Form B (see

Appendix VI) signed by the Chief

Justice of the State Supreme Court or the

Chief Justice’s designee, or a letter from

the State Chief Justice or designee. The

concurrence may be submitted with the

applicant’s letter or under separate

cover prior to consideration of the

application. The concurrence also must

specify whether the State Supreme

Court would receive, administer, and

account for the grant funds, if awarded,

or would designate the local court or a

specified agency or council to receive

the funds directly.

Letters of application may be

submitted at any time; however, all of

the letters received during a calendar

quarter will be considered at one time.

Applicants submitting letters between

June 14 and September 30, 1997 will be

notified of the Board’s decision by

December 5, 1997; those submitting

letters between October 1, 1997 and

January 16, 1998 will be notified by

March 27, 1998; notification of the

Board’s decisions concerning letters

mailed between January 17 and March

13, 1998, will be made by May 29, 1998;

notice of decisions regarding letters

submitted between March 14 and June

12, 1998 will be made by August 28,

1998. Subject to the availability of

sufficient appropriations for fiscal year

1999, applicants submitting letters

between June 13 and September 30,

1998, will be notified by December 18,

1998.

If the support or cooperation of

agencies, funding bodies, organizations,

or courts other than the applicant,

would be needed in order for the

consultant to perform the required tasks,

written assurances of such support or

cooperation should accompany the

application letter. Support letters also

may be submitted under separate cover;

however, to ensure that there is

sufficient time to bring them to the

attention of the Board’s Technical

Assistance Committee, letters sent

under separate cover must be received

not less than two weeks prior to the

Board meeting at which the technical

assistance requests will be considered

(i.e., by October 31, 1997, and February

12, April 17, July 10, 1998, and October

30, 1998).

vi. Grantee Responsibilities.

Technical Assistance grant recipients

are subject to the same quarterly

reporting requirements as other Institute

grantees. At the conclusion of the grant

period, a Technical Assistance grant

recipient must complete a Technical

Assistance Evaluation Form. The

grantee also must submit to the Institute

two copies 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.

III. Definitions

The following definitions apply for

the purposes of this guideline:

A. Institute

The State Justice Institute.

B. State Supreme Court

The highest appellate court in a State,

or, for the purposes of the Institute

program, a constitutionally or

legislatively established judicial council

that acts in place of that court. In States

having more than one court with final

appellate authority, State Supreme

Court shall mean that court which also

has administrative responsibility for the

State’s judicial system. State Supreme

Court also includes the office of the

court or council, if any, it designates to

perform the functions described in this

Guideline.

C. Designated Agency or Council

The office or judicial body which is

authorized under State law or by

delegation from the State Supreme

Court to approve applications for funds

and to receive, administer, and be

accountable for those funds.

D. Grantee

The organization, entity, or individual

to which an award of Institute funds is

made. For a grant based on an

application from a State or local court,

grantee refers to the State Supreme

Court or its designee.

E. Subgrantee

A State or local court which receives

Institute funds through the State

Supreme Court.

F. Match

The portion of project costs not borne

by the Institute. Match includes both inkind and cash contributions. Cash

match is the direct outlay of funds by

the grantee to support the project. Inkind match consists of contributions of

time, services, space, supplies, etc.,

made to the project by the grantee or

others (e.g., advisory board members)

working directly on the project. Under

normal circumstances, allowable match

may be incurred only during the project

period. When appropriate, and with the

prior written permission of the Institute,

match may be incurred from the date of

the Board of Directors’ approval of an

award. Match does not include projectrelated income such as tuition or

revenue from the sale of grant products,

or the time of participants attending an

education program. Amounts

contributed as cash or in-kind match

may not be recovered through the sale

of grant products during or following

the grant period.

G. Continuation Grant

A grant of no more than 24 months to

permit completion of activities initiated

under an existing Institute grant or

enhancement of the products or services

produced during the prior grant period.

H. On-Going Support Grant

A grant of up to 36 months to support

a project that is national in scope and

that provides the State courts with

services, programs or products for

which there is a continuing critical

need.

I. Human Subjects

Individuals who are participants in an

experimental procedure or who are

asked to provide information about

themselves, their attitudes, feelings,

opinions and/or experiences through an

interview, questionnaire, or other data

collection technique.

J. Curriculum

The materials needed to replicate an

education or training program

developed with grant funds including,

but not limited to: The learning
51944 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

objectives; the presentation methods; a

sample agenda or schedule; an outline

of presentations and other instructors’

notes; copies of overhead transparencies

or other visual aids; exercises, case

studies, hypotheticals, quizzes and

other materials for involving the

participants; background materials for

participants; evaluation forms; and

suggestions for replicating the program

including possible faculty or the

preferred qualifications or experience of

those selected as faculty.

K. Products

Tangible materials resulting from

funded projects including, but not

limited to: Curricula; monographs;

reports; books; articles; manuals;

handbooks; benchbooks; guidelines;

videotapes; audiotapes; computer

software; and CD–ROM disks.

IV. Eligibility for Award

In awarding funds to accomplish

these objectives and purposes, the

Institute has been authorized by

Congress to award grants, cooperative

agreements, and contracts to State and

local courts and their agencies (42

U.S.C. 10705(b)(1)(A)); national

nonprofit organizations controlled by,

operating in conjunction with, and

serving the judicial branches of State

governments (42 U.S.C. 10705 (b)(1)(B));

and national nonprofit organizations for

the education and training of judges and

support personnel of the judicial branch

of State governments (42 U.S.C.

10705(b)(1)(C)).

An applicant will be considered a

national education and training

applicant under section 10705(b)(1)(C)

if: (1) The principal purpose or activity

of the applicant is to provide education

and training to State and local judges

and court personnel; and (2) the

applicant demonstrates a record of

substantial experience in the field of

judicial education and training.

The Institute also is authorized to

make awards to other nonprofit

organizations with expertise in judicial

administration, institutions of higher

education, individuals, partnerships,

firms, corporations, and private agencies

with expertise in judicial

administration, provided that the

objectives of the relevant program

area(s) can be served better. In making

this judgment, the Institute will

consider the likely replicability of the

projects’ methodology and results in

other jurisdictions. For-profit

organizations are also eligible for grants

and cooperative agreements; however,

they must waive their fees.

The Institute may also make awards to

Federal, State or local agencies and

institutions other than courts for

services that cannot be adequately

provided through nongovernmental

arrangements.

In addition, the Institute may enter

into inter-agency agreements with other

public or private funders to support

projects consistent with the purpose of

the State Justice Institute Act.

Each application for funding from a

State or local court must be approved,

consistent with State law, by the State’s

Supreme Court or its designated agency

or council. The latter shall receive all

Institute funds awarded to such courts

and be responsible for assuring proper

administration of Institute funds, in

accordance with section XI.B.2. of this

Guideline. A list of persons to contact

in each State regarding approval of

applications from State and local courts

and administration of Institute grants to

those courts is contained in Appendix I.

V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of

Awards

A. Types of Projects

Except as expressly provided in

section II.B.2.b. and II.C. above, the

Institute has placed no limitation on the

overall number of awards or the number

of awards in each special interest

category. The general types of projects

are:

1. Education and training;

2. Research and evaluation;

3. Demonstration; and

4. Technical assistance.

B. Types of Grants

The Institute has established the

following types of grants:

1. Project grants (See sections II.B.,

and C.1., VI., and VII.).

2. Continuation grants (See sections

III.H. and IX.A).

3. On-going Support grants (See

sections III.I. and IX.B.).

4. Technical Assistance grants (See

section II.C.2).

5. Curriculum Adaptation grants (See

section II.B.2.b.ii.).

6. Scholarships (See section

II.B.2.b.iii).

C. Maximum Size of Awards

1. Except as specified below,

applications for new project grants and

applications for continuation grants may

request funding in amounts up to

$200,000, although new and

continuation awards in excess of

$150,000 are likely to be rare and to be

made, if at all, only for highly promising

proposals that will have a significant

impact nationally.

2. Applications for on-going support

grants may request funding in amounts

up to $600,000 over three years,

although awards in excess of $450,000

are likely to be rare. At the discretion of

the Board, the funds for on-going

support grants may be awarded either

entirely from the Institute’s

appropriations for the fiscal year of the

award or from the Institute’s

appropriations for successive fiscal

years beginning with the fiscal year of

the award. When funds to support the

full amount of an on-going support grant

are not awarded from the appropriations

for the fiscal year of award, funds to

support any subsequent years of the

grant will be made available upon (1)

the satisfactory performance of the

project as reflected in the Quarterly

Progress Reports required to be filed and

grant monitoring; (2) the availability of

appropriations for that fiscal year; and

(3) the Board of Directors’ determination

that the project continues to fall within

the Institute’s priorities.

3. Applications for technical

assistance grants may request funding in

amounts up to $30,000.

4. Applications for curriculum

adaptation grants may request funding

in amounts up to $20,000.

5. Applications for scholarships may

request funding in amounts up to

$1,500.

D. Length of Grant Periods

1. Grant periods for all new and

continuation projects ordinarily will not

exceed 15 months.

2. Grant periods for on-going support

grants ordinarily will not exceed 36

months.

3. Grant periods for technical

assistance grants and curriculum

adaptation grants ordinarily will not

exceed 12 months.

VI. Concept Paper Submission

Requirements for New Projects

Concept papers are an extremely

important part of the application

process because they enable the

Institute to learn the topics of primary

interest to the courts and to explore

innovative ideas, without imposing

heavy burdens on prospective

applicants. The use of concept papers

also permits the Institute to better

project the nature and amount of grant

awards. The concept paper requirement

and the submission deadlines for

concept papers and applications may be

waived by the Executive Director for

good cause (e.g., the proposed project

could provide a significant benefit to the

State courts or the opportunity to

conduct the project did not arise until

after the deadline).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51945

A. Format and Content

All concept papers must include a

cover sheet, a program narrative, and a

preliminary budget.

1. The Cover Sheet

The cover sheet for all concept papers

must contain:

a. A title describing the proposed

project;

b. The name and address of the court,

organization, or individual submitting

the paper;

c. The name, title, address (if different

from that in b.), and telephone number

of a contact person who can provide

further information about the paper;

d. The letter of the Special Interest

Category (see section II.B.2.) or the

number of the statutory Program Area

(see section II.A.) that the proposed

project addresses most directly; and

e. The estimated length of the

proposed project.

Applicants requesting the Board to

waive the application requirement and

approve a grant of less than $40,000

based on the concept paper, should add

application waiver requested to the

information on the cover page.

2. The Program Narrative

The program narrative of a concept

paper should be no longer than

necessary, but may exceed eight (8)

double-spaced 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 narrative should

describe:

a. Why is this project needed and how

will it benefit State courts? If the project

is to be conducted in a specific

location(s), applicants should discuss

the particular needs of the project site(s)

to be addressed by the project, why

those needs are not being met through

the use of existing materials, programs,

procedures, services, or other resources,

and the benefits that would be realized

by the proposed site(s).

If the project is not site-specific,

applicants should discuss the problems

that the proposed project will address,

why existing materials, programs,

procedures, services, or other resources

do not adequately resolve those

problems, and the benefits that would

be realized from the project by State

courts generally.

b. What will be done if a grant is

awarded? Applicants should include a

summary description of the project to be

conducted and the approach to be taken,

including the anticipated length of the

grant period. Applicants requesting a

waiver of the application requirement

for a grant of less than $40,000 should

explain the proposed methods for

conducting the project as fully as space

allows, and include a detailed task

schedule as an attachment to the

concept paper.

c. How will the effects and quality of

the project be determined? Applicants

should include a summary description

of how the project will be evaluated,

including the evaluation criteria.

d. How will others find out about the

project and be able to use the results?

Applicants should describe the products

that will result, the degree to which they

will be applicable to courts across the

nation, and to whom the products and

results of the project will be

disseminated in addition to the SJIdesignated libraries (e.g., State chief

justices, specified groups of trial judges,

State court administrators, specified

groups of trial court administrators,

State judicial educators, or other

audiences).

3. The Budget

a. Preliminary Budget. A preliminary

budget must be attached to the narrative

that includes the information specified

on Form E included in Appendix VI of

this Guideline. Applicants should be

aware that prior written Institute

approval is required for any consultant

rate in excess of $300 per day, and that

Institute funds may not be used to pay

a consultant in excess of $900 per day.

(See section XI.H.2.c)

b. Concept Papers Requesting

Accelerated Award of a Grant of Less

than $40,000. Applicants requesting a

waiver of the application requirement

and approval of a grant based on a

concept paper under section VI.C., must

attach to Form E (see Appendix VI) a

budget narrative that explains the basis

for each of the items listed, and

indicates whether the costs would be

paid from grant funds, through a

matching contribution, or from other

sources.

4. Letters of Cooperation or Support

The Institute encourages concept

paper applicants to attach letters of

cooperation and support from the courts

and related agencies that will be

involved in or directly affected by the

proposed project. Letters of support also

may be sent under separate cover.

However, in order to ensure that there

is sufficient time to bring them to the

Board’s attention, support letters sent

under separate cover must be received

no later than January 6, 1998.

5. Page Limits

a. The Institute will not accept

concept papers with program narratives

exceeding the limits set in sections

VI.A.2. The page limit does not include

the cover page, budget form, the budget

narrative if required under section

VI.A.3.b., the task schedule if required

under section VI.A.2.b., and any letters

of cooperation or endorsements.

Additional material should not be

attached unless it is essential to impart

a clear understanding of the project.

b. Applicants submitting more than

one concept paper may include material

that would be identical in each concept

paper in a cover letter, and incorporate

that material by reference in each paper.

The incorporated material will be

counted against the eight-page limit for

each paper. A copy of the cover letter

should be attached to each copy of each

concept paper.

6. Sample Concept Papers

Sample concept papers from previous

funding cycles are available from the

Institute upon request.

B. Selection Criteria

1. All concept papers will be

evaluated on the basis of the following

criteria:

a. The demonstration of need for the

project;

b. The soundness and innovativeness

of the approach described;

c. The benefits to be derived from the

project;

d. The reasonableness of the proposed

budget;

e. The proposed project’s relationship

to one of the ‘‘Special Interest’’

categories set forth in section II.B; and

f. The degree to which the findings,

procedures, training, technology, or

other results of the project can be

transferred to other jurisdictions.

‘‘Single jurisdiction’’ concept papers

submitted pursuant to section II.C. will

be rated on the proposed project’s

relation to one of the ‘‘Special Interest’’

categories set forth in section II.B., and

on the special requirements listed in

section II.C.1.

2. In determining which concept

papers will be approved for award or

selected for development into full

applications, the Institute will also

consider the availability of financial

assistance from other sources for the

project; the amount and nature (cash or

in-kind) of the applicant’s anticipated

match; whether the applicant is a State

court, a national court support or

education organization, a non-court unit

of government, or another type of entity

eligible to receive grants under the

Institute’s enabling legislation (see 42

U.S.C. 10705(b), as amended and

section IV above); the extent to which

the proposed project would also benefit

the Federal courts or help the State
51946 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

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.

C. Review Process

Concept papers will be reviewed

competitively by the Board of Directors.

Institute staff will prepare a narrative

summary and a rating sheet assigning

points for each relevant selection

criterion for those concept papers which

fall within the scope of the Institute’s

funding program and merit serious

consideration by the Board. Staff will

also prepare a list of those papers that,

in the judgment of the Executive

Director, propose projects that lie

outside the scope of the Institute’s

funding program or are not likely to

merit serious consideration by the

Board. The narrative summaries, rating

sheets, and list of non-reviewed papers

will be presented to the Board for its

review. Committees of the Board will

review concept paper summaries within

assigned program areas and prepare

recommendations for the full Board.

The full Board of Directors will then

decide which concept paper applicants

should be invited to submit formal

applications for funding. The decision

to invite an application is solely that of

the Board of Directors.

The Board may waive the application

requirement and approve a grant based

on a concept paper for a project

requiring less than $40,000, when the

need for and benefits of the project are

clear, and the methodology and budget

require little additional explanation.

Applicants considering whether to

request consideration for an accelerated

award should make certain that the

proposed budget is sufficient to

accomplish the project objectives in a

quality manner. Because the Institute’s

experience has been that projects to

conduct empirical research or a program

evaluation ordinarily require a more

thorough explanation of the

methodology to be used than can be

provided within the space limitations of

a concept paper, the Board is unlikely

to waive the application requirement for

such projects.

D. Submission Requirements

Except as noted below, an original

and three copies of all concept papers

submitted for consideration in Fiscal

Year 1998 must be sent by first class or

overnight mail or by courier no later

than November 24, 1997.

Concept papers proposing projects on

the following topics must be sent by

first class or overnight mail or by

courier no later than March 12, 1998:

• The National Agenda on Assuring

Prompt and Affordable Justice (section

II.B.2.e.iii.);

• The action agenda developed at the

National Symposium on Reviewing the

Past and Looking Toward the Future of

the Juvenile Court (section II.B.2.h.iv.);

• The findings and recommendations

resulting from the National Conference

on Full Faith and Credit: A Passport to

Safety (section II.B.2.i.); and

• The findings and recommendations

resulting from the National Symposium

on Sentencing: The Judicial Response to

Crime (section II.B.2.j.)

