61028 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

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 2001 State Justice Institute

grants, cooperative agreements, and

contracts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 13, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David I. Tevelin, Executive Director, or

Kathy Schwartz, Deputy Director, State

Justice Institute, 1650 King Street (Suite

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

6100.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the State Justice Institute Act of 1984,

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

the Institute is authorized to award

grants, cooperative agreements, and

contracts to State and local courts,

nonprofit organizations, and others for

the purpose of improving the quality of

justice in the State courts of the United

States. Complete information about the

Institute and its grant program, as well

as forms and instructions for all grant

applications, can be found at http://

www.statejustice.org.

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 2001 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 II.D. (see below), project

grants are intended to support

innovative projects of national

significance. As provided in section

V.C.1. of the Guideline, project grants

may ordinarily not exceed $200,000 a

year; however, grants in excess of

$150,000 are likely to be rare, and

awarded only to support projects likely

to have a significant national impact.

Applicants must submit a concept

paper (see section VI.) and, ordinarily,

an application (see section VII.) in order

to obtain a project grant. As indicated in

Section VI.C.1., the Board may make an

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

on the basis of the concept paper alone

when the need for the project is clear

and little additional information about

the operation of the project would be

provided in an application.

The FY 2001 mailing deadline for

project grant concept papers is

November 22, 2000. Papers must be

postmarked or bear other evidence of

submission by that date. The Board of

Directors will meet in early March 2001

to invite formal applications based on

the most promising concept papers.

Applications must be sent by April 25,

2001 and awards will be approved by

the Board in late June. See section VII.A.

for Project Grant application

procedures.

Single Jurisdiction Project Grants.

Section II.D. 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 (sections II.D.1. and

2.). See section VII.A. for Single

Jurisdiction Grant application

procedures.

Technical Assistance Grants. Section

II.E. reserves up to $400,000 for

Technical Assistance Grants. Under this

program, a State or local court may

receive a grant of up to $30,000 to

engage outside experts to provide

technical assistance to diagnose,

develop, and implement a response to a

jurisdiction’s problems.

Letters of application for a Technical

Assistance grant may be submitted at

any time. Applicants submitting letters

between June 12 and September 29,

2000 will be notified of the Board’s

decision by December 8, 2000; those

submitting letters between September

30, 2000 and January 12, 2001 will be

notified by March 23, 2001; those

submitting letters between January 13,

2001 and March 9, 2001 will be notified

by May 11, 2001; and those submitting

letters between March 10, 2001 and June

8, 2001 will be notified by August 3,

2001. Applicants submitting letters

between June 11 and September 28,

2001 will be notified of the Board’s

decision by December 14, 2001. See

section VII.D. for Technical Assistance

Grant application procedures.

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 $200,000 for

these grants in FY 2001.

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

VII.E. for Curriculum Adaptation Grant

application procedures.

Scholarships. The Guideline allocates

up to $200,000 of FY 2001 funds for

scholarships to enable judges and court

managers to attend out-of-State

education and training programs.

Scholarships for eligible applicants

are approved largely on a ‘‘first come,

first served’’ basis, although the Institute

may approve or disapprove scholarship

requests in order to achieve appropriate

balances on the basis of geography,

program provider, and type of court or

applicant (e.g., trial judge, appellate

judge, trial court administrator).

Scholarships will be approved only for

programs that either (1) address topics

included in the Guideline’s Special

Interest categories (section II.B.); (2)

enhance the skills of judges and court

managers; or (3) are part of a graduate

program for judges or court personnel.

Applicants interested in obtaining a

scholarship for a program beginning

between January 1 and March 31, 2001

must submit their applications and any

required accompanying documents

between October 2 and December 1,

2000. For programs beginning between

April 1 and June 30, 2001, the

applications and documents must be

submitted between January 5 and March

5, 2001. For programs beginning

between July 1 and September 30, 2001,

the applications and documents must be

submitted between April 2 and June 1,

2001. For programs beginning between

October 1 and December 31, 2001, the

applications and documents must be

submitted between July 5 and

September 3, 2001. For programs

beginning between January 1 and March

31, 2002, the applications and

documents must be submitted between

October 1 and November 30, 2001. See

section VII.F. for Scholarship

application procedures.