A postmark or courier receipt will

constitute evidence of the submission

date. All envelopes containing concept

papers should be marked Concept Paper

and should be sent to: State Justice

Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600,

Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

The Institute will send written notice

to all persons submitting concept

papers, informing them of the Board’s

decisions regarding their papers and of

the key issues and questions that arose

during the review process. A decision

by the Board not to invite an application

may not be appealed, but does not

prohibit resubmission of the concept

paper or a revision thereof in a

subsequent round of funding. The

Institute will also notify the designated

State contact listed in Appendix I when

the Board invites applications that are

based on concept papers which are

submitted by courts within their State or

which specify a participating site within

their State.

Receipt of each concept paper will be

acknowledged in writing. Extensions of

the deadline for submission of concept

papers will not be granted.

VII. Application Requirements for New

Projects

An application for Institute funding

support must include an application

form; budget forms (with appropriate

documentation); a project abstract and

program narrative; a disclosure of

lobbying form, when applicable; and

certain certifications and assurances.

These required application forms are

described below will be sent to

applicants when an application is

invited. Applicants may photocopy the

forms to make completion easier.

A. Forms

1. Application Form (Form A)

The application form requests basic

information regarding the proposed

project, the applicant, and the total

amount of funding support requested

from the Institute. It also requires the

signature of an individual authorized to

certify on behalf of the applicant that

the information contained in the

application is true and complete, that

submission of the application has been

authorized by the applicant, and that if

funding for the proposed project is

approved, the applicant will comply

with the requirements and conditions of

the award, including the assurances set

forth in Form D.

2. Certificate of State Approval (Form B)

An application from a State or local

court must include a copy of Form B

signed by the State’s Chief Justice or

Chief Judge, the director of the

designated agency, or the head of the

designated council. The signature

denotes that the proposed project has

been approved by the State’s highest

court or the agency or council it has

designated. It denotes further that if

funding for the project is approved by

the Institute, the court or the specified

designee will receive, administer, and

be accountable for the awarded funds.

3. Budget Forms (Form C or C1)

Applicants may submit the proposed

project budget either in the tabular

format of Form C or in the spreadsheet

format of Form C1. Applicants

requesting $100,000 or more are

strongly encouraged to use the

spreadsheet format. If the proposed

project period is for more than a year,

a separate form should be submitted for

each year or portion of a year for which

grant support is requested, as well as for

the total length of the project.

In addition to Form C or C1,

applicants must provide a detailed

budget narrative providing an

explanation of the basis for the

estimates in each budget category. (See

section VII.D.)

If funds from other sources are

required to conduct the project, either as

match or to support other aspects of the

project, the source, current status of the

request, and anticipated decision date

must be provided.

4. Assurances (Form D)

This form lists the statutory,

regulatory, and policy requirements and

conditions with which recipients of

Institute funds must comply.

5. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

This form requires applicants other

than units of State or local government

to disclose whether they, or another

entity that is part of the same

organization as the applicant, have

advocated a position before Congress on

any issue, and to identify the specific
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51947

subjects of their lobbying efforts. (See

section X.D.)

B. Project Abstract

The abstract should highlight the

purposes, goals, methods and

anticipated benefits of the proposed

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

C. Program Narrative

The program narrative for an

application should not exceed 25

double-spaced 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 page limit does not

include the forms, the abstract, the

budget narrative, and any appendices

containing resumes and letters of

cooperation or endorsement. Additional

background material should be attached

only if it is essential to impart a clear

understanding of the proposed project.

Numerous and lengthy appendices are

strongly discouraged.

The program narrative should address

the following topics:

1. Project Objectives

The applicant should include a clear,

concise statement of what the proposed

project is intended to accomplish. In

stating the objectives of the project,

applicants should focus on the overall

programmatic objective (e.g., to enhance

understanding and skills regarding a

specific subject, or to determine how a

certain procedure affects the court and

litigants) rather than on operational

objectives (e.g., provide training for 32

judges and court managers, or review

data from 300 cases).

2. Program Areas To Be Covered

The applicant should list the Special

Interest Category or Categories that are

addressed by the proposed project (see

section II.B.). If the proposed project

does not fall within one of the Institute’s

Special Interest Categories, the

applicant should list the Statutory

Program Area or Areas that are

addressed by the proposed project. (See

section II.A.)

3. Need for the Project

If the project is to be conducted in a

specific location(s), the applicant

should discuss the particular needs of

the project site(s) to be addressed by the

project and why those needs are not

being met through the use of existing

materials, programs, procedures,

services, or other resources.

If the project is not site-specific, the

applicant should discuss the problems

that the proposed project would

address, and why existing materials,

programs, procedures, services, or other

resources do not adequately resolve

those problems. The discussion should

include specific references to the

relevant literature and to the experience

in the field.

4. Tasks, Methods and Evaluation

a. Tasks and Methods. The applicant

should delineate the tasks to be

performed in achieving the project

objectives and the methods to be used

for accomplishing each task. For

example:

i. For research and evaluation

projects, the applicant should include

the data sources, data collection

strategies, variables to be examined, and

analytic procedures to be used for

conducting the research or evaluation

and ensuring the validity and general

applicability of the results. For projects

involving human subjects, the

discussion of methods should address

the procedures for obtaining

respondents’ informed consent,

ensuring the respondents’ privacy and

freedom from risk or harm, and the

protection of others who are not the

subjects of research but would be

affected by the research. If the potential

exists for risk or harm to the human

subjects, a discussion should be

included that explains the value of the

proposed research and the methods to

be used to minimize or eliminate such

risk.

ii. For education and training projects,

the applicant should include the adult

education techniques to be used in

designing and presenting the program,

including the teaching/learning

objectives of the educational design, the

teaching methods to be used, and the

opportunities for structured interaction

among the participants; how faculty will

be recruited, selected, and trained; the

proposed number and length of the

conferences, courses, seminars, or

workshops to be conducted and the

estimated number of persons who will

attend them; the materials to be

provided and how they will be

developed; and the cost to participants.

iii. For demonstration projects, the

applicant should include the

demonstration sites and the reasons

they were selected, or if the sites have

not been chosen, how they will be

identified and their cooperation

obtained; and how the program or

procedures will be implemented and

monitored.

iv. For technical assistance projects,

the applicant should explain the types

of assistance that will be provided; the

particular issues and problems for

which assistance will be provided; how

requests will be obtained and the type

of assistance determined; how suitable

providers will be selected and briefed;

how reports will be reviewed; and the

cost to recipients.

b. Evaluation. Every project design

must include an evaluation plan to

determine whether the project met its

objectives. The evaluation should be

designed to provide an objective and

independent assessment of the

effectiveness or usefulness of the

training or services provided; the impact

of the procedures, technology, or

services tested; or the validity and

applicability of the research conducted.

In addition, where appropriate, the

evaluation process should be designed

to provide on-going or periodic feedback

on the effectiveness or utility of

particular programs, educational

offerings, or achievements which can

then be further refined as a result of the

evaluation process. The plan should

present the qualifications of the

evaluator(s); describe the criteria,

related to the project’s programmatic

objectives, that will be used to evaluate

the project’s effectiveness; explain how

the evaluation will be conducted,

including the specific data collection

and analysis techniques to be used;

discuss why this approach is

appropriate; and present a schedule for

completion of the evaluation within the

proposed project period.

The evaluation plan should be

appropriate to the type of project

proposed. For example:

i. Research. An evaluation approach

suited to many research projects is a

review by an advisory panel of the

research methodology, data collection

instruments, preliminary analyses, and

products as they are drafted. The panel

should be comprised of independent

researchers and practitioners

representing the perspectives affected

by the proposed project.

ii. Education and Training. The most

valuable approaches to evaluating

educational or training programs will

serve to reinforce the participants’

learning experience while providing

useful feedback on the impact of the

program and possible areas for

improvement. One appropriate

evaluation approach is to assess the

acquisition of new knowledge, skills,

attitudes or understanding through

participant feedback on the seminar or

training event. Such feedback might

include a self-assessment on what was

learned along with the participant’s

response to the quality and effectiveness

of faculty presentations, the format of

sessions, the value or usefulness of the

material presented, and other relevant

factors. Another appropriate approach

would be to use an independent
51948 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

observer who might request both verbal

and written responses from participants

in the program. When an education

project involves the development of

curricular materials, an advisory panel

of relevant experts can be coupled with

a test of the curriculum to obtain the

reactions of participants and faculty as

indicated above.

iii. Demonstration. The evaluation

plan for a demonstration project should

encompass an assessment of program

effectiveness (e.g., How well did it

work?); user satisfaction, if appropriate;

the cost-effectiveness of the program; a

process analysis of the program (e.g.,

Was the program implemented as

designed? Did it provide the services

intended to the targeted population?);

the impact of the program (e.g., What

effect did the program have on the

court? What benefits resulted from the

program?); and the replicability of the

program or components of the program.

iv. Technical Assistance. For

technical assistance projects, applicants

should explain how the quality,

timeliness, and impact of the assistance

provided will be determined, and

should develop a mechanism for

feedback from both the users and

providers of the technical assistance.

v. Evaluation plans involving human

subjects should include a discussion of

the procedures for obtaining

respondents’ informed consent,

ensuring the respondents’ privacy and

freedom from risk or harm, and the

protection of others who are not the

subjects of evaluation but would be

affected by it. Other than the provision

of confidentiality to respondents,

human subject protection issues

ordinarily are not applicable to

participants evaluating an education

program.

5. Project Management

The applicant should present a

detailed management plan including the

starting and completion date for each

task; the time commitments to the

project of key staff and their

responsibilities regarding each project

task; and the procedures that will be

used to ensure that all tasks are

performed on time, within budget, and

at the highest level of quality. In

preparing the project time line, Gantt

Chart, or schedule, applicants should

make certain that all project activities,

including publication or reproduction of

project products and their initial

dissemination will occur within the

proposed project period. The

management plan must also provide for

the submission of Quarterly Progress

and Financial Reports within 30 days

after the close of each calendar quarter

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

July 30, and October 30).

Applicants should be aware that the

Institute is unlikely to approve more

than one limited extension of the grant

period. Therefore, the management plan

should be as realistic as possible and

fully reflect the time commitments of

the proposed project staff and

consultants.

6. Products

The application should contain a

description of the products to be

developed by the project (e.g., training

curricula and materials, videotapes,

articles, manuals, or handbooks),

including when they will be submitted

to the Institute.

a. Dissemination Plan. The

application must explain how and to

whom the products will be

disseminated; describe how they will

benefit the State courts, including how

they can be used by judges and court

personnel; identify development,

production, and dissemination costs

covered by the project budget; and

present the basis on which products and

services developed or provided under

the grant will be offered to the courts

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

whether products will be distributed at

no cost to recipients, or if costs are

involved, the reason for charging

recipients and the estimated price of the

product). (See section X.V.) Ordinarily,

applicants should schedule all product

preparation and distribution activities

within the project period. Applicants

also must submit a diskette containing

a one page abstract summarizing the

products resulting from a project in

Word, WordPerfect, or ASCII. The

abstract should include the grant

number and the name of a contact

person together with that individual’s

address, telephone number, and e-mail

address (if applicable).

A copy of each product must be sent

to the library established in each State

to collect the materials developed with

Institute support. (A list of these

libraries is contained in Appendix II.)

To facilitate their use, all videotaped

products should be distributed in VHS

format.

Twenty copies of all project products

must be submitted to the Institute. A

master copy of each videotape, in

addition to 20 copies of each videotape

product, must also be provided to the

Institute.

b. Types of Products. The type of

product to be prepared depends on the

nature of the project. For example, in

most instances, the products of a

research, evaluation, or demonstration

project should include an article

summarizing the project findings that is

publishable in a journal serving the

courts community nationally, an

executive summary that will be

disseminated to the project’s primary

audience, or both. Applicants proposing

to conduct empirical research or

evaluation projects with national import

should describe how they will make

their data available for secondary

analysis after the grant period. (See

section X.W.)

The curricula and other products

developed by education and training

projects should be designed for use

outside the classroom so that they may

be used again by original participants

and others in the course of their duties.

c. Institute Review. Applicants must

provide for submitting a final draft of all

written grant products to the Institute

for review and approval at least 30 days

before the products are submitted for

publication or reproduction. For

products in a videotape or CD-ROM

format, applicants must provide for

incremental Institute review of the

product at the treatment, script, roughcut, and final stages of development, or

their equivalents. No grant funds may be

obligated for publication or

reproduction of a final grant product

without the written approval of the

Institute.

d. Acknowledgment, Disclaimer, and

Logo. Applicants must also provide for

including in all project products a

prominent acknowledgment that

support was received from the Institute

and a disclaimer paragraph based on the

example provided in section X.Q. of the

Guideline. The ‘‘SJI’’ logo must appear

on the front cover of a written product,

or in the opening frames of a video

product, unless the Institute approves

another placement.

7. Applicant Status

An applicant that is not a State or

local court and has not received a grant

from the Institute within the past two

years should state whether it is either a

national non-profit organization

controlled by, operating in conjunction

with, and serving the judicial branches

of State governments; or a national nonprofit organization for the education and

training of State court judges and

support personnel. See section IV. If the

applicant is a nonjudicial unit of

Federal, State, or local government, it

must explain whether the proposed

services could be adequately provided

by non-governmental entities.

8. Staff Capability

The applicant should include a

summary of the training and experience

of the key staff members and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51949

consultants that qualify them for

conducting and managing the proposed

project. Resumes of identified staff

should be attached to the application. If

one or more key staff members and

consultants are not known at the time of

the application, a description of the

criteria that will be used to select

persons for these positions should be

included. The applicant also should

identify the person who would be

responsible for the financial

management and financial reporting for

the proposed project.

9. Organizational Capacity

Applicants that have not received a

grant from the Institute within the past

two years should include a statement

describing the capacity of the applicant

to administer grant funds including the

financial systems used to monitor

project expenditures (and income, if

any), and a summary of the applicant’s

past experience in administering grants,

as well as any resources or capabilities

that the applicant has that will

particularly assist in the successful

completion of the project.

Unless requested otherwise, an

applicant that has received a grant from

the Institute within the past two years

should describe only the changes in its

organizational capacity, tax status, or

financial capability that may affect its

capacity to administer a grant.

If the applicant is a non-profit

organization (other than a university), it

must also provide documentation of its

501(c) tax exempt status as determined

by the Internal Revenue Service and a

copy of a current certified audit report.

For purposes of this requirement,

‘‘current’’ means no earlier than two

years prior to the current calendar year.

If a current audit report is not

available, the Institute will require the

organization to complete a financial

capability questionnaire which must be

signed by a Certified Public Accountant.

Other applicants may be required to

provide a current audit report, a

financial capability questionnaire, or

both, if specifically requested to do so

by the Institute.

10. Statement of Lobbying Activities

Non-governmental applicants must

submit the Institute’s Disclosure of

Lobbying Activities Form that requires

them to state whether they, or another

entity that is a part of the same

organization as the applicant, have

advocated a position before Congress on

any issue, and identifies the specific

subjects of their lobbying efforts.

11. Letters of Cooperation or Support

If the cooperation of courts,

organizations, agencies, or individuals

other than the applicant is required to

conduct the project, the applicant

should attach written assurances of

cooperation and availability to the

application, or send them under

separate cover. In order to ensure that

there is sufficient time to bring them to

the Board’s attention, letters of support

sent under separate cover must be

received no more than 30 days after the

deadline for mailing the application.

D. Budget Narrative

The budget narrative should provide

the basis for the computation of all

project-related costs. When the

proposed project would be partially

supported by grants from other funding

sources, applicants should make clear

what costs would be covered by those

other grants. Additional background or

schedules may be attached if they are

essential to obtaining a clear

understanding of the proposed budget.

Numerous and lengthy appendices are

strongly discouraged.

The budget narrative should cover the

costs of all components of the project

and clearly identify costs attributable to

the project evaluation. Under OMB

grant guidelines incorporated by

reference in this Guideline, grant funds

may not be used to pay for coffee breaks

during seminars or meetings, or to

purchase alcoholic beverages.

1. Justification of Personnel

Compensation

The applicant should set forth the

percentages of time to be devoted by the

individuals who will serve as the staff

of the proposed project, the annual

salary of each of those persons, and the

number of work days per year used for

calculating the percentages of time or

daily rate of those individuals. The

applicant should explain any deviations

from current rates or established written

organization policies. If grant funds are

requested to pay the salary and related

costs for a current employee of a court

or other unit of government, the

applicant should explain why this

would not constitute a supplantation of

State or local funds in violation of 42

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

explanation may be that the position to

be filled is a new one established in

conjunction with the project or that the

grant funds will be supporting only the

portion of the employee’s time that will

be dedicated to new or additional duties

related to the project.

2. Fringe Benefit Computation

The applicant should provide a

description of the fringe benefits

provided to employees. If percentages

are used, the authority for such use

should be presented as well as a

description of the elements included in

the determination of the percentage rate.

3. Consultant/Contractual Services and

Honoraria

The applicant should describe the

tasks each consultant will perform, the

estimated total amount to be paid to

each consultant, the basis for

compensation rates (e.g., number of

days × the daily consultant rates), and

the method for selection. Rates for

consultant services must be set in

accordance with section XI.H.2.c.

Honorarium payments must be justified

in the same manner as other consultant

payments. Prior written Institute

approval is required for any consultant

rate in excess of $300 per day; Institute

funds may not be used to pay a

consultant at a rate in excess of $900 per

day.

4. Travel

Transportation costs and per diem

rates must comply with the policies of

the applicant organization. If the

applicant does not have an established

travel policy, then travel rates must be

consistent with those established by the

Institute or the Federal Government. (A

copy of the Institute’s travel policy is

available upon request.) The budget

narrative should include an explanation

of the rate used, including the

components of the per diem rate and the

basis for the estimated transportation

expenses. The purpose of the travel

should also be included in the narrative.

5. Equipment

Grant funds may be used to purchase

only the equipment that is necessary to

demonstrate a new technological

application in a court, or that is

otherwise essential to accomplishing the

objectives of the project. Equipment

purchases to support basic court

operations ordinarily will not be

approved. The applicant should

describe the equipment to be purchased

or leased and explain why the

acquisition of that equipment is

essential to accomplish the project’s

goals and objectives. The narrative

should clearly identify which

equipment is to be leased and which is

to be purchased. The method of

procurement should also be described.

Purchases for automatic data processing

equipment must comply with section

XI.H.2.b.
51950 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

6. Supplies

The applicant should provide a

general description of the supplies

necessary to accomplish the goals and

objectives of the grant. In addition, the

applicant should provide the basis for

the amount requested for this

expenditure category.

7. Construction

Construction expenses are prohibited

except for the limited purposes set forth

in section X.H.2. Any allowable

construction or renovation expense

should be described in detail in the

budget narrative.

8. Telephone

Applicants should include

anticipated telephone charges,

distinguishing between monthly charges

and long distance charges in the budget

narrative. Also, applicants should

provide the basis used in developing the

monthly and long distance estimates.

9. Postage

Anticipated postage costs for projectrelated mailings should be described in

the budget narrative. The cost of special

mailings, such as for a survey or for

announcing a workshop, should be

distinguished from routine operational

mailing costs. The bases for all postage

estimates should be included in the

justification material.

10. Printing/Photocopying

Anticipated costs for printing or

photocopying should be included in the

budget narrative. Applicants should

provide the details underlying these

estimates in support of the request.

11. Indirect Costs

Applicants should describe the

indirect cost rates applicable to the

grant in detail. If costs often included

within an indirect cost rate are charged

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

senior managers to supervise product

activities), the applicant should specify

that these costs are not included within

their approved indirect cost rate. These

rates must be established in accordance

with section XI.H.4. If the applicant has

an indirect cost rate or allocation plan

approved by any Federal granting

agency, a copy of the approved rate

agreement should be attached to the

application.

12. Match

The applicant should describe the

source of any matching contribution and

the nature of the match provided. Any

additional contributions to the project

should be described in this section of

the budget narrative as well. If in-kind

match is to be provided, the applicant

should describe how the amount and

value of the time, services, or materials

actually contributed will be

documented sufficiently clearly to

permit them to be included in an audit

of the grant. Applicants should be aware

that the time spent by participants in

education courses does not qualify as

in-kind match.

Applicants that do not contemplate

making matching contributions

continuously throughout the course of

the project or on a task-by-task basis

must provide a schedule within 30 days

after the beginning of the project period

indicating at what points during the

project period the matching

contributions will be made. (See

sections III.F., VIII.B., X.B. and XI.D.1.)

E. Submission Requirements

1. Every applicant must submit one

set of the application forms with an

original signature on Form A and on

Form B, if the application is from a State

or local court, or on the Disclosure of

Lobbying Form if the applicant is not a

unit of State or local government.

Applicants may send four photocopies

of the Program Narrative, Budget Forms

(Form C or C–1), Budget Narrative and

any appendices; a diskette with this

material in Microsoft Word or ASCII

format; or transmit the material to the

Institute via E-mail. Applicants may not

send a portion of the application

material in written form (other than the

application forms themselves) and a

portion in electronic form, or a portion

on diskette and a portion via E-mail.

All invited applications based on

concept papers submitted by November

24, 1997, must be mailed, sent by

courier, or E-Mailed no later than May

8, 1998. All invited applications based

on concept papers addressing the topics

with a special submission deadline of

March 12, 1998, must be mailed, sent by

courier, or E-mailed no later than June

18, 1998.

A postmark or courier receipt will

constitute evidence of the submission

date. Please mark Application on all

application package envelopes and send

to: State Justice Institute, 1650 King

Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314.

The Institute’s E-Mail address is:

SJI@clark.net

Receipt of each proposal will be

acknowledged in writing. Extensions of

the deadline for submission of

applications will not be granted. See

section VII.C.11. for receipt deadlines

for letters of support.

2. Applicants submitting more than

one application may include material

that would be identical in each

application in a cover letter, and

incorporate that material by reference in

each application. The incorporated

material will be counted against the 25-

page limit for the program narrative. A

copy of the cover letter should be

attached to each copy of each

application.

VIII. Application Review Procedures

A. Preliminary Inquiries

The Institute staff will answer

inquiries concerning application

procedures. The staff contact will be

named in the Institute’s letter

acknowledging receipt of the

application.

B. Selection Criteria

1. All applications will be rated on

the basis of the criteria set forth below.

The Institute will accord the greatest

weight to the following criteria:

a. The soundness of the methodology;

b. The demonstration of need for the

project;

c. The appropriateness of the

proposed evaluation design;

d. The applicant’s management plan

and organizational capabilities;

e. The qualifications of the project’s

staff;

f. The products and benefits resulting

from the project including the extent to

which the project will have long-term

benefits for State courts across the

nation;

g. The degree to which the findings,

procedures, training, technology, or

other results of the project can be

transferred to other jurisdictions.

h. The reasonableness of the proposed

budget;

i. The demonstration of cooperation

and support of other agencies that may

be affected by the project; and

j. The proposed project’s relationship

to one of the ‘‘Special Interest’’

categories set forth in section II.B.

2. In determining which applicants to

fund, the Institute will also consider

whether the applicant is a State court,

a national court support or education

organization, a non-court unit of

government, or other type of entity

eligible to receive grants under the

Institute’s enabling legislation (see 42

U.S.C. 10705(6) (as amended) and

Section IV above); the availability of

financial assistance from other sources

for the project; the amount and nature

(cash or in-kind) of the applicant’s

match; the extent to which the proposed

project would also benefit the Federal

courts or help State courts enforce

Federal constitutional and legislative

requirements; and the level of

appropriations available to the Institute

in the current year and the amount
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51951

expected to be available in succeeding

fiscal years.

C. Review and Approval Process

Applications will be reviewed

competitively by the Board of Directors.

The Institute staff will prepare a

narrative summary of each application,

and a rating sheet assigning points for

each relevant selection criterion. When

necessary, applications may also be

reviewed by outside experts.

Committees of the Board will review

applications within assigned program

categories and prepare

recommendations to the full Board. The

full Board of Directors will then decide

which applications to approve for a

grant. The decision to award a grant is

solely that of the Board of Directors.

Awards approved by the Board will

be signed by the Chairman of the Board

on behalf of the Institute.

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

The Institute will send written notice

to applicants concerning all Board

decisions to approve, defer, or deny

their respective applications and the key

issues and questions that arose during

the review process. A decision by the

Board to deny an application may not be

appealed, but does not prohibit

resubmission of a proposal based on

that application in a subsequent round

of funding. The Institute will also notify

the designated State contact listed in

Appendix I when grants are approved

by the Board to support projects that

will be conducted by or involve courts

in their State.

F. Response to Notification of Approval

Applicants have 30 days from the date

of the letter notifying them that the

Board has approved their application to

respond to any revisions requested by

the Board. If the requested revisions (or

a reasonable schedule for submitting

such revisions) have not been submitted

to the Institute within 30 days after

notification, the approval may* be

automatically rescinded and the

application presented to the Board for

reconsideration.

IX. Renewal Funding Procedures and

Requirements

The Institute recognizes two types of

renewal funding as described below—

‘‘continuation grants’’ and ‘‘on-going

support grants.’’ The award of an initial

grant to support a project does not

constitute a commitment by the Institute

to renew funding. The Board of

Directors anticipates allocating no more

than 25% of available FY 1998 grant

funds for renewal grants.

A. Continuation Grants

1. Purpose and Scope

Continuation grants are intended to

support projects with a limited duration

that involve the same type of activities

as the previous project. They are

intended to enhance the specific

program or service produced or

established during the prior grant

period. They may be used, for example,

when a project is divided into two or

more sequential phases, for secondary

analysis of data obtained in an Institutesupported research project, or for more

extensive testing of an innovative

technology, procedure, or program

developed with SJI grant support.

In order for a project to be considered

for continuation funding, the grantee

must have completed the project tasks

and met all grant requirements and

conditions in a timely manner, absent

extenuating circumstances or prior

Institute approval of changes to the

project design. Continuation grants are

not intended to provide support for a

project for which the grantee has

underestimated the amount of time or

funds needed to accomplish the project

tasks.

2. Application Procedures—Letters of

Intent

In lieu of a concept paper, a grantee

seeking a continuation grant must

inform the Institute, by letter, of its

intent to submit an application for such

funding as soon as the need for renewal

funding becomes apparent but no less

than 120 days before the end of the

current grant period.

a. A letter of intent must be no more

than 3 single-spaced pages on 81⁄2 by 11

inch paper and must contain a concise

but thorough explanation of the need for

continuation; an estimate of the funds to

be requested; and a brief description of

anticipated changes in the scope, focus,

or audience of the project.

b. Within 30 days after receiving a

letter of intent, Institute staff will review

the proposed activities for the next

project period and inform the grantee of

specific issues to be addressed in the

continuation application and the date

by which the application for a

continuation grant must be submitted.

3. Application Format

An application for a continuation

grant must include an application form,

budget forms (with appropriate

documentation), a project abstract

conforming to the format set forth in

section VII.B., a program narrative, a

budget narrative, a disclosure of

lobbying form (from applicants other

than units of State or local government),

and certain certifications and

assurances.

The program narrative should

conform to the length and format

requirements set forth in section VII.C.

However, rather than the topics listed in

section VII.C., the program narrative of

an application for a continuation grant

should include:

a. Project Objectives. The applicant

should clearly and concisely state what

the continuation project is intended to

accomplish.

b. Need for Continuation. The

applicant should explain why

continuation of the project is necessary

to achieve the goals of the project, and

how the continuation will benefit the

participating courts or the courts

community generally. That is, to what

extent will the original goals and

objectives of the project be unfulfilled if

the project is not continued, and

conversely, how will the findings or

results of the project be enhanced by

continuing the project?

c. Report of Current Project Activities.

The applicant should discuss the status

of all activities conducted during the

previous project period. Applicants

should identify any activities that were

not completed, and explain why.

d. Evaluation Findings. The applicant

should present the key findings, impact,

or recommendations resulting from the

evaluation of the project, if they are

available, and how they will be

addressed during the proposed

continuation. If the findings are not yet

available, applicants should provide the

date by which they will be submitted to

the Institute. Ordinarily, the Board will

not consider an application for

continuation funding until the Institute

has received the evaluator’s report.

e. Tasks, Methods, Staff and Grantee

Capability. The applicant should fully

describe any changes in the tasks to be

performed, the methods to be used, the

products of the project, and how and to

whom those products will be

disseminated, as well as any changes in

the assigned staff or the grantee’s

organizational capacity. Applicants

should include, in addition, the criteria

and methods by which the proposed

continuation project would be

evaluated.

f. Task Schedule. The applicant

should present a detailed task schedule

and timeline for the next project period.
51952 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

g. Other Sources of Support. The

applicant should indicate why other

sources of support are inadequate,

inappropriate or unavailable.

4. Budget and Budget Narrative

The applicant should provide a

complete budget and budget narrative

conforming to the requirements set forth

in paragraph VII.D. Changes in the

funding level requested should be

discussed in terms of corresponding

increases or decreases in the scope of

activities or services to be rendered. In

addition, the applicant should estimate

the amount of grant funds that will

remain unobligated at the end of the

current grant period.

5. References to Previously Submitted

Material

An application for a continuation

grant should not repeat information

contained in a previously approved

application or other previously

submitted materials, but should provide

specific references to such materials

where appropriate.

6. Submission Requirements, Review

and Approval Process, and Notification

of Decision

The submission requirements set forth

in section VII.E., other than the deadline

for mailing, apply to applications for a

continuation grant. Such applications

will be rated on the selection criteria set

forth in section VIII.B. The key findings

and recommendations resulting from an

evaluation of the project and the

proposed response to those findings and

recommendations will also be

considered. The review and approval

process, return policy, and notification

procedures are the same as those for

new projects set forth in sections

VIII.C.–VIII.E.

B. On-Going Support Grants

1. Purpose and Scope

On-going support grants are intended

to support projects that are national in

scope and that provide the State courts

with services, programs or products for

which there is a continuing critical

need. An on-going support grant may

also be used to fund longitudinal

research that directly benefits the State

courts. On-going support grants are

subject to the limits on size and

duration set forth in V.C.2. and V.D.2.

The Board will consider awarding an

on-going support grant for a period of

up to 36 months. The total amount of

the grant will be fixed at the time of the

initial award. Funds ordinarily will be

made available in annual increments as

specified in section V.C.2.

A project is eligible for consideration

for an on-going support grant if:

a. The project is supported by and has

been evaluated under a grant from the

Institute;

b. The project is national in scope and

provides a significant benefit to the

State courts;

c. There is a continuing critical need

for the services, programs or products

provided by the project as indicated by

the level of use and support by members

of the court community;

d. The project is accomplishing its

objectives in an effective and efficient

manner; and

e. It is likely that the service or

program provided by the project would

be curtailed or significantly reduced

without Institute support.

Each project supported by an on-going

support grant must include an

evaluation component assessing its

effectiveness and operation throughout

the grant period. The evaluation should

be independent, but may be designed

collaboratively by the evaluator and the

grantee. The design should call for

regular feedback from the evaluator to

the grantee throughout the project

period concerning recommendations for

mid-course corrections or improvement

of the project, as well as periodic reports

to the Institute at relevant points in the

project.

An interim evaluation report must be

submitted 18 months into the grant

period. The decision to obligate Institute

funds to support the third year of the

project will be based on the interim

evaluation findings and the applicant’s

response to any deficiencies noted in

the report.

A final evaluation assessing the

effectiveness, operation of, and

continuing need for the project must be

submitted 90 days before the end of the

3-year project period. In addition, a

detailed annual task schedule must be

submitted not later than 45 days before

the end of the first and second years of

the grant period, along with an

explanation of any necessary revisions

in the projected costs for the remainder

of the project period. (See also section

IX.B.3.h.)

2. Letters of Intent

In lieu of a concept paper, a grantee

seeking an on-going support grant must

inform the Institute, by letter, of its

intent to submit an application for such

funding as soon as the need for renewal

funding becomes apparent but no less

than 120 days before the end of the

current grant period. The letter of intent

should be in the same format as that

prescribed for continuation grants in

section IX.A.2.a.

3. Format

An application for an on-going

support grant must include an

application form, budget forms (with

appropriate documentation), a project

abstract conforming to the format set

forth in section VII.B., a program

narrative, a budget narrative, and certain

certifications and assurances.

The program narrative should

conform to the length and format

requirements set forth in section VII.C.

However, rather than the topics listed in

section VII.C., the program narrative of

applications for on-going support grants

should address:

a. Description of Need for and

Benefits of the Project. The applicant

should provide a detailed discussion of

the benefits provided by the project to

the State courts around the country,

including the degree to which State

courts, State court judges, or State court

managers and personnel are using the

services or programs provided by the

project.

b. Demonstration of Court Support.

The applicant should demonstrate

support for the continuation of the

project from the courts community.

c. Report on Current Project Activities.

The applicant should discuss the extent

to which the project has met its goals

and objectives, identify any activities

that have not been completed, and

explain why.

d. Evaluation Findings. The applicant

should attach a copy of the final

evaluation report regarding the

effectiveness, impact, and operation of

the project, specify the key findings or

recommendations resulting from the

evaluation, and explain how they will

be addressed during the proposed

renewal period. Ordinarily, the Board

will not consider an application for ongoing support until the Institute has

received the evaluator’s report.

e. Objectives, Tasks, Methods, Staff

and Grantee Capability. The applicant

should describe fully any changes in the

objectives; tasks to be performed; the

methods to be used; the products of the

project; how and to whom those

products will be disseminated; the

assigned staff; and the grantee’s

organizational capacity. The grantee

also should describe the steps it will

take to obtain support from other

sources for the continued operation of

the project.

f. Task Schedule. The applicant

should present a general schedule for

the full proposed project period and a

detailed task schedule for the first year

of the proposed new project period.

g. Other Sources of Support. The

applicant should describe what efforts it
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51953

has taken to secure support for the

project from other sources and discuss

why other sources of support are

inadequate, inappropriate, or

unavailable.