Continuation and Ongoing Support

Grants. Continuation grants (see

sections III.F., V.B.2., and VII.B.) are

intended to enhance the specific

program or service begun during the

initial grant period. Ongoing support

grants (see sections III.P., V.B.3., and

VII.C.) may be awarded for up to a threeyear period to support national-scope

projects that provide the State courts

with critically needed services,

programs, or products.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61029

The Guideline establishes a target for

continuation and ongoing support

grants of approximately 25% of the total

amount projected to be available for

grants in FY 2001. 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 ongoing

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 submission

of its grant application.

Special Interest Categories

The Guideline includes nine Special

Interest categories, i.e., those project

areas that the Board has identified as

being of particular importance to the

State courts this year. The selection of

these categories was based on the Board

and staff’s experience and observations

over the past year; the recommendations

received from judges, court managers,

lawyers, members of the public, and

other groups interested in the

administration of justice; and the issues

identified in recent years’ concept

papers and applications.

Section II.B. of the Proposed

Guideline includes the following

Special Interest categories:

Improving Public Confidence in the Courts;

Education and Training for Judges and

Other Key Court Personnel;

Dispute Resolution and the Courts;

Application of Technology;

Court Planning, Management, and

Financing;

Substance Abuse;

Children and Families in Court;

Improving the Courts’ Response to

Domestic Violence; and

The Relationship Between State and

Federal Courts.

Recommendations to Grantwriters

Recommendations to Grantwriters

may be found in Appendix A.

Comments

In response to comments, the

‘‘Children and Families in Court’’

Special Interest category (section

II.B.2.g.) was amended to specifically

include projects to develop materials

and strategies to implement the judicial

requirements of the Adoption and Safe

Families Act, and projects to develop

collaborative approaches to improve

family courts. Otherwise, only

grammatical and technical changes were

made in the Final Guideline. The

following Grant Guideline is adopted by

the State Justice Institute for FY 2001:

Table of Contents

I. The Mission of the State Justice Institute

II. Scope of the Program

III. Definitions

IV. Eligibility for Award

V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of

Awards

VI. Concept Papers

VII. Applications

VIII. Application Review Procedures

IX. Compliance Requirements

X. Financial Requirements

XI. Grant Adjustments

Appendix A Recommendations to Grant

Writers

Appendix B Questions Frequently Asked by

Grantees

Appendix C List of State Contacts

Regarding Administration of Institute

Grants to State and Local Courts

Appendix D SJI Libraries: Designated Sites

and Contacts

Appendix E Illustrative List of Model

Curricula

Appendix F State Justice Institute

Scholarship Application Forms (Forms

S1 and S2)

Appendix G Line-Item Budget Form (Form

E)

Appendix H Certificate of State Approval

Form (Form B)

I. The Mission of the State Justice

Institute

The Institute was established by Pub.

L. 98–620 to improve the administration

of justice in the State courts of the

United States. Incorporated in the State

of Virginia as a private, nonprofit

corporation, the Institute is charged, by

statute, with the responsibility to:

A. Direct a national program of

financial assistance designed to assure

that each citizen of the United States is

provided ready access to a fair and

effective system of justice;

B. Foster coordination and

cooperation with the Federal judiciary;

C. Promote recognition of the

importance of the separation of powers

doctrine to an independent judiciary;

and

D. Encourage education for judges and

support personnel of State court systems

through national and State

organizations, including universities.

To accomplish these broad objectives,

the Institute is authorized to provide

funds to State courts, national

organizations which support and are

supported by State courts, national

judicial education organizations, and

other organizations that can assist in

improving the quality of justice in the

State courts.

The Institute is supervised by an 11-

member Board of Directors appointed by

the President, by and with the consent

of the Senate. The Board is statutorily

composed of six judges, a State court

administrator, and four members of the

public, no more than two of whom can

be of the same political party.