4. Budget and Budget Narrative

The applicant should provide a

complete three-year budget and budget

narrative conforming to the

requirements set forth in paragraph

VII.D., and estimate the amount of grant

funds that will remain unobligated at

the end of the current grant period.

Changes in the funding level requested

should be discussed in terms of

corresponding increases or decreases in

the scope of activities or services to be

rendered. A complete budget narrative

should be provided for the full project

as well as for each year, or portion of a

year, for which grant support is

requested. Changes in the funding level

requested should be discussed in terms

of corresponding increases or decreases

in the scope of activities or services to

be rendered. The budget should provide

for realistic cost-of-living and staff

salary increases over the course of the

requested project period. Applicants

should be aware that the Institute is

unlikely to approve a supplemental

budget increase for an on-going support

grant in the absence of welldocumented, unanticipated factors that

clearly justify the requested increase.

5. References to Previously Submitted

Material

An application for an on-going

support grant should not repeat

information contained in a previously

approved application or other

previously submitted materials, but

should provide specific references to

such materials where appropriate.

6. Submission Requirements, Review

and Approval Process, and Notification

of Decision

The submission requirements set forth

in section VII.E., other than the deadline

for mailing, apply to applications for an

on-going support grant. Such

applications will be rated on the

selection criteria set forth in section

VIII.B. The key findings and

recommendations resulting from an

evaluation of the project and the

proposed response to those findings and

recommendations will also be

considered. The review and approval

process, return policy, and notification

procedures are the same as those for

new projects set forth in sections

VIII.C.–VIII.E.

X. Compliance Requirements

The State Justice Institute Act

contains limitations and conditions on

grants, contracts and cooperative

agreements of which applicants and

recipients should be aware. In addition

to eligibility requirements which must

be met to be considered for an award

from the Institute, all applicants should

be aware of and all recipients will be

responsible for ensuring compliance

with the following:

A. State and Local Court Systems

Each application for funding from a

State or local court must be approved,

consistent with State law, by the State’s

Supreme Court, or its designated agency

or council. The Supreme Court or its

designee shall receive, administer, and

be accountable for all funds awarded on

the basis of such an application. 42

U.S.C. 10705(b)(4). Appendix I to this

Guideline lists the person to contact in

each State regarding the administration

of Institute grants to State and local

courts.

B. Matching Requirements

1. All awards to courts or other units

of State or local government (not

including publicly supported

institutions of higher education) require

a match from private or public sources

of not less than 50% of the total amount

of the Institute’s award. For example, if

the total cost of a project is anticipated

to be $150,000, a State court or

executive branch agency may request up

to $100,000 from the Institute to

implement the project. The remaining

$50,000 (50% of the $100,000 requested

from SJI) must be provided as a match.

A cash match, non-cash match, or both

may be provided, but the Institute will

give preference to those applicants that

provide a cash match to the Institute’s

award. (For a further definition of

match, see section III.F.)

The requirement to provide match

may be waived in exceptionally rare

circumstances upon the request of the

Chief Justice of the highest court in the

State and approval by the Board of

Directors. 42 U.S.C. 10705(d).

2. Other eligible recipients of Institute

funds are not required to provide a

match, but are encouraged to contribute

to meeting the costs of the project. In

instances where match is proposed, the

grantee is responsible for ensuring that

the total amount proposed is actually

contributed. If a proposed contribution

is not fully met, the Institute may

reduce the award amount accordingly,

in order to maintain the ratio originally

provided for in the award agreement

(see sections VIII.B. above and XI.D.).

C. Conflict of Interest

Personnel and other officials

connected with Institute-funded

programs shall adhere to the following

requirements:

1. No official or employee of a

recipient court or organization shall

participate personally through decision,

approval, disapproval, recommendation,

the rendering of advice, investigation, or

otherwise in any proceeding,

application, request for a ruling or other

determination, contract, grant,

cooperative agreement, claim,

controversy, or other particular matter

in which Institute funds are used, where

to his/her knowledge he/she or his/her

immediate family, partners,

organization other than a public agency

in which he/she is serving as officer,

director, trustee, partner, or employee or

any person or organization with whom

he/she is negotiating or has any

arrangement concerning prospective

employment, has a financial interest.

2. In the use of Institute project funds,

an official or employee of a recipient

court or organization shall avoid any

action which might result in or create

the appearance of:

a. Using an official position for

private gain; or

b. Affecting adversely the confidence

of the public in the integrity of the

Institute program.

3. Requests for proposals or

invitations for bids issued by a recipient

of Institute funds or a subgrantee or

subcontractor will provide notice to

prospective bidders that the contractors

who develop or draft specifications,

requirements, statements of work, and/

or requests for proposals for a proposed

procurement will be excluded from

bidding on or submitting a proposal to

compete for the award of such

procurement.

D. Lobbying

Funds awarded to recipients by the

Institute shall not be used, indirectly or

directly, to influence Executive orders

or similar promulgations by Federal,

State or local agencies, or to influence

the passage or defeat of any legislation

by Federal, State or local legislative

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

It is the policy of the Board of

Directors to award funds only to support

applications submitted by organizations

that would carry out the objectives of

their applications in an unbiased

manner. Consistent with this policy and

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

Institute will not knowingly award a

grant to an applicant that has, directly

or through an entity that is part of the

same organization as the applicant,
51954 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

advocated a position before Congress on

the specific subject matter of the

application.

E. Political Activities

No recipient shall contribute or make

available Institute funds, program

personnel, or equipment to any political

party or association, or the campaign of

any candidate for public or party office.

Recipients are also prohibited from

using funds in advocating or opposing

any ballot measure, initiative, or

referendum. Officers and employees of

recipients shall not intentionally

identify the Institute or recipients with

any partisan or nonpartisan political

activity associated with a political party

or association, or the campaign of any

candidate for public or party office. 42

U.S.C. 10706(a).

F. 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).

G. 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.

H. Supplantation and Construction

To ensure that funds are used to

supplement and improve the operation

of State courts, rather than to support

basic court services, funds shall not be

used for the following purposes:

1. To supplant State or local funds

supporting a program or activity (such

as paying the salary of court employees

who would be performing their normal

duties as part of the project, or paying

rent for space which is part of the

court’s normal operations);

2. To construct court facilities or

structures, except to remodel existing

facilities or to demonstrate new

architectural or technological

techniques, or to provide temporary

facilities for new personnel or for

personnel involved in a demonstration

or experimental program; or

3. Solely to purchase equipment.

I. Confidentiality of Information

Except as provided by Federal law

other than the State Justice Institute Act,

no recipient of financial assistance from

SJI may use or reveal any research or

statistical information furnished under

the Act by any person and identifiable

to any specific private person for any

purpose other than the purpose for

which the information was obtained.

Such information and copies thereof

shall be immune from legal process, and

shall not, without the consent of the

person furnishing such information, be

admitted as evidence or used for any

purpose in any action, suit, or other

judicial, legislative, or administrative

proceedings.

J. Human Research Protection

All research involving human subjects

shall be conducted with the informed

consent of those subjects and in a

manner that will ensure their privacy

and freedom from risk or harm and the

protection of persons who are not

subjects of the research but would be

affected by it, unless such procedures

and safeguards would make the research

impractical. In such instances, the

Institute must approve procedures

designed by the grantee to provide

human subjects with relevant

information about the research after

their involvement and to minimize or

eliminate risk or harm to those subjects

due to their participation.

K. 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.

L. Reporting Requirements

Recipients of Institute funds, other

than scholarships awarded under

section II.B.2.b.iii., shall submit

Quarterly Progress and Financial

Reports within 30 days of the close of

each calendar quarter (that is, no later

than January 30, April 30, July 30, and

October 30). Two copies of each report

must be sent. The Quarterly Progress

Reports shall include a narrative

description of project activities during

the calendar quarter, the relationship

between those activities and the task

schedule and objectives set forth in the

approved application or an approved

adjustment thereto, any significant

problem areas that have developed and

how they will be resolved, and the

activities scheduled during the next

reporting period.

The quarterly financial status report

shall be submitted in accordance with

section XI.G.2. of this Guideline. A final

project progress report and financial

status report shall be submitted within

90 days after the end of the grant period

in accordance with section XI.K.2. of

this Guideline.

M. Audit

Recipients, other than those noted

below, must provide for an annual fiscal

audit which shall include an opinion on

whether the financial statements of the

grantee present fairly its financial

position and financial operations are in

accordance with generally accepted

accounting principles. (See section XI.J.

of the Guideline for the requirements of

such audits.) Recipients of a

scholarship, curriculum adaptation, or

technical assistance grant are not

required to submit an audit, but must

maintain appropriate documentation to

support all expenditures.

N. Suspension of Funding

After providing a recipient reasonable

notice and opportunity to submit

written documentation demonstrating

why fund termination or suspension

should not occur, the Institute may

terminate or suspend funding of a

project that fails to comply substantially

with the Act, the Guideline, or the terms

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

10708(a).

O. 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.

P. Original Material

All products prepared as the result of

Institute-supported projects must be

originally-developed material unless

otherwise specified in the award

documents. Material not originally

developed that is included in such

products must be properly identified,

whether the material is in a verbatim or

extensive paraphrase format.

Q. Acknowledgment and Disclaimer

Recipients of Institute funds shall

acknowledge prominently on all

products developed with grant funds

that support was received from the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51955

Institute. The ‘‘SJI’’ logo must appear on

the front cover of a written product, or

in the opening frames of a video

product, unless another placement is

approved in writing by the Institute.

This includes final products printed or

otherwise reproduced during the grant

period, as well as reprintings or

reproductions of those materials

following the end of the grant period. A

camera-ready logo sheet is available

from the Institute upon request.

Recipients also shall display the

following disclaimer on all grant

products:

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

developed under [grant/cooperative

agreement, number SJI-(insert number)] from

the State Justice Institute. The points of view

expressed are those of the [author(s),

filmmaker(s), etc.] and do not necessarily

represent the official position or policies of

the State Justice Institute.

R. Institute Approval of Grant Products

No grant funds may be obligated for

publication or reproduction of a final

product developed with grant funds

without the written approval of the

Institute. Grantees shall submit a final

draft of each written product to the

Institute for review and approval. These

drafts shall be submitted at least 30 days

before the product is scheduled to be

sent for publication or reproduction to

permit Institute review and

incorporation of any appropriate

changes agreed upon by the grantee and

the Institute. Grantees shall provide for

timely reviews by the Institute of

videotape or CD-ROM products at the

treatment, script, rough cut, and final

stages of development or their

equivalents, prior to initiating the next

stage of product development.

S. Distribution of Grant Products

In addition to the distribution

specified in the grant application,

grantees shall send:

1. Twenty copies of each final product

developed with grant funds to the

Institute, unless the product was

developed under either a curriculum

adaptation or a technical assistance

grant, in which case submission of 2

copies is required.

2. A mastercopy of each videotape

produced with grant funds to the

Institute.

3. A one-page abstract to the Institute

summarizing the products produced

during the project for posting on the

Internet together with a diskette

containing the abstract in Word,

WordPerfect, or ASCII. The abstract

should include the grant number, a

contact name, address, telephone

numbers, and e-mail address (if

applicable).

4. One copy of each final product

developed with grant funds to the

library established in each State to

collect materials prepared with Institute

support. (A list of these libraries is

contained in Appendix II. Labels for

these libraries are available from the

Institute upon request.) Recipients of

curriculum adaptation and technical

assistance grants are not required to

submit final products to State libraries.

T. 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.

U. 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).

V. Charges for Grant-Related Products/

Recovery of Costs

When Institute funds fully cover the

cost of developing, producing, and

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

curriculum, videotape or software), the

product should be distributed to the

field without charge. When Institute

funds only partially cover the

development, production, or

dissemination costs, the grantee may,

with the Institute’s prior written

approval, recover its costs for

developing, producing, and

disseminating the material to those

requesting it, to the extent that those

costs were not covered by Institute

funds or grantee matching

contributions.

Applicants should disclose their

intent to sell grant-related products in

both the concept paper and the

application. Grantees must obtain the

written, prior approval of the Institute of

their plans to recover project costs

through the sale of grant products.

Written requests to recover costs

ordinarily should be received during the

grant period and should specify the

nature and extent of the costs to be

recouped, the reason that such costs

were not budgeted (if the rationale was

not disclosed in the approved

application), the number of copies to be

sold, the intended audience for the

products to be sold, and the proposed

sale price. If the product is to be sold

for more than $25.00, the written

request also should include a detailed

itemization of costs that will be

recovered and a certification that the

costs were not supported by either

Institute grant funds or grantee

matching contributions.

In the event that the sale of grant

products results in revenues that exceed

the costs to develop, produce, and

disseminate the product, the revenue

must continue to be used for the

authorized purposes of the Institutefunded project or other purposes

consistent with the State Justice

Institute Act that have been approved by

the Institute. See sections III.F. and XI.F.

for requirements regarding projectrelated income realized during the

project period.

W. Availability of Research Data for

Secondary Analysis

Upon request, grantees must make

available for secondary analysis a

diskette(s) or data tape(s) containing

research and evaluation data collected

under an Institute grant and the

accompanying code manual. Grantees

may recover the actual cost of

duplicating and mailing or otherwise

transmitting the data set and manual

from the person or organization

requesting the data. Grantees may

provide the requested data set in the

format in which it was created and

analyzed.

X. Approval of Key Staff

If the qualifications of an employee or

consultant assigned to a key project staff

position are not described in the

application or if there is a change of a

person assigned to such a position, a

recipient shall submit a description of

the qualifications of the newly assigned

person to the Institute. Prior written

approval of the qualifications of the new

person assigned to a key staff position
51956 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

must be received from the Institute

before the salary or consulting fee of

that person and associated costs may be

paid or reimbursed from grant funds.

XI. Financial Requirements

A. Accounting Systems and Financial

Records

All grantees, subgrantees, contractors,

and other organizations directly or

indirectly receiving Institute funds are

required to establish and maintain

accounting systems and financial

records to accurately account for funds

they receive. These records shall

include total program costs, including

Institute funds, State and local matching

shares, and any other fund sources

included in the approved project

budget.

1. Purpose

The purpose of this section is to

establish accounting system

requirements and offer guidance on

procedures which will assist all

grantees/subgrantees in:

a. Complying with the statutory

requirements for the awarding,

disbursement, and accounting of funds;

b. Complying with regulatory

requirements of the Institute for the

financial management and disposition

of funds;

c. Generating financial data which can

be used in the planning, management

and control of programs; and

d. Facilitating an effective audit of

funded programs and projects.

2. References

Except where inconsistent with

specific provisions of this Guideline, the

following regulations, directives and

reports are applicable to Institute grants

and cooperative agreements under the

same terms and conditions that apply to

Federal grantees. These materials

supplement the requirements of this

section for accounting systems and

financial recordkeeping and provide

additional guidance on how these

requirements may be satisfied.

(Circulars may be obtained from OMB

by calling 202–395–7250.)

a. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–21, Cost Principles

for Educational Institutions.

b. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–87, Cost Principles

for State and Local Governments.

c. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–88 (revised), Indirect

Cost Rates, Audit and Audit Follow-up

at Educational Institutions.

d. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–102, Uniform

Administrative Requirements for

Grants-in-Aid to State and Local

Governments.

e. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–110, Grants and

Agreements with Institutions of Higher

Education, Hospitals and other NonProfit Organizations.

f. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–128, Audits of State

and Local Governments.

g. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–122, Cost Principles

for Non-profit Organizations.

h. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–133, Audits of

Institutions of Higher Education and

Other Non-profit Institutions.

B. Supervision and Monitoring

Responsibilities

1. Grantee Responsibilities

All grantees receiving direct awards

from the Institute are responsible for the

management and fiscal control of all

funds. Responsibilities include

accounting for receipts and

expenditures, maintaining adequate

financial records, and refunding

expenditures disallowed by audits.

2. Responsibilities of State Supreme

Court

Each application for funding from a

State or local court must be approved,

consistent with State law, by the State’s

Supreme Court, or its designated agency

or council.

The State Supreme Court or its

designee shall receive all Institute funds

awarded to such courts; be responsible

for assuring proper administration of

Institute funds; and be responsible for

all aspects of the project, including

proper accounting and financial

recordkeeping by the subgrantee. These

responsibilities include:

a. Reviewing Financial Operations.

The State Supreme Court or its designee

should be familiar with, and

periodically monitor, its subgrantees’

financial operations, records system and

procedures. Particular attention should

be directed to the maintenance of

current financial data.

b. Recording Financial Activities. The

subgrantee’s grant award or contract

obligation, as well as cash advances and

other financial activities, should be

recorded in the financial records of the

State Supreme Court or its designee in

summary form. Subgrantee expenditures

should be recorded on the books of the

State Supreme Court or evidenced by

report forms duly filed by the

subgrantee. Non-Institute contributions

applied to projects by subgrantees

should likewise be recorded, as should

any project income resulting from

program operations.

c. Budgeting and Budget Review. The

State Supreme Court or its designee

should ensure that each subgrantee

prepares an adequate budget as the basis

for its award commitment. The detail of

each project budget should be

maintained on file by the State Supreme

Court.

d. Accounting for Non-Institute

Contributions. The State Supreme Court

or its designee will ensure, in those

instances where subgrantees are

required to furnish non-Institute

matching funds, that the requirements

and limitations of the Guideline are

applied to such funds.

e. Audit Requirement. The State

Supreme Court or its designee is

required to ensure that subgrantees have

met the necessary audit requirements

set forth by the Institute (see sections

X.M. and XI.J).

f. Reporting Irregularities. The State

Supreme Court, its designees, and its

subgrantees are responsible for

promptly reporting to the Institute the

nature and circumstances surrounding

any financial irregularities discovered.

C. Accounting System

The grantee is responsible for

establishing and maintaining an

adequate system of accounting and

internal controls for itself and for

ensuring that an adequate system exists

for each of its subgrantees and

contractors. An acceptable and adequate

accounting system is considered to be

one which:

1. Properly accounts for receipt of

funds under each grant awarded and the

expenditure of funds for each grant by

category of expenditure (including

matching contributions and project

income);

2. Assures that expended funds are

applied to the appropriate budget

category included within the approved

grant;

3. Presents and classifies historical

costs of the grant as required for

budgetary and evaluation purposes;

4. Provides cost and property controls

to assure optimal use of grant funds;

5. Is integrated with a system of

internal controls adequate to safeguard

the funds and assets covered, check the

accuracy and reliability of the

accounting data, promote operational

efficiency, and assure conformance with

any general or special conditions of the

grant;

6. Meets the prescribed requirements

for periodic financial reporting of

operations; and

7. Provides financial data for

planning, control, measurement, and

evaluation of direct and indirect costs.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51957

D. Total Cost Budgeting and Accounting

Accounting for all funds awarded by

the Institute shall be structured and

executed on a ‘‘total project cost’’ basis.

That is, total project costs, including

Institute funds, State and local matching

shares, and any other fund sources

included in the approved project budget

shall be the foundation for fiscal

administration and accounting. Grant

applications and financial reports

require budget and cost estimates on the

basis of total costs.

1. Timing of Matching Contributions

Matching contributions need not be

applied at the exact time of the

obligation of Institute funds. However,

the full matching share must be

obligated during the award period,

except that, with the prior written

permission of the Institute,

contributions made following approval

of the grant by the Institute’s Board of

Directors but before the beginning of the

grant may be counted as match.

Grantees that do not contemplate

making matching contributions

continuously throughout the course of a

project, or on a task-by-task basis, are

required to submit a schedule within 30

days after the beginning of the project

period indicating at what points during

the project period the matching

contributions will be made. In instances

where a proposed cash match is not

fully met, the Institute may reduce the

award amount accordingly, in order to

maintain the ratio originally provided

for in the award agreement.

2. Records for Match

All grantees must maintain records

which clearly show the source, amount,

and timing of all matching

contributions. In addition, if a project

has included, within its approved

budget, contributions which exceed the

required matching portion, the grantee

must maintain records of those

contributions in the same manner as it

does the Institute funds and required

matching shares. For all grants made to

State and local courts, the State

Supreme Court has primary

responsibility for grantee/subgrantee

compliance with the requirements of

this section. (See section XI.B.2.)

E. Maintenance and Retention of

Records

All financial records, supporting

documents, statistical records and all

other records pertinent to grants,

subgrants, cooperative agreements or

contracts under grants shall be retained

by each organization participating in a

project for at least three years for

purposes of examination and audit.

State Supreme Courts may impose

record retention and maintenance

requirements in addition to those

prescribed in this chapter.

1. Coverage

The retention requirement extends to

books of original entry, source

documents supporting accounting

transactions, the general ledger,

subsidiary ledgers, personnel and

payroll records, canceled checks, and

related documents and records. Source

documents include copies of all grant

and subgrant awards, applications, and

required grantee/subgrantee financial

and narrative reports. Personnel and

payroll records shall include the time

and attendance reports for all

individuals reimbursed under a grant,

subgrant or contract, whether they are

employed full-time or part-time. Time

and effort reports will be required for

consultants.

2. Retention Period

The three-year retention period starts

from the date of the submission of the

final expenditure report or, for grants

which are renewed annually, from the

date of submission of the annual

expenditure report.

3. Maintenance

Grantees and subgrantees are

expected to see that records of different

fiscal years are separately identified and

maintained so that requested

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.

F. Project-Related Income

Records of the receipt and disposition

of project-related income must be

maintained by the grantee in the same

manner as required for the project funds

that gave rise to the income and must be

reported to the Institute. (See section

XI.G.2.) The policies governing the

disposition of the various types of

project-related income are listed below.

1. Interest

A State and any agency or

instrumentality of a State, including

State institutions of higher education

and State hospitals, shall not be held

accountable for interest earned on

advances of project funds. When funds

are awarded to subgrantees through a

State, the subgrantees are not held

accountable for interest earned on

advances of project funds. Local units of

government and nonprofit organizations

that are direct grantees must refund any

interest earned. Grantees shall ensure

minimum balances in their respective

grant cash accounts.

2. Royalties

The grantee/subgrantee may retain all

royalties received from copyrights or

other works developed under projects or

from patents and inventions, unless the

terms and conditions of the grant

provide otherwise.

3. Registration and Tuition Fees

Registration and tuition fees shall be

used to pay project-related costs not

covered by the grant, or to reduce the

amount of grant funds needed to

support the project. Registration and

tuition fees may be used for other

purposes only with the prior written

approval of the Institute. Estimates of

registration and tuition fees, and any

expenses to be offset by the fees, should

be included in the application budget

forms and narrative.

4. Income From the Sale of Grant

Products

When grant funds fully cover the cost

of producing and disseminating a

limited number of copies of a product,

the grantee may, with the written prior

approval of the Institute, sell additional

copies reproduced at its expense only at

a price intended to recover actual

reproduction and distribution costs that

were not covered by Institute grant

funds or grantee matching contributions

to the project. When grant funds only

partially cover the costs of developing,

producing and disseminating a product,

the grantee may, with the written prior

approval of the Institute, recover costs

for developing, reproducing, and

disseminating the material to the extent

that those costs were not covered by

Institute grant funds or grantee

matching contributions. If the grantee

recovers its costs in this manner, then

amounts expended by the grantee to

develop, produce, and disseminate the

material may not be considered match.

If the sale of products occurs during

the project period, the costs and income

generated by the sales must be reported

on the Quarterly Financial Status

Reports and documented in an auditable

manner. Whenever possible, the intent

to sell a product should be disclosed in
51958 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

the concept paper and application or

reported to the Institute in writing once

a decision to sell products has been

made. The grantee must request

approval to recover its product

development, reproduction, and

dissemination costs as specified in

section X.V.

5. Other

Other project income shall be treated

in accordance with disposition

instructions set forth in the grant’s terms

and conditions.

G. Payments and Financial Reporting

Requirements

1. Payment of Grant Funds

The procedures and regulations set

forth below are applicable to all

Institute grant funds and grantees.

a. Request for Advance or

Reimbursement of Funds. Grantees will

receive funds on a ‘‘Check-Issued’’

basis. Upon receipt, review, and

approval of a Request for Advance or

Reimbursement by the Institute, a check

will be issued directly to the grantee or

its designated fiscal agent. A request

must be limited to the grantee’s

immediate cash needs. The Request for

Advance or Reimbursement, along with

the instructions for its preparation, will

be included in the official Institute

award package.

b. Continuation and On-Going

Support Awards. For purposes of

submitting Requests for Advance or

Reimbursement, recipients of

continuation and on-going support

grants should treat each grant as a new

project and number their requests

accordingly (i.e. on a grant rather than

a project basis). For example, the first

request for payment from a continuation

grant or each year of an on-going

support would be number 1, the second

number 2, etc. (See Recommendations

to Grantees in the Introduction for

further guidance.)

c. Termination of Advance and

Reimbursement Funding. When a

grantee organization receiving cash

advances from the Institute:

i. Demonstrates an unwillingness or

inability to attain program or project

goals, or to establish procedures that

will minimize the time elapsing

between cash advances and

disbursements, or cannot adhere to

guideline requirements or special

conditions;

ii. Engages in the improper award and

administration of subgrants or contracts;

or

iii. Is unable to submit reliable and/

or timely reports; the Institute may

terminate advance financing and require

the grantee organization to finance its

operations with its own working capital.

Payments to the grantee shall then be

made by check to reimburse the grantee

for actual cash disbursements. In the

event the grantee continues to be

deficient, the Institute may suspend

reimbursement payments until the

deficiencies are corrected.

d. Principle of Minimum Cash on

Hand. Recipient organizations should

request funds based upon immediate

disbursement requirements. Grantees

should time their requests to ensure that

cash on hand is the minimum needed

for disbursements to be made

immediately or within a few days. Idle

funds in the hands of subgrantees will

impair the goals of good cash

management.

2. Financial Reporting

a. General Requirements. In order to

obtain financial information concerning

the use of funds, the Institute requires

that grantees/subgrantees of these funds

submit timely reports for review.

Three copies of the Financial Status

Report are required from all grantees,

other than recipients of scholarships

under section II.B.2.b.iii., for each active

quarter on a calendar-quarter basis. This

report is due within 30 days after the

close of the calendar quarter. It is

designed to provide financial

information relating to Institute funds,

State and local matching shares, project

income, and any other sources of funds

for the project, as well as information on

obligations and outlays. A copy of the

Financial Status Report, along with

instructions for its preparation, will be

included in the official Institute Award

package. In circumstances where an

organization requests substantial

payments for a project prior to the

completion of a given quarter, the

Institute may request a brief summary of

the amount requested, by object class, in

support of the Request for Advance or

Reimbursement.

b. Additional Requirements for

Renewal Grants. Grantees receiving a

continuation or on-going support grant

should number their quarterly Financial

Status Reports on a grant rather than a

project basis. For example, the first

quarterly report for a continuation grant

or each year of an on-going support

award should be number 1, the second

number 2, etc.

3. Consequences of Non-Compliance

With Submission Requirements

Failure of the grantee organization to

submit required financial and program

reports may result in a suspension or

termination of grant payments.

H. Allowability of Costs

1. General

Except as may be otherwise provided

in the conditions of a particular grant,

cost allowability shall be determined in

accordance with the principles set forth

in OMB Circulars A–87, Cost Principles

for State and Local Governments; A–21,

Cost Principles Applicable to Grants

and Contracts with Educational

Institutions; and A–122, Cost Principles

for Non-Profit Organizations. No costs

may be recovered to liquidate

obligations which are incurred after the

approved grant period. Copies of these

circulars may be obtained from OMB by

calling (202) 395–7250.

2. Costs Requiring Prior Approval

a. Pre-agreement Costs. The written

prior approval of the Institute is

required for costs which are considered

necessary to the project but occur prior

to the award date of the grant.

b. Equipment. Grant funds may be

used to purchase or lease only that

equipment which is essential to

accomplishing the goals and objectives

of the project. The written prior

approval of the Institute is required

when the amount of automated data

processing (ADP) equipment to be

purchased or leased exceeds $10,000 or

the software to be purchased exceeds

$3,000.

c. Consultants. The written prior

approval of the Institute is required

when the rate of compensation to be

paid a consultant exceeds $300 a day.

Institute funds may not be used to pay

a consultant at a rate in excess of $900

per day. Ordinarily, attorneys in private

practice are expected to provide

consulting services to court

improvement or education projects on a

pro bono basis.

3. Travel Costs

Transportation and per diem rates

must comply with the policies of the

applicant organization. If the applicant

does not have an established written

travel policy, then travel rates shall be

consistent with those established by the

Institute or the Federal Government.

Institute funds may not be used to cover

the transportation or per diem costs of

a member of a national organization to

attend an annual or other regular

meeting of that organization.

4. Indirect Costs

These are costs of an organization that

are not readily assignable to a particular

project, but are necessary to the

operation of the organization and the

performance of the project. The cost of

operating and maintaining facilities,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51959

depreciation, and administrative

salaries are examples of the types of

costs that are usually treated as indirect

costs. It is the policy of the Institute that

all costs should be budgeted directly;

however, if a recipient has an indirect

cost rate approved by a Federal agency

as set forth below, the Institute will

accept that rate.

a. Approved Plan Available. i. The

Institute will accept an indirect cost rate

or allocation plan approved for a grantee

during the preceding two years by any

Federal granting agency on the basis of

allocation methods substantially in

accord with those set forth in the

applicable cost circulars. A copy of the

approved rate agreement must be

submitted to the Institute.

ii. Where flat rates are accepted in

lieu of actual indirect costs, grantees

may not also charge expenses normally

included in overhead pools, e.g.,

accounting services, legal services,

building occupancy and maintenance,

etc., as direct costs.

iii. Organizations with an approved

indirect cost rate, utilizing total direct

costs as the base, usually exclude

contracts under grants from any

overhead recovery. The negotiated

agreement will stipulate that contracts

are excluded from the base for overhead

recovery.

b. Establishment of Indirect Cost

Rates. In order to be reimbursed for

indirect costs, a grantee or organization

must first establish an appropriate

indirect cost rate. To do this, the grantee

must prepare an indirect cost rate

proposal and submit it to the Institute

within three months after the start of the

grant period to assure recovery of the

full amount of allowable indirect costs.

The rate must be developed in

accordance with principles and

procedures appropriate to the type of

grantee institution involved as specified

in the applicable OMB Circular. Copies

of OMB Circulars may be obtained

directly from OMB by calling (202) 395–

7250.

c. No Approved Plan. If an indirect

cost proposal for recovery of actual

indirect costs is not submitted to the

Institute within three months after the

start of the grant period, indirect costs

will be irrevocably disallowed for all

months prior to the month that the

indirect cost proposal is received. This

policy is effective for all grant awards.

I. Procurement and Property

Management Standards

1. Procurement Standards

For State and local governments, the

Institute adopts the standards set forth

in Attachment O of OMB Circular A–

102. Institutions of higher education,

hospitals; other non-profit organizations

will be governed by the standards set

forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular

A–110.

2. Property Management Standards

The property management standards

as prescribed in Attachment N of OMB

Circulars A–102 and A–110 shall be

applicable to all grantees and

subgrantees of Institute funds except as

provided in section X.O.

All grantees/subgrantees are required

to be prudent in the acquisition and

management of property with grant

funds. If suitable property required for

the successful execution of projects is

already available within the grantee or

subgrantee organization, expenditures of

grant funds for the acquisition of new

property will be considered

unnecessary.

J. Audit Requirements

1. Implementation

Each recipient of a grant from the

Institute other than a scholarship,

curriculum adaptation, or technical

assistance grant (including a State or

local court receiving a subgrant from the

State Supreme Court) shall provide for

an annual fiscal audit. The audit may be

of the entire grantee organization (e.g.,

a university) or of the specific project

funded by the Institute. Audits

conducted in accordance with the

Single Audit Act of 1984 as amended

and OMB Circular A–133 will satisfy

the requirement for an annual fiscal

audit. The audit shall be conducted by

an independent Certified Public

Accountant, or a State or local agency

authorized to audit government

agencies.

Grantees who receive funds from a

Federal agency and who satisfy audit

requirements of the cognizant Federal

agency should submit a copy of the

audit report prepared for that Federal

agency to the Institute in order to satisfy

the provisions of this section. Cognizant

Federal agencies do not send reports to

the Institute. Therefore, each grantee

must send this report directly to the

Institute.

2. Resolution and Clearance of Audit

Reports

Timely action on recommendations

by responsible management officials is

an integral part of the effectiveness of an

audit. Each grant recipient shall have

policies and procedures for acting on

audit recommendations by designating

officials responsible for: follow-up,

maintaining a record of the actions

taken on recommendations and time

schedules, responding to and acting on

audit recommendations, and submitting

periodic reports to the Institute on

recommendations and actions taken.

3. Consequences of Non-Resolution of

Audit Issues

It is the general policy of the State

Justice Institute not to make new grant

awards to an applicant having an

unresolved audit report involving

Institute awards. Failure of the grantee

organization to resolve audit questions

may also result in the suspension or

termination of payments for active

Institute grants to that organization.

K. Close-Out of Grants

1. Definition

Close-out is a process by which the

Institute determines that all applicable

administrative and financial actions and

all required work of the grant have been

completed by both the grantee and the

Institute.

2. Grantee Close-Out Requirements

Within 90 days after the end date of

the grant or any approved extension

thereof (See section XI.K.3), the

following documents must be submitted

to the Institute by the grantee other than

a recipient of a scholarship under

section II.B.2.b.iii. These reporting

requirements apply at the conclusion of

any non-scholarship grant, even when

the project will receive renewal funding

through a continuation or on-going

support grant.

a. Financial Status Report. The final

report of expenditures must have no

unliquidated obligations and must

indicate the exact balance of

unobligated funds. Any unobligated/

unexpended funds will be deobligated

from the award by the Institute. Final

payment requests for obligations

incurred during the award period must

be submitted to the Institute prior to the

end of the 90-day close-out period.