Through the award of grants,

contracts, and cooperative agreements,

the Institute is authorized to perform the

following activities:

A. Support research, demonstrations,

special projects, technical assistance,

and training to improve the

administration of justice in the State

courts;

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 2001, the Institute will

consider applications for funding

support that address any of the areas

specified in its enabling legislation. The

Board, however, has designated nine

program categories as being of special

interest. See section II.B.

A. Authorized Program Areas

The Institute is authorized to fund

projects addressing one or more of the

following program areas listed in the

State Justice Institute Act, the Battered

Women’s Testimony Act, the Judicial

Training and Research for Child

Custody Litigation Act, and the

International Parental Kidnapping

Crime Act:

1. Assistance to State and local court

systems in establishing appropriate

procedures for the selection and

removal of judges and other court

personnel and in determining

appropriate levels of compensation;

2. Education and training programs

for judges and other court personnel for

the performance of their general duties

and for specialized functions, and

61030 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

national and regional conferences and

seminars for the dissemination of

information on new developments and

innovative techniques;

3. Research on alternative means for

using judicial and nonjudicial personnel

in court decisionmaking activities,

implementation of demonstration

programs to test such innovative

approaches, and evaluations of their

effectiveness;

4. Studies of the appropriateness and

efficacy of court organizations and

financing structures in particular States,

and support to States to implement

plans for improved court organization

and financing;

5. Support for State court planning

and budgeting staffs and the provision

of technical assistance in resource

allocation and service forecasting

techniques;

6. Studies of the adequacy of court

management systems in State and local

courts, and implementation and

evaluation of innovative responses to

records management, data processing,

court personnel management, reporting

and transcription of court proceedings,

and juror utilization and management;

7. Collection and compilation of

statistical data and other information on

the work of the courts and on the work

of other agencies which relates to and

affects the work of courts;

8. Studies of the causes of trial and

appellate court delay in resolving cases,

and establishing and evaluating

experimental programs for reducing

case processing time;

9. Development and testing of

methods for measuring the performance

of judges and courts, and experiments in

the use of such measures to improve the

functioning of judges and the courts;

10. Studies of court rules and

procedures, discovery devices, and

evidentiary standards to identify

problems with the operation of such

rules, procedures, devices, and

standards, and the development of

alternative approaches to better

reconcile the requirements of due

process with the need for swift and

certain justice, and testing of the utility

of those alternative approaches;

11. Studies of the outcomes of cases

in selected areas to identify instances in

which the substance of justice meted

out by the courts diverges from public

expectations of fairness, consistency, or

equity, and the development, testing,

and evaluation of alternative approaches

to resolving cases in such problem

areas;

12. Support for programs to increase

court responsiveness to the needs of

citizens through citizen education,

improvement of court treatment of

witnesses, victims, and jurors, and

development of procedures for

obtaining and using measures of public

satisfaction with court processes to

improve court performance;

13. Testing and evaluating

experimental approaches to provide

increased citizen access to justice,

including processes which reduce the

cost of litigating common grievances,

and alternative techniques and

mechanisms for resolving disputes

between citizens;

14. Collection and analysis of

information regarding the admissibility

and quality of expert testimony on the

experiences of battered women offered

as part of the defense in criminal cases

under State law, as well as sources of

and methods to obtain funds to pay

costs incurred to provide such

testimony, particularly in cases

involving indigent women defendants;

15. Development of training materials

to assist battered women, operators of

domestic violence shelters, battered

women’s advocates, and attorneys to use

expert testimony on the experiences of

battered women in appropriate cases,

and individuals with expertise in the

experiences of battered women to

develop skills appropriate to providing

such testimony;

16. Research regarding State judicial

decisions relating to child custody

litigation involving domestic violence;

17. Development of training curricula

to assist State courts to develop an

understanding of, and appropriate

responses to child custody litigation

involving domestic violence;

18. Dissemination of information and

training materials and provision of

technical assistance regarding the issues

listed in paragraphs 14–17 above;

19. Development of national, regional,

and in-State training and educational

programs dealing with criminal and

civil aspects of interstate and

international parental child abduction;

and

20. Other programs, consistent with

the purposes of the State Justice

Institute Act, as may be deemed

appropriate by the Institute, including

projects dealing with the relationship

between Federal and State court

systems, such as where there is

concurrent State-Federal jurisdiction

and where Federal courts, directly or

indirectly, review State court

proceedings.