Grantees on a check-issued basis, who

have drawn down funds in excess of

their obligations/expenditures, must

return any unused funds as soon as it is

determined that the funds are not

required. In no case should any unused

funds remain with the grantee beyond

the submission date of the final

financial status report.

b. Final Progress Report. This report

should describe the project activities

during the final calendar quarter of the

project and the close-out period,

including to whom project products

have been disseminated; provide a

summary of activities during the entire

project; specify whether all the

objectives set forth in the approved
51960 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

application or an approved adjustment

thereto have been met and, if any of the

objectives have not been met, explain

the reasons therefor; and discuss what,

if anything, could have been done

differently that might have enhanced

the impact of the project or improved its

operation.

3. Extension of Close-out Period

Upon the written request of the

grantee, the Institute may extend the

close-out period to assure completion of

the Grantee’s close-out requirements.

Requests for an extension must be

submitted at least 14 days before the

end of the close-out period and must

explain why the extension is necessary

and what steps will be taken to assure

that all the grantee’s responsibilities

will be met by the end of the extension

period.

XII. Grant Adjustments

All requests for program or budget

adjustments requiring Institute approval

must be submitted in a timely manner

by the project director. All requests for

changes from the approved application

will be carefully reviewed for both

consistency with this Guideline and the

enhancement of grant goals and

objectives.

A. Grant Adjustments Requiring Prior

Written Approval

There are several types of grant

adjustments which require the prior

written approval of the Institute.

Examples of these adjustments include:

1. Budget revisions among direct cost

categories which, individually or in the

aggregate, exceed or are expected to

exceed five percent of the approved

original budget or the most recently

approved revised budget. For the

purposes of this section, the Institute

will view budget revisions

cumulatively.

For continuation and on-going

support grants, funds from the original

award may be used during the renewal

grant period and funds awarded by a

continuation or on-going support grant

may be used to cover project-related

expenditures incurred during the

original award period, with the prior

written approval of the Institute.

2. A change in the scope of work to

be performed or the objectives of the

project (see section XII.D.).

3. A change in the project site.

4. A change in the project period,

such as an extension of the grant period

and/or extension of the final financial or

progress report deadline (see section

XII.E.).

5. Satisfaction of special conditions, if

required.

6. A change in or temporary absence

of the project director (see sections

XII.F. and G.).

7. The assignment of an employee or

consultant to a key staff position whose

qualifications were not described in the

application, or a change of a person

assigned to a key project staff position

(see section X.X.).

8. A change in or temporary absence

of the person responsible for the

financial management and financial

reporting for the grant.

9. A change in the name of the grantee

organization.

10. A transfer or contracting out of

grant-supported activities (see section

XII.H.).

11. A transfer of the grant to another

recipient.

12. Preagreement costs, the purchase

of automated data processing equipment

and software, and consultant rates, as

specified in section XI.H.2.

13. A change in the nature or number

of the products to be prepared or the

manner in which a product would be

distributed.

B. Request for Grant Adjustments

All grantees and subgrantees must

promptly notify their SJI Program

Manager, in writing, of events or

proposed changes which may require an

adjustment to the approved application.

In requesting an adjustment, the grantee

must set forth the reasons and basis for

the proposed adjustment and any other

information the program manager

determines would help the Institute’s

review.

C. Notification of Approval/Disapproval

If the request is approved, the grantee

will be sent a Grant Adjustment signed

by the Executive Director or his

designee. If the request is denied, the

grantee will be sent a written

explanation of the reasons for the

denial.

D. Changes in the Scope of the Grant

A grantee/subgrantee may make

minor changes in methodology,

approach, or other aspects of the grant

to expedite achievement of the grant’s

objectives with subsequent notification

of the SJI Program Manager. Major

changes in scope, duration, training

methodology, or other significant areas

must be approved in advance by the

Institute.

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 requests for a no-cost

extension of the grant period, along with

a revised budget if shifts among budget

categories will be needed. A request to

change or extend the deadline for the

final financial report or final progress

report must be made at least 14 days in

advance of the report deadline (see

section XI.K.3.).

F. Temporary Absence of the Project

Director

Whenever absence of the project

director is expected to exceed a

continuous period of one month, the

plans for the conduct of the project

director’s duties during such absence

must be approved in advance by the

Institute. This information must be

provided in a letter signed by an

authorized representative of the grantee/

subgrantee at least 30 days before the

departure of the project director, or as

soon as it is known that the project

director will be absent. The grant may

be terminated if arrangements are not

approved in advance by the Institute.

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

A principal activity of the grantsupported project shall not be

transferred or contracted out to another

organization without specific prior

approval by the Institute. All such

arrangements should be formalized in a

contract or other written agreement

between the parties involved. Copies of

the proposed contract or agreement

must be submitted for prior approval at

the earliest possible time. The contract

or agreement must state, at a minimum,

the activities to be performed, the time

schedule, the policies and procedures to

be followed, the dollar limitation of the

agreement, and the cost principles to be

followed in determining what costs,

both direct and indirect, are to be

allowed. The contract or other written

agreement must not affect the grantee’s
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51961

overall responsibility for the direction of

the project and accountability to the

Institute.

State Justice Institute Board of

Directors

David A. Brock, Co-Chairman, Chief

Justice, Supreme Court of New

Hampshire, Concord, NH

John F. Daffron, Jr., Co-Chairman, Judge,

Chesterfield Circuit Court,

Chesterfield, VA

Sandra A. O’Connor, Secretary, States

Attorney of Baltimore County,

Towson, MD

Terrence B. Adamson, Esq., Executive

Committee Member, Kaye, Scholer,

Fierman, Hays & Handler,

Washington, D.C

Joseph F. Baca, Chief Justice, New

Mexico Supreme Court, Santa Fe, NM

Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, State Court

Administrator, Virginia Supreme

Court, Richmond, VA

Carlos R. Garza, Esq., Administrative

Judge (ret.), Vienna, VA

Tommy Jewell, Judge, 2nd Judicial

District Court, Albuquerque, NM

Keith McNamara, Esq., McNamara &

McNamara, Columbus, OH

Florence K. Murray, Associate Justice

(ret.), Rhode Island Supreme Court,

Providence, RI

Janie L. Shores, Justice, Alabama

Supreme Court, Birmingham, AL

David I. Tevelin, Executive Director (ex

officio)

David I. Tevelin,

Executive Director.

Appendix I—List of Contacts Regarding

Administration of Institute Grants to State

and Local Courts

Mr. Frank Gregory, Administrative Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, 300

Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36130,

(205) 834–7990

Ms. Stephanie J. Cole, Administrative

Director, Alaska Court System, 303 K

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

0547

Mr. David K. Byers, Administrative Director,

Supreme Court of Arizona, 1501 West

Washington Street, Suite 411, Phoenix, AZ

85007–3330, (602) 542–9301

Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, 625

Marshall, Little Rock, AR 72201, (501)

682–9400

Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, 303 Second Street, South Tower,

San Francisco, CA 94107, (415) 396–9115

Mr. Steven V. Berson, State Court

Administrator, Colorado Judicial

Department, 1301 Pennsylvania Street,

Suite 300, Denver, CO 80203–2416, (303)

861–1111, ext. 585

Honorable Aaron Ment, Chief Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of

Connecticut, 231 Capitol Avenue, Drawer

N, Station A, Hartford, CT 06106, (860)

566–4461

Mr. Lowell Groundland, Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, Carvel

State Office Building, 820 N. French Street,

Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 577–2480

Mr. Ulysses Hammond, Executive Officer,

Courts of the District of Columbia, 500

Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20001, (202) 879–1700

Mr. Kenneth Palmer, State Courts

Administrator, Florida State Courts

System, Supreme Court Building,

Tallahassee, FL 32399–1900, (904) 922–

5081

Mr. Robert L. Doss, Jr., Director,

Administrative Office of the Georgia

Courts, The Judicial Council of Georgia,

244 Washington Street, S.W., Suite 500,

Atlanta, GA 30334–5900, (404) 656–5171

Administrative Director, Superior Court of

Guam, Judiciary Building, 120 West

O’Brien Drive, Agana, Guam 96910, 011

(671) 475–3544

Mr. Michael F. Broderick, Administrative

Director of the Courts, 417 S. King Street,

Room 206, Honolulu, HI 96813, (808) 539–

4900

Ms. Patricia Tobias, Administrative Director

of the Courts, Idaho Supreme Court, 451

West State Street, Boise, ID 83720–0101,

(208) 334–2246

Honorable Joseph A. Schillaci,

Administrative Director of the Courts, 222

N. LaSalle Street, 13th Floor, Chicago, IL

60601, (312) 793–8191

Ms. Lilia G. Judson, Acting Executive

Director, Supreme Court of Indiana, 115 W.

Washington, Suite 1080, Indianapolis, IN

46204–3417, (317) 232–2542

Mr. William J. O’Brien, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Iowa,

State House, Des Moines, IA 50319, (515)

281–5241

Dr. Howard P. Schwartz, Judicial

Administrator, Kansas Judicial Center, 301

West 10th Street, Topeka, KS 66612, (913)

296–4873

Mr. Paul F. Isaacs, Administrative Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, 100

Mill Creek Park, Frankfort, KY 40601–

9230, (502) 573–2350

Dr. Hugh M. Collins, Judicial Administrator,

Supreme Court of Louisiana, 301 Loyola

Avenue, Room 109, New Orleans, LA

70112, (504) 568–5747

Mr. James T. Glessner, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, P.O. Box 4820, Downtown Station,

Portland, ME 04112–4820, (207) 822–0792

Mr. George B. Riggin, Jr., State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, Courts of Appeal Bldg., 361 Rowe

Boulevard, Annapolis, MD 21401, (410)

974–2141

Honorable John J. Irwin, Jr., Chief Justice for

Administration and Management, The

Trial Court, Administrative Office of the

Trial Court, Two Center Plaza, Suite 540,

Boston, MA 02108, (617) 742–8575

Mr. John D. Ferry, Jr., State Court

Administrator, Michigan Supreme Court,

309 N. Washington Square, P.O. Box

30048, Lansing, MI 48909, (517) 373–0130

Ms. Sue K. Dosal, State Court Administrator,

Supreme Court of Minnesota, 25

Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155,

(617) 296–2474

Mr. Richard Patt, Acting Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts,

Supreme Court of Mississippi, P.O. Box

117, Jackson, MS 39205, (601) 354–7408

Mr. Ron Larkin, State Court Administrator,

Supreme Court of Missouri, P.O. Box

104480, Jefferson City, MO 65110, (314)

751–3585

Mr. Patrick A. Chenovick, State Court

Administrator, Montana Supreme Court,

Justice Building, Room 315, 215 North

Sanders, Helena, MT 59620–3001, (406)

444–2621

Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Nebraska,

State Capitol Building, Room 1220,

Lincoln, NE 68509, (404) 471–3730

Ms. Georgia J. Rohrs, Acting State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, Capitol Complex, Carson City, NV

89710, (702) 687–5076

Mr. Donald Goodnow, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of New

Hampshire, Frank Rowe Kenison Building,

Concord, NH 03301, (603) 271–2521

Mr. James J. Ciancia, Administrative Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, CN–

037, RJH Justice Complex, Trenton, NJ

08625, (609) 984–0275,

Honorable Jonathan Lippman, Chief

Administrative Judge, Office of Court

Administration, 270 Broadway, New York,

NY 10007, (212) 417–2007

Mr. John M. Greacen, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, Supreme Court of New Mexico,

Supreme Court Building, Room 25, Sante

Fe, NM 87503, (505) 827–4800

Mr. Dallas A. Cameron, Jr., Administrative

Director, Administrative Office of the

Courts, P.O. Box 2448, Raleigh, NC 27602,

(919) 733–7107

Mr. Keithe E. Nelson, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of North

Dakota, State Capitol Building, Bismarck,

ND 58505, (701) 328–4216

Mr. Stephan W. Stover, Administrative

Director of the Courts, Supreme Court of

Ohio, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad

Street, Columbus, OH 43266–0419, (614)

466–2653

Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Administrative

Director, Administrative Office of the

Courts, 1925 N. Stiles, Suite 305,

Oklahoma City, OK 73105, (405) 521–2450

Ms. Kingsley Click, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Oregon,

Supreme Court Building, Salem, OR 97310,

(503) 986–5900

Ms. Nancy M. Sobolevitch, Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania 1515 Market Street, Suite

1414, Philadelphia, PA 19102, (215) 560–

6337

Dr. Robert C. Harrall, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Rhode

Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, RI

02903, (401) 277–3263

Mr. George A. Markert, Director, South

Carolina Court Administration, P.O. Box

50447, Columbia, SC 29250, (803) 734–

1800

Mr. Michael L. Buenger, State Court

Administrator, Unified Judicial System,

500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501,

(605) 773–3474
51962 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

Mr. Charles E. Ferrell, Administrative

Director of the Courts, Nashville City

Center, Suite 600, 511 Union Street,

Nashville, TN 37243–0607, (615) 741–2687

Mr. Jerry L. Benedict, Administrative

Director, Office of Court Administration of

the Texas Judicial System, 205 West 14th

Street, Suite 600, Austin, TX 78701, (512)

463–1625

Mr. Daniel Becker, State Court Administrator,

Administrative Office of the Courts, 230

South 500 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84102,

(801) 578–3800

Mr. Lee Suskin, Court Administrator,

Supreme Court of Vermont, 109 State

Street, Montpelier, VT 05602, (802) 828–

3278

Ms. Viola E. Smith, Clerk of the Court/

Administrator, Territorial Court of the

Virgin Islands, P.O. Box 70, Charlotte

Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801,

(809) 774–6680, ext. 248

Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, Executive Secretary,

Supreme Court of Virginia, 100 North

Ninth Street, 3rd Floor, Richmond, VA

23219, (804) 786–6455

Ms. Mary C. McQueen, Administrator for the

Courts, Supreme Court of Washington, P.O.

Box 41174, Olympia, WA 98504, (360)

357–2121

Mr. Ted J. Philyaw, Administrative Director

of the Courts, E–400, State Capitol Bldg.,

1900 Kanawha Blvd., East Charleston, WV

25305, (304) 558–0145

Mr. J. Denis Moran, Director of State Courts,

P.O. Box 1688, Madison, WI 53701–1688,

(608) 266–6828

Mr. Allen C. Johnson, Court Administrator,

Supreme Court of Wyoming, Supreme

Court Building, Cheyenne, WY 82002,

(307) 777–7480

Appendix II—SJI Libraries Designated Sites

and Contacts

Alabama

Supreme Court Library

Mr. William C. Younger, State Law Librarian,

Alabama Supreme Court Bldg., 445 Dexter

Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36130, (205)

242–4347

Alaska

Anchorage Law Library

Ms. Cynthia S. Petumenos, State Law

Librarian, Alaska Court Libraries, 303 K

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

0583

Arizona

State Law Library

Ms. Arlene Bansal, Collection Development,

Research Division, Arizona Dept. of

Library, Archives and Public Records, State

Law Library, 1501 W. Washington,

Phoenix, AZ 85007, (602) 542–4035

Arkansas

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director, Supreme

Court of Arkansas, Administrative Office of

the Courts, Justice Building, 625 Marshall,

Little Rock, AR 72201–1078, (501) 376–

6655

California

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, 303 Second Street, South Tower,

San Francisco, CA 94107, (415) 396–9100

Colorado

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Frances Campbell, Supreme Court Law

Librarian, Colorado State Judicial Building,

2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203,

(303) 837–3720

Connecticut

State Library

Mr. Richard Akeroyd, State Librarian, 231

Capital Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106, (860)

566–4301

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) 571–2480

District of Columbia

Executive Office, District of Columbia Courts

Mr. Ulysses Hammond, Executive Officer,

Courts of the District of Columbia, 500

Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20001 (202) 879–1700

Florida

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Kenneth Palmer, State Court

Administrator, Florida State Courts

System, Supreme Court Building,

Tallahassee, FL 32399–1900, (904) 488–

8621

Georgia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Robert Doss, Jr., Administrative Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, The

Judicial Council of Georgia, 244

Washington St., S.W.,, Suite 550, Atlanta,

GA 30334–5900, (404) 656–5171

Hawaii

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Ann Koto, State Law Librarian, The

Supreme Court Law Library, Judiciary

Building, P.O. Box 2560, Honolulu, HI

96804, (808) 548–4605

Idaho

AOC Judicial Education Library/State Law

Library

Ms. Laura Pershing, State Law Librarian,

Idaho State Law Library, Supreme Court

Building, 451 West State St., Boise, ID

83720, (208) 334–3316

Illinois

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Brenda Larison, Supreme Court Library,

Supreme Court Building, Springfield, IL

62701–1791, (217) 782–2424

Indiana

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Constance Matts, Supreme Court

Librarian, Supreme Court Library, State

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

2557

Iowa

Administrative Office of the Court

Dr. Jerry K. Beatty, Executive Director,

Judicial, Education & Planning,

Administrative Office of the Courts, State

Capital Building, Des Moines, IA 50319,

(515) 281–8279

Kansas

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Fred Knecht, Law Librarian, Kansas

Supreme Court Library, 301 West 10th

Street, Topeka, KS 66614, (913) 296–3257

Kentucky

State Law Library

Ms. Sallie Howard, State Law Librarian, State

Law Library, State Capital, Room 200–A,

Frankfort, KY 40601, (502) 564–4848

Louisiana

State Law Library

Ms. Carol Billings, Director, Louisiana Law

Library, 301 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans,

LA 70112, (504) 568–5705

Maine

State Law and Legislative Reference Library

Ms. Lynn E. Randall, State Law Librarian,

State House Station 43, Augusta, ME

04333, (207) 289–1600

Maryland

State Law Library

Mr. Michael S. Miller, Director, Maryland

State Law Library, Court of Appeal

Building, 361 Rowe Boulevard, Annapolis,

MD 21401, (301) 974–3395

Massachusetts

Middlesex Law Library

Ms. Sandra Lindheimer, Librarian, Middlesex

Law Library, Superior Court House, 40

Thorndike Street, Cambridge, MA 02141,

(617) 494–4148

Michigan

Michigan Judicial Institute

Mr. Leonard Kowalski, Michigan Judicial

Institute, 222 Washington Square North,

P.O. Box 30205, Lansing, MI 48909, (517)

334–7804

Minnesota

State Law Library (Minnesota Judicial Center)

Mr. Marvin R. Anderson, State Law

Librarian, Supreme Court of Minnesota, 25

Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155,

(612) 297–2084

Mississippi

Mississippi Judicial College

Leslie Johnson, Director, University of

Mississippi, P.O. Box 8850, University, MS

38677, (601) 982–6590
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51963

Montana

State Law Library

Ms. Judith Meadows, State Law Librarian,

State Law Library of Montana, 215 North

Sanders, Helena, MT 59620, (406) 444–

3660

Nebraska

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Nebraska,

Administrative Office of the Courts, P.O.

Box 98910, Lincoln, NE 68509–8910, (402)

471–3730

Nevada

National Judicial College

Honorable V. Robert Payant, President,

National Judicial College, Judicial College

Building, University of Nevada, Reno, NV

89550, (702) 784–6747

New Jersey

New Jersey State Library

Mr. Robert L. Bland, Law Coordinator, State

of New Jersey, Department of Education,

State Library, 185 West State Street,

CN520, Trenton, NJ 08625, (609) 292–6230

New Mexico

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Thaddeus Bejnar, Librarian, Supreme

Court Library, Post Office Drawer L, Santa

Fe, NM 87504, (505) 827–4850

New York

Supreme Court Library

Susan M. Wood, Esq., Principal Law

Librarian, New York State Supreme, Court

Law Library, Onondaga County Court

House, Syracuse, NY 13202, (315) 435–

2063

North Carolina

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Louise Stafford, Librarian, North

Carolina Supreme, Court Library, P.O. Box

28006, 2 East Morgan Street, Raleigh, NC

27601, (919) 733–3425

North Dakota

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Marcella Kramer, Assistant Law

Librarian, Supreme Court Law Library, 600

East Boulevard Avenue, 2nd Floor, Judicial

Wing, Bismarck, ND 58505–0530, (701)

224–2229

Northern Mariana Islands

Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana

Islands

Honorable Marty W.K. Taylor, Chief Justice,

Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana

Islands, P.O. Box 2165, Saipan, MP 96950,

(670) 234–5275

Ohio

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Paul S. Fu, Law Librarian, Supreme

Court Law Library, Supreme Court of Ohio,

30 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH

43266–0419, (614) 466–2044

Oklahoma

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, 1915

North Stiles, Suite 305, Oklahoma City, OK

73105, (405) 521–2450

Oregon

Administrative Office of the Courts

Ms. Kingsley Click, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Oregon,

Supreme Court Building, 1163 State Street,

Salem, OR 97310, (503) 378–6046

Pennsylvania

State Library of Pennsylvania

Ms. Betty Lutz, Head, Acquisitions Section,

State Library of Pennsylvania, Technical

Services, G46 Forum Building, Harrisburg,

PA 17105, (717) 787–4440

Puerto Rico

Office of Court Administration

Alfredo Rivera-Mendoza, Esq., Director, Area

of Planning and Management, Office of

Court Administration, P.O. Box 917, Hato

Rey, PR 00919

Rhode Island

Roger Williams Law School Library

Mr. Kendall Svengalis, Law Librarian, Licht

Judicial Complex, 250 Benefit Street,

Providence, RI, (401) 254–4546

South Carolina

Coleman Karesh Law Library (University of

South Carolina School of Law)

Mr. Bruce S. Johnson, Law Librarian,

Associate Professor of Law, Coleman

Karesh Law Library, U. S. C. Law Center,

University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC

29208, (803) 777–5944

Tennessee

Tennessee State Law Library

Ms. Donna C. Wair, Librarian, Tennessee

State Law Library, Supreme Court

Building, 401 Seventh Avenue N,

Nashville, TN 37243–0609, (615) 741–2016

Texas

State Law Library

Ms. Kay Schleuter, Director, State Law

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

(512) 463–1722

U.S. Virgin Islands

Library of the Territorial Court of the Virgin

Islands (St. Thomas)

Librarian, The Library, Territorial Court of

the Virgin Islands, Post Office Box 70,

Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin

Islands 00804

Utah

Utah State Judicial Administration Library

Ms. Debbie Christiansen, Utah State Judicial,

Administration Library, 230 South 500

East, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT 84102,

(801) 533–6371

Vermont

Supreme Court of Vermont

Mr. Lee Suskin, Court Administrator,

Supreme Court of Vermont, 109 State

Street, c/o Pavilion Office Building,

Montpelier, VT 05609, (802) 828–3278

Virginia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, Executive Secretary,

Supreme Court of Virginia, Administrative

Offices, 100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor,

Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786–6455

Washington

Washington State Law Library

Ms. Deborah Norwood, State Law Librarian,

Washington State Law Library, Temple of

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

98504–0751, (206) 357–2146

West Virginia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Richard H. Rosswurm, Chief Deputy,

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals,

State Capitol, 1900 Kanawha, Charleston,

WV 25305, (304) 348–0145

Wisconsin

State Law Library, Ms. Marcia Koslov, State

Law Librarian, State Law Library, 310E

State Capitol, P.O. Box 7881, Madison, WI

53707, (608) 266–1424

Wyoming

Wyoming State Law Library

Ms. Kathy Carlson, Law Librarian, Wyoming

State Law Library, Supreme Court

Building, Cheyenne, WY 82002, (307) 777–

7509

National

American Judicature Society

Ms. Clara Wells, Assistant for Information

and Library Services, 25 East Washington

Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60602, (312)

558–6900

National Center for State Courts

Ms. Peggy Rogers, Acquisitions/Serials

Librarian, 300 Newport Avenue,

Williamsburg, VA 23187–8798, (804) 253–

2000

Jeritt

Ms. Jennae Rozeboom, Project Director,

Judicial Education Reference, Information

and Technical Transfer Project (JERITT),

Michigan State University, 560 Baker Hall,

East Lansing, MI 48824, (517) 353–8603

Appendix III—Illustrative List of Model

Curricula

The following list includes examples of

curricula that have been developed with

support from SJI, that might be—or in some

cases have been—successfully adapted for

State-based education programs for judges

and other court personnel. Please refer to

Section II.B.2.b.ii for information on

submitting a letter application for a

Curriculum Adaptation Grant. A list of all

SJI-supported education projects is available

from the Institute, and on the SJI website

—www.clark.net/pub/sji/. Please also check
51964 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

with the JERITT project (517/353–8603) and

with your State SJI-designated library (see

Appendix II) for information on other

curricula that may be appropriate for your

State’s needs.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Judicial Settlement Manual’’ from ‘‘Judicial

Settlement: Development of a New Course

Module, Film, and Instructional Manual’’

(National Judicial College: SJI–89–089)

Improving the Quality of Dispute Resolution’’

(Ohio State University College of Law: SJI–

93–277)

‘‘Comprehensive ADR Curriculum for

Judges’’ (American Bar Association: SJI–

95–002)

‘‘Domestic Violence and Custody Mediation’’

(American Bar Association: SJI–96–038)

Court Coordination

‘‘Adjudication of Farm Credit Issues’’ (Rural

Justice Center: SJI–87–059)

Bankruptcy Issues for State Trial Court

Judges’’ (American Bankruptcy Institute:

SJI–91–027)

‘‘Intermediate Sanctions Handbook:

Experiences and Tools for Policymakers’’

(Center for Effective Public Policy: IAA–88-

NIC–001)

‘‘Regional Conference Cookbook: A Practical

Guide to Planning and Presenting a

Regional Conference on State-Federal

Judicial Relationships’’ (U.S. Court of

Appeals for the 9th Circuit: SJI–92–087)

Court Management

‘‘Managing Trials Effectively: A Program for

State Trial Judges’’ (National Center for

State Courts/National Judicial College: SJI–

87–066/067, SJI–89–054/055, SJI–91–025/

026)

‘‘Caseflow Management Principles and

Practices’’ (Institute for Court

Management/ National Center for State

Courts: SJI–87–056)

‘‘Judicial Education Curriculum: Teaching

Guides on Court Security, and Jury

Management and Impanelment’’ (Institute

for Court Management/National Center for

State Courts: SJI–88–053)

‘‘A Manual for Workshops on Processing

Felony Dispositions in Limited Jurisdiction

Courts’’ (National Center for State Courts:

SJI–90–052)

‘‘Managerial Budgeting in the Courts’’;

‘‘Performance Appraisal in the Courts’’;

‘‘Managing Change in the Courts’’; ‘‘Court

Automation Design,’’ ‘‘Case Management

for Trial Judges’’; ‘‘Trial Court Performance

Standards’’ (Institute for Court

Management/National Center for State

Courts: SJI–91–043)

‘‘Implementing the Court-Related Needs of

Older Persons and Persons with

Disabilities’’ (National Judicial College:

SJI–91–054)

‘‘Strengthening Rural Courts of Limited

Jurisdiction’’ and ‘‘Team Training for

Judges and Clerks’’ (Rural Justice Center:

SJI–90–014, SJI–91–082)

‘‘Interbranch Relations Workshop’’ (Ohio

Judicial Conference: SJI–92–079)

‘‘Integrating Trial Management and Caseflow

Management’’ (Justice Management

Institute: SJI–93–214)

‘‘Leading Organizational Change’’ (California

Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI–

94–068)

‘‘Managing the Complex Case’’; ‘‘Privacy

Issues in Computerized Record Keeping’’

(National Judicial College: SJI–94–142)

‘‘Employment Responsibilities of State Court

Judges’’ (National Judicial College: SJI–95–

025)

‘‘Dealing with the Common Law Courts: A

Model Curruculum for Judges and Court

Staff’’ (Institute for Court Management/

National Center for State Courts: SJI–96–

159)

Courts and Communities

‘‘A National Program for Reporting on the

Courts and the Law’’ (American Judicature

Society: SJI–88–014)

‘‘Victim Rights and the Judiciary: A Training

and Implementation Project’’ (National

‘‘Organization for Victim Assistance: SJI–

89–083)

‘‘National Guardianship Monitoring Project:

Trainer and Trainee’s Manual’’ (American

Association of Retired Persons: SJI–91–

013)

‘‘Access to Justice: The Impartial Jury and the

Justice System’’ and ‘‘When Implementing

the Court-Related Needs of Older People

and Persons with Disabilities: An

Instructional Guide’’ (National Judicial

College: SJI–91–054)

‘‘You Are the Court System: A Focus on

Customer Service’’ (Alaska Court System:

SJI–94–048)

‘‘Serving the Public: A Curriculum for Court

Employees’’ (American Judicature Society:

SJI–96–040)

Diversity, Values, and Attitudes

‘‘Troubled Families, Troubled Judges’’

(Brandeis University: SJI–89–071)

‘‘The Crucial Nature of Attitudes and Values

in Judicial Education’’ (National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI–90–

058)

‘‘Enhancing Diversity in the Court and

Community’’ (Institute for Court

Management/National Center for State

Courts: SJI–91–043)

‘‘Cultural Diversity Awareness in Nebraska

Courts’’ from ‘‘Native American

Alternatives to Incarceration Project’’

(Nebraska Urban Indian Health Coalition:

SJI–93–028)

‘‘A Videotape Training Program in Ethics and

Professional Conduct for Nonjudicial Court

Personnel’’ and ‘‘The Ethics Fieldbook:

Tool For Trainers’’ (American Judicature

Society: SJI–93–068)

‘‘Court Interpreter Training Course for

Spanish Interpreters’ (International

Institute of Buffalo: SJI–93–075)

‘‘Doing Justice: Improving Equality Before the

Law Through Literature-Based Seminars

for Judges and Court Personnel’’ (Brandeis

University: SJI–94–019)

‘‘Race Fairness and Cultural Awareness

Faculty Development Workshop’’ (National

Judicial College: SJI–93–063)

‘‘Indian Welfare Act’’; ‘‘Defendants, Victims,

and Witnesses with Mental Retardation’’

(National Judicial College: SJI–94–142)

‘‘Multi-Cultural Training for Judges and

Court Personnel’’ (St. Petersburg Junior

College: SJI–95–006)

‘‘Ethical Standards for Judicial Settlement:

Developing a Judicial Education Module’’

(American Judicature Society: SJI–95–082)

Family Violence and Gender-Related

Violence Crime

‘‘National Judicial Response to Domestic

Violence: Civil and Criminal Curricula’’

(Family Violence Prevention Fund: SJI–87–

061, SJI–89–070, SJI–91–055).

‘‘Domestic Violence: A Curriculum for Rural

Courts’’ from ‘‘A Project to Improve Access

to Rural Courts for Victims of Domestic

Violence’’ (Rural Justice Center: SJI–88–

081)

‘‘Judicial Training Materials on Spousal

Support’’; ‘‘Family Violence: Effective

Judicial Intervention’’; ‘‘Judicial Training

Materials on Child Custody and Visitation’’

from ‘‘Enhancing Gender Fairness in the

State Courts’’ (Women Judges’ Fund for

Justice: SJI–89–062)

‘‘Judicial Response to Stranger and

Nonstranger Rape and Sexual Assault’’

(National Judicial Education Program to

Promote Equality for Women and Men:

SJI–92–003)

‘‘Domestic Violence & Children: Resolving

Custody and Visitation Disputes’’ (Family

Violence Prevention Fund: SJI–93–255)

‘‘Adjudicating Allegations of Child Sexual

Abuse When Custody Is In Dispute’’

(National Judicial Education Program: SJI

95–019)

‘‘Handling Cases of Elder Abuse:

Interdisciplinary Curricula for Judges and

Court Staff’’ (American Bar Association:

SJI–93–274)

Health and Science

‘‘Medicine, Ethics, and the Law:

Preconception to Birth’’ (Women Judges

Fund for Justice: SJI–89–062, SJI–91–019)

‘‘Judicial Educator’s Workshop Curriculum

Guide: Implementing Medical Legal

Training’’ from Medical Legal Issues in

Juvenile and Family Courts (National

Council for Juvenile and Family Court

Judges: SJI–91–091)

‘‘Environmental Law Resource Handbook’’

(University of New Mexico Institute for

Public Law: SJI–92–162)

Judicial Education for Appellate Court

Judges

‘‘Career Writing Program for Appellate

Judges’’ (American Academy of Judicial

Education: SJI–88–086-P92–1)

‘‘Civil and Criminal Procedural Innovations

for Appellate Courts’’ (National Center for

State Courts: SJI–94–002)

Judicial Education Program and Faculty

Development

‘‘The Leadership Institute in Judicial

Education’’ and ‘‘The Advanced

Leadership Institute in Judicial Education’’

(University of Memphis: SJI–91–021)

‘‘Faculty Development Instructional

Program’’ from ‘‘Curriculum Review’’

(National Judicial College: SJI–91–039)

Orientation and Mentoring of Judges and

Court Personnel

‘‘Manual for Judicial Writing Workshop for

Trial Judges’’ (University of Georgia/
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51965

Colorado Judicial Department: SJI–87–018/

019)

‘‘Legal Institute for Special and Limited

Jurisdiction Judges’’ (National Judicial

College: SJI–89–043, SJI–91–040)

‘‘Pre-Bench Training for New Judges’’

(American Judicature Society: SJI–90–028)

A Unified Orientation and Mentoring

Program for New Judges of All Arizona

Trial Courts’’ (Arizona Supreme Court: SJI–

90–078)

‘‘Court Organization and Structure’’ (Institute

for Court Management/National Center for

State Courts: SJI–91–043)

‘‘Judicial Review of Administrative Agency

Decisions’’ (National Judicial College: SJI–

91–080)

‘‘New Employee Orientation Facilitators

Guide’’ from ‘‘The Minnesota

Comprehensive Curriculum Design and

Training Program for Court Personnel’’

(Minnesota Supreme Court: SJI–92–155)

‘‘Magistrates Correspondence Course’’

(Alaska Court System: SJI–92–156)

‘‘Computer-Assisted Instruction for Court

Employes’’ (Utah Administrative Office of

the Courts: SJI–94–012)

‘‘Bench Trial Skills and Demeanor: An

Interactive Manual’’ (National Judicial

College: SJI 94–058)

‘‘Ethical Issues in the Election of Judges’

(National Judicial College: SJI–94–142)

Juveniles and Families in Court

‘‘Innovative Juvenile and Family Court

Training’’ (Youth Law Center: SJI–87–060,

SJI–89–039)