Funds will not be made available for

the ordinary, routine operation of court

systems or programs in any of these

areas.

B. Special Interest Program Categories

1. General Description

The Institute is interested in funding

both innovative programs and programs

of proven merit that can be replicated in

other jurisdictions. The Institute is

especially interested in funding projects

that:

a. Formulate new procedures and

techniques, or creatively enhance

existing arrangements to improve the

courts;

b. Address aspects of the State

judicial systems that are in special need

of serious attention;

c. Have national significance by

developing products, services, and

techniques that may be used in other

States; and

d. Create and disseminate products

that effectively transfer the information

and ideas developed to relevant

audiences in State and local judicial

systems, or provide technical assistance

to facilitate the adaptation of effective

programs and procedures in other State

and local jurisdictions.

A project will be identified as a

Special Interest project if it meets the

four criteria set forth above and (1) it

falls within the scope of the Special

Interest program areas designated

below, or (2) information coming to the

attention of the Institute from the State

courts, their affiliated organizations, the

research literature, or other sources

demonstrates that the project responds

to another special need or interest of the

State courts.

Concept papers and applications

which address a Special Interest

category will be accorded a preference

in the rating process. (See the selection

criteria listed in sections VI.C.2. and

VIII.B.

2. Specific Categories

The Board has designated the areas

set forth below as Special Interest

program categories. The order of listing

does not imply any ordering of priorities

among the categories. For a complete

list of projects supported in previous

years in each of these categories, please

visit the Institute’s Internet homepage at

http://www.statejustice.org/and click on

Grants by Category.

a. Improving Public Confidence in the

Courts

This category includes demonstration,

evaluation, research, and education

projects designed to improve the

responsiveness of courts to public

concerns regarding the fairness, equity,

accessibility, timeliness, and

comprehensibility of the court process,

and test innovative methods for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61031

increasing the public’s trust and

confidence in the State courts.

(1) The Institute is particularly

interested in supporting innovative

projects that:

• Develop national strategies to

promote the progress of State court task

forces and other court-sponsored

programs to eliminate race and ethnic

bias in the courts; implement task force

recommendations at the State and local

level; evaluate the impact of court

strategies to address racial and ethnic

bias in jurisdictions in which task force

recommendations have been

implemented; establish mentoring

relationships with States that have

successfully implemented

recommendations to learn from their

experiences; develop products that

highlight effective model programs and

best practices; and educate judges and

court personnel about relevant products

developed in different States (e.g.,

model judicial education curricula,

bench books, court conduct handbooks,

codes of ethics, and relevant

legislation);

• 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 and

judicial decisions regarding immigrants;

• Demonstrate and evaluate

approaches to implement the concept of

restorative justice that ensure residents’

and businesses’ safety and restore the

offender’s positive relationship with the

community, including methods for

involving the community in the

sentencing process, and programs that

involve education and mentoring by

positive role models;

• Evaluate long-term court-based

programs that actively involve citizen

volunteers in a range of roles, and

compile information on ‘‘best practices’’

with respect to the effective use of

volunteers in the court environment;

• Educate and clearly communicate

information to litigants and the public

about judicial decisions, the trial and

appellate court process, and court

operations, and the standards courts

maintain with respect to timeliness,

access, and the elimination of bias; and

• Assure that judges and court

employees meet the highest ethical

standards and that judicial disciplinary

procedures are known, fair, and

effective.

(2) The Institute also is interested in

supporting projects that promote public

trust and confidence in the courts. In

particular, the Institute seeks to support

projects that would:

• Compile and disseminate

information about practices being used

by courts around the country that show

the promise of enhancing public trust

and confidence in the justice system;

and

• Test and evaluate approaches

designed to enhance public access to the

courts, including demonstrations of

innovative collaborative efforts between

courts and community institutions (e.g.,

schools and public libraries) to enhance

access to courts by those who are not

computer-literate and for whom it

would be a hardship to travel to a

courthouse.

Applicants should be aware that the

Institute will not support new surveys

to determine the sources of the public’s

dissatisfaction with the courts.

(3) The Institute also continues to be

interested in supporting State and local

court projects to implement the action

plans developed by the teams that

participated in the Institute-supported

National Conference on SelfRepresented Litigants Appearing in

Court held in Scottsdale, Arizona, on

November 18–21, 1999. In this regard,

however, applicants are advised that

Institute funds may not be used to

directly or indirectly support legal

representation of individuals in specific

cases.

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

three subsections: (1) Innovative

Educational Programs; (2) Curriculum

Adaptation Projects; and (3)

Scholarships.

(1) Innovative Educational Programs.

This category includes support for the

development and pilot-testing of

innovative, high-quality educational

programs for trial and appellate judges

or court personnel that address key

substantive and administrative issues of

concern to the nation’s courts, or help

local courts or State court systems

develop or enhance their capacity to

deliver quality continuing education.

Programs may be designed for

presentation at the local, State, regional,

or national level. Ordinarily, court

education programs should be based on

some form of assessment of the needs of

the target audience; include clearly

stated learning objectives that delineate

the new knowledge or skills that

participants will acquire (as opposed to

a description of what will be taught);

incorporate adult education principles

and multiple teaching/learning

methods; and result in the development

of a disseminable curriculum as defined

in section III.G.

(a) The Institute is particularly

interested in the development of

education programs that:

• Include innovative self-directed

learning packages for use by appellate,

trial, juvenile and family court judges

and personnel, and distance-learning

approaches for these audiences to assist

those who do not have ready access to

classroom-centered programs. These

packages and approaches should

include the appropriate use of various

media and technologies such as

Internet-based programming, interactive

CD–ROM or computer disk-based

programs, videos, or other audio and

visual media, supported by written

materials or manuals. They also should

include a meaningful program

evaluation and a self-evaluation process

that assesses pre- and post-program

knowledge and skills;

• Familiarize faculty with the

effective use of innovative instructional

technology, including methods for

presenting information through webbased and other distance learning

approaches such as videos and satellite

teleconferences;

• Develop and test innovative

methods to evaluate the effectiveness of

web-based and distance education

programs;

• 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 a

variety of experiential instructional

approaches in judicial branch education

programs such as field studies and

interchanges with community programs,

organizations, and institutions;

• 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; and

• Develop and test innovative short

(one-half or one full day) educational

programs on events on issues of critical

importance to local courts or courts in

a particular region.

(b) The Institute also continues to be

very interested in supporting projects

that would implement action plans and

strategies developed by the State teams

at the National Symposium on the

Future of Judicial Branch Education

held in St. Louis, Missouri, on October

7–9, 1999, as well as proposals from

other applicants designed to assist in

61032 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

implementing and disseminating the

findings and strategies discussed at the

Conference.

(c) 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, and

the following:

• Materials and curricula for

appellate, trial, and juvenile and family

court judges addressing adolescent and

youth development, including the role

and impact of youth culture (cults and

gangs), and the impact that exposure to

violence at home, in school, and in the

community has on children;

• The specific knowledge and skills

needed to manage drug court programs

for adults, juveniles, or families;

• Federal and State environmental

laws and the effect those laws have on

trial and appellate court processes in the

impacted jurisdictions; and

• Training to enhance the ability of

court personnel to protect 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.

(2) Curriculum Adaptation Projects.