‘‘Fundamental Skills Training Curriculum for

Juvenile Probation Officers’’ (National

Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges: SJI–90–017)

‘‘Child Support Across State Lines: The

Uniform Interstate Family Support Act’’

from Uniform Interstate Family Support

Act: Development and Delivery of a

Judicial Training Curriculum.’’ (ABA

Center on Children and the Law: SJI 94–

321)

Strategic and Futures Planning

‘‘Minding the Courts into the Twentieth

Century’’ (Michigan Judicial Institute: SJI–

89–029)

‘‘An Approach to Long-Range Strategic

Planning in the Courts’’ (Center for Public

Policy Studies: SJI–91–045)

Substance Abuse

‘‘Effective Treatment for Drug-Involved

Offenders: A Review & Synthesis for Judges

and Court Personnel’’ (Education

Development Center, Inc.: SJI–90–051)

‘‘Good Times, Bad Times: Drugs, Youth, and

the Judiciary’’ (Professional Development

and Training Center, Inc.: SJI–91–095)

‘‘Gaining Momentum: A Model Curriculum

for Drug Courts’’ (Florida Office of the

State Courts Administrator: SJI–94–291)

‘‘Judicial Response to Substance Abuse:

Children, Adolescents, and Families’’

(National Council of Juvenile and Family

Court Judges: SJI–95–030)

Appendix IV-Illustrative List of Replicable

Projects

The following list includes examples

of projects undertaken with support

from SJI/that might be—or in some cases

have been—successfully adapted and

replicated in other in other

jurisdictions. Please see Section II.C.1.

for information on submitting a concept

paper requesting a grant to replicate one

of these or another SJI-supported

project. A list of all SJI-supported

projects is available from the Institute

and on the Institute’s website

—www.clark.net/pub/sji.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Computerized Citizen Intake and Referral

Service

Grantee: District of Columbia Courts

Contact: Charles Bethell, 500 Indiana

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20001,

(202) 879–1479

Grant No: SJI–93–211

Application of Technology

File Transfer Technology Application

in Use of Court Information

Grantee: South Carolina Bar

Contact: Yvonne Visser, 950 Taylor Street,

P.O. Box 608, Columbia, SC 29202–0608,

(803) 799–6653

Grant Nos: SJI–91–088; SJI–91–088–P93–1;

SJI–91–088–P94–1

Managing Documents with Imaging

Technology

Grantee: Alaska Judicial Council

Contact: William T. Cotton, 1029 W. Third

Avenue, Suite 201, Anchorage, AK 99501–

1917, (907) 279–2526

Grant No: SJI–92–083

Automated Teller Machines for Juror

Payment

Grantee: District of Columbia Courts

Contact: Philip Braxton 500, Indiana Avenue,

N.W., Washington, DC 20001, (202) 879–

1700,

Grant No: SJI–92–139

Children and Families in Court

A Day in Court: A Child’s Perspective

Grantee: Massachusetts Trial Court

Contact: Hon. John Irwin, 2 Center Plaza,

Boston, MA 02108, (617) 742–8575,

Grant No: SJI–91–079

Parent Education and Custody Effectiveness

(PEACE) Program

Grantee: Hofstra University

Contact: Andrew Shephard, 1000 Fulton

Avenue, Hampstead, NY 11550–1090,

(516) 463–5890

Grant No: SJI–93–265

Court Management and Planning

Measurement of Trial Court Performance

Grantee: Washington Administrative Office

for the Courts

Contact: Yvonne Pettus, 1206 S. Quince

Street, Olympia, WA 98504

Grant No: SJI–91–017; SJI–91–017–P92–1

Measurement of Trial Court Performance

Grantee: New Jersey Administrative Office of

the Courts

Contact: Theodore J. Fetter, CN–037, RJH

Justice Complex, Trenton, NJ 08625

Grant No: SJI–91–023; SJI–91–023–P93–1

Measurement of Trial Court Performance

Grantee: Ohio Supreme Court,

Contact: Stephan W. Stover, State Office

Tower, 30 East Broad Street, Columbus,

OH 43266–0419

Grant No: SJI–91–024; SJI–91–024–P93–1

Measurement of Trial Court Performance

Grantee: Supreme Court of Virginia

Contact: Beatrice Monahan, 100 North Ninth

Street Third Floor, Richmond, VA 23219,

(804) 786–6455

Grant No: SJI–91–042; SJI–91–042–P93–1

Probate Caseflow Management Project

Grantee: Ohio Supreme Court/Trumball

County Probate Court

Contact: Susan Lightbody, 160 High Street,

N.W., Warren, OH 44481, (216) 675–2566

Grant No: SJI–92–081; SJI–92–081–P94–1;

SJI–92–081–P95–1

Implementing Quality Methods in Court

Operations

Grantee: Oregon Supreme Court

Contact: Scott Crampton, Supreme Court

Building, Salem, OR 97310, (503) 378–

5845

Grant No: SJI–92–170

Implementing Strategic Planning in the Trial

Courts

Grantee: Center for Public Policy Studies

Contact: David Price, 999 18th Street, Suite

900, Denver, CO 80202, (303) 863–0900

Grant No: SJI–94–021

Courts and Communities

AARP Volunteers: A Resource for

Strengthening Guardianship Services

Grantee: American Association of Retired

Persons

Contact: Wayne Moore, 601 E Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20049, (202) 434–2165

Grant Nos: SJI–88–033 /SJI–91–013

Establishing a Consumer Research and

Service Development Process Within the

Judicial System

Grantee: Supreme Court of Virginia

Contact: Beatrice Monahan, Administrative

Offices, Third Floor, 100 North Ninth

Street, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786–

6455

Grant No: SJI–89–068

Housing Court Video Project

Grantee: Association of the Bar of the City of

New York

Contact: Marilyn Kneeland, 42 West 44th

Street, New York, NY 10036–6690, (212)

382–6620

Grant No: SJI–90–041

Tele-Court: A Michigan Judicial System

Public Information Program

Grantee: Michigan Supreme Court

Contact: Judy Bartell, State Court

Administrative Office, 611 West Ottawa

Street, P.O. Box 30048, Lansing, MI 48909,

(517) 373–0130

Grant No: SJI–91–015

Arizona Pro Per Information System

(QuickCourt)

Grantee: Arizona Supreme Court

Contact: Jeannie Lynch, Administrative

Office of the Court, 1501 West Washington
51966 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

Street, Suite 411, Phoenix, AZ 85007–3330,

(602) 542–9554

Grant No: SJI–91–084

Automated Public Information System

Grantee: California Administrative Office of

the Courts

Contact: Mark Greenia, Sacramento Superior

and Municipal Court, 303 Second Street,

South Tower, San Francisco, CA 94107,

(916) 440–7590

Grant No: SJI–91–093

Using Judges and Court Personnel To

Facilitate Access to Courts by Limited

English Speakers

Grantee: Washington Office of the

Administrator for the Courts

Contact: Joanne Moore, 1206 South Quince

Street, P.O. Box 41170, Olympia, WA

98504–1170, (206) 753–3365

Grant No: SJI–92–147

Pro se Forms and Instructions Packets

Grantee: Michigan Supreme Court

Contact: Pamela Creighton, 611 W. Ottawa

Street, Lansing, MI 48909

Grant No: SJI–94–003

Understanding the Judicial Process: A

Curriculum and Community Service Program

Grantee: Drake University

Contact: Timothy Buzzell, Opperman Hall,

Des Moines, IA 50311, (515) 271–3205

Grant No: SJI–94–022

Court Self-Service Center

Grantee: Maricopa County Superior Court

Contact: Bob James, 201 W. Jefferson, 4th

Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003, (602) 506–6314

Grant No: SJI–94–324

Sentencing

Court Probation Enhancement Through

Community Involvement

Grantee: Volunteers in Prevention, Probation

and Prisons, Inc.

Contact: Gerald Dash, 163 Madison, Suite

120, Detroit, MI 48226, (313) 964–1110

Grant No: SJI–91–073

Facilitating the Appropriate Use of

Intermediate Sanctions

Grantee: Center for Effective Public Policy

Contact: Peggy McGarry, 8403 Colesville

Road, Suite 720, (301) 589–9383

Grant No: SJI–95–078

Substance Abuse

Alabama Alcohol and Drug Abuse Court

Referral Officer Program

Grantee: Alabama Administrative Office of

the Courts

Contact: Angelo Trimble, 817 South Court

Street, Montgomery, AL 36130–0101, (334)

834–7990

Grant Nos: SJI–88–030/SJI–89–080/SJI–90–

005

Substance Abuse Assessment and

Intervention to Reduce Driving Under the

Influence of Alcohol Recidivism

Grantee: California Administrative Office of

the Courts c/o El Cajon Municipal Court

Contact: Fred Lear, 250 E. Main Street, El

Cajon, CA 92020, (619) 441–4336

Grant No: SJI–88–029/SJI–90–008

Court Referral Officer Program

Grantee: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Contact: Jim Kelley, Supreme Court Building,

Concord, NH 03301, (603) 271–2521

Grant No: SJI–92–142

Appendix V

(Form S1)

State Justice Institute

Scholarship Application

This application does not serve as a

registration for the course. Please contact the

education provider.

Applicant Information

1. Applicant Name:

lllllllllllllllllllll

(Last) (First) (M)

2. Position:

lllllllllllllllllllll

3. Name of Court:

lllllllllllllllllllll

4. Address:

lllllllllllllllllllll

Street/P.O. Box

lllllllllllllllllllll

City State Zip Code

5. Telephone No. llllllllllll

6. Congressional District: lllllllll

Program Information

7. Course Name: lllllllllllll

8. Course Dates: lllllllllllll

9. Course Provider: lllllllllll

10. Location Offered: lllllllllll

Estimated Expenses: (Please note,

scholarships are limited to tuition and

transportation expenses to and from the site

of the course up to a maximum of $1,500.)

Tuition: $ llllllllllllllll

Transportation: $ llllllllllll

(Airfare,trainfare, or if you plan to drive, an

amount equal to the approximate distance

and mileage rate.)

Amount Requested: $ llllllllll

State Justice Institute

1650 King Street, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA

22314

Additional Information: Please attach a

current resume or professional summary, and

answer the following questions. (You may

attach additional pages if necessary.)

1. How will taking this course benefit you,

your court, and the State’s courts generally?

2. Is there any education or training

currently available through your State on this

topic?

3. How will you apply what you have

learned? Please include any plans you may

have to develop/teach a course on this topic

in your jurisdiction/State, provide in-service

training, or otherwise disseminate what you

have learned to colleagues.

4. Are State or local funds available to

support your attendance at the proposed

course? If so, what amount(s) will be

provided?

5. How long have you served as a judge or

court manager?

6. How long do you anticipate serving as

a judge or court manager, assuming

reelection or reappointment?

7. What continuing professional education

programs have you attended in the past year?

Please indicate which were mandatory (M)

and which were non-mandatory (V).

Statement of Applicant’s Commitment

If a scholarship is awarded, I will submit

an evaluation of the educational program to

the State Justice Institute and to the Chief

Justice of my State.

lllllllllllllllllllll

Signature

lllllllllllllllllllll

Date

Please return this form and Form S–2 to:

State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite

600, Alexandria Virginia 22314.

(Form S2)

State Justice Institute

Scholarship Application

Concurrence

I, lllllllllllllllllll

Name of Chief Justice (or Chief Justice’s

Designee)

have reviewed the application for a

scholarship to attend the program entitled

lllllllllllllllllllll

prepared by lllllllllllllll

Name of Applicant

and concur in its submission to the State

Justice Institute. The applicant’s

participation in the program would benefit

the State; the applicant’s absence to attend

the program would not present an undue

hardship to the court; and receipt of a

scholarship would not diminish the amount

of funds made available by the State for

judicial education.

lllllllllllllllllllll

Signature

lllllllllllllllllllll

Name

lllllllllllllllllllll

Title

lllllllllllllllllllll

Date

Appendix VI—Line-Item Budget Form

For Concept Papers, Curriculum

Adaptation and Technical Assistance Grant

Requests.

Category SJI funds Cash match In-kind match

Personnel ............................................................................................................................ $ $ $

Fringe Benefits .................................................................................................................... $ $ $
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51967

Category SJI funds Cash match In-kind match

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

Travel ................................................................................................................................... $ $ $

Equipment ........................................................................................................................... $ $ $

Supplies ............................................................................................................................... $ $ $

Telephone ............................................................................................................................ $ $ $

Postage ............................................................................................................................... $ $ $

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

Audit .................................................................................................................................... $ $ $

Other .................................................................................................................................... $ $ $

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

Total ............................................................................................................................. $ $ $

Project Total: $ lllllllllllll

Financial assistance has been or will be

sought for this project from the following

other sources:

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

*Concept papers requesting an

acccelerated award, Curriculum Adaptation

grant requests, and Technical Assistance

grant requests should be accompanied by a

budget narrative explaining the basis for each

line-item listed in the proposed budget.

Appendix VII

State Justice Institute

Certificate of State Approval

The llllllllllllllllll

Name of State Supreme Court or Designated

Agency or Council

has reviewed the application entitled lll

prepared by lllllllllllllll

Name of Applicant

approves its submission to the State Justice

Institute, and

[ ] agrees to receive and administer and be

accountable for all funds awarded by the

Institute pursuant to the application.

[ ] designates

lllllllllllllllllllll

Name of Trial or Appellate Court or Agency

as the entity to receive, administer, and be

accountable for all funds awarded by the

Institute pursuant to the application.

lllllllllllllllllllll

Signature

lllllllllllllllllllll

Name

lllllllllllllllllllll

Title

lllllllllllllllllllll

Date

[FR Doc. 97–26111 Filed 10–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–SC–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements

Filed During the Week Ending

September 26, 1997

Under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412

and 414. The following Agreements

were filed with the Department of

Transportation. Answers may be filed

within 21 days of date of filing.

Docket Number: OST–97–2924.

Date Filed: September 23, 1997.

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association.

Subject: COMP Telex Mail Vote 891,

Fares from Swaziland, Intended

effective date: October 13, 1997.

Docket Number: OST–97–2926.

Date Filed: September 23, 1997.

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association.

Subject: PTC1 0052 dated August 29,

1997, TC1 Caribbean Resolutions r1–15,

PTC1 0054 dated August 29, 1997, TC1

Within South America Resolutions r16–

29, Tables—PTC1 Fares 0019 dated

August 29, 1997, Tables—PTC1 Fares

0020 dated August 29, 1997, (Minutes,

contained in PTC1 0056 dated

September 12, 1997, are filed separately

this date with the U.S.-related portion of

this agreement.), Intended effective date:

January 1, 1998.

Docket Number: OST–96–2927.

Date Filed: September 23, 1997.

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association.

Subject: PTC23 EUR–SASC 0022

dated September 5, 1997, Europe-South

Asian Subcontinent Resos r1–18,

Minutes—PTC23 EUR–SASC 0023

dated September 9, 1997, Tables—

PTC23 EUR–SASC Fares 0008 dated

September 19, 1997, Correction—PTC23

EUR–SASC 0024 dated September 16,

1997, Intended effective date: January 1,

1998.

Docket Number: OST–97–2929.

Date Filed: September 23, 1997.

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association.

Subject: PTC2 EUR 0087 dated

September 16, 1997 r1–7, PTC2 EUR

0088 dated September 16, 1997 r8, PTC2

EUR 0089 dated September 16, 1997 r9–

16, PTC2 EUR 0090 dated September 16,

1997 r17–20, PTC2 EUR 0091 dated

September 16, 1997 r21–25, PTC2 EUR

0092 dated September 16, 1997 r26–29,

PTC2 EUR 0093 dated September 16,

1997 r30–33, PTC2 EUR 0094 dated

September 16, 1997 r34–36, PTC2 EUR

0095 dated September 16, 1997 r37,

PTC2 EUR 0096 dated September 16,

1997 r38–39, Within Europe Resos,

Minutes—PTC2 EUR 0097 dated

September 19, 1997, Minutes—PTC2–

EUR 0098 dated September 19, 1997,

Intended effective date: as early as

October 15, 1997.

Docket Number: OST–97–2930.

Date Filed: September 23, 1997.

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association.

Subject: PTC1 0053 dated August 29,

1997, TC1 Longhaul Resolutions r1–51,

PTC1 0051 dated August 29, 1997, TC1

Areawide Resolutions r52–56,

Minutes—PTC1 0056 dated September

12, 1997, Tables—PTC1 Fares 0021

dated September 12, 1997, Correction—

PTC1 0055 dated September 9, 1997,

Correction—PTC1 0057 dated

September 16, 1997, Intended effective

date: January 1, 1998.

Docket Number: OST–97–2928.

Date Filed: September 23, 1997.

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association.

Subject: PTC3 Telex Mail Vote 890,

Korea-Japan fares r1–10, Intended

effective date: October 1, 1997.

Docket Number: OST–97–2938.

Date Filed: September 25, 1997.

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association.

Subject: COMP Telex Reso 033f—

Hungary, Local Currency Rate

Changes—Cargo, Intended effective

date: November 1, 1997.

Paulette V. Twine,

Documentary Services.

[FR Doc. 97–26332 Filed 10–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P