The Board is reserving up to $200,000

to support projects that adapt a model

curriculum previously developed with

SJI funds and to pilot-test it to

determine its appropriateness, quality,

and effectiveness for inclusion in the

jurisdiction’s judicial branch education

program. An illustrative but noninclusive list of the curricula that may

be appropriate for adaptation is

contained in Appendix E.

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 particular State’s or

local jurisdiction’s educational needs;

pilot-test it to determine its

appropriateness, quality, and

effectiveness; and train instructors to

present portions or all of the

curriculum. It is anticipated that the

adapted curriculum will become part of

the grantee’s ongoing educational

offerings.

Only State or local courts may apply

for Curriculum Adaptation funding.

Application procedures may be found in

Section VII.E.

(3) Scholarships for Judges and Court

Personnel. The Institute is reserving up

to $200,000 to support a scholarship

program for State judges and court

managers. The purposes of the Institute

scholarship program are to:

• Enhance the skills, knowledge, and

abilities of judges and court managers;

• Enable State court judges and court

managers to attend out-of-State

educational programs sponsored by

national and State providers that they

could not otherwise attend because of

limited State, local and personal

budgets; and

• Provide States, judicial educators,

and the Institute with evaluative

information on a range of judicial and

court-related education programs.

Scholarships will be granted to

individuals only for the purpose of

attending an out-of-State educational

program within the United States.

Application procedures may be found in

Section VII.F.

c. Dispute Resolution and the Courts

This category includes research,

evaluation, and demonstration projects

to evaluate or enhance the effectiveness

of court-connected dispute resolution

programs. The Institute is interested in

projects that facilitate comparison

among research studies by using similar

measures and definitions; address the

nature and operation of ADR programs

within the context of the court system

as a whole; and compare dispute

resolution processes to attorney

settlement as well as trial. Specific

topics of interest include:

• Examining the timing for referrals

to dispute resolution services, and the

effect of different referral methods on

case outcomes and time to disposition;

• Evaluating innovative courtconnected dispute resolution programs

for resolving complex and multi-party

litigation, environmental hazards,

managed health care, minor criminal

cases, probate proceedings, and landuse disputes;

• Testing innovative approaches

involving community partnerships,

particularly in the contexts of juvenile

and restorative justice, and examining

the benefits such partnerships offer in

ensuring the quality of dispute

resolution programs;

• Evaluating innovative applications

of technology to facilitate dispute

resolution processes; and

• Developing methods to eliminate

race, ethnic, or gender bias in courtconnected dispute resolution programs,

testing approaches for assuring that

such programs are open to all members

of the community served by the court,

and assessing whether having a

mediator pool that reflects the diversity

of the community it serves has an

impact on the use of mediation by

minorities and its effectiveness.

Applicants should be aware that the

Institute will not provide operational

support for ongoing ADR programs or

start-up costs of non-innovative ADR

programs. Courts also should be advised

that it is preferable for an applicant to

use its own funds to support the

operational costs of an innovative

program and request Institute funds to

support related technical assistance,

training, and evaluation elements of the

program.

d. Application of Technology

This category includes the testing of

innovative applications of technology to

improve the operation of court

management systems and judicial

practices at both the trial and appellate

court levels.

The Institute seeks to support local

experiments with promising but

untested applications of technology in

the courts that include an evaluation of

the impact of the technology in terms of

costs, benefits, and staff workload, and

a training component to assure that staff

is appropriately educated about the

purpose and use of the new technology.

In this context, ‘‘untested’’ includes

novel applications of technology

developed for the private sector that

have not previously been applied to the

courts.

The Institute is particularly interested

in supporting efforts to:

• Test and evaluate technologies that,

if successfully implemented, would

significantly re-engineer the way that

courts currently do business;

• Develop and test standards

governing electronic access to court

records by the public;

• Evaluate approaches for

electronically filing pleadings, briefs,

and other documents; approaches to

integrate electronic filing and electronic

document management; and the impact

of electronic court record systems on

case management and court procedures;

• Develop model rules or standards to

govern the use of electronic filing and

electronic court records;

• Test innovative applications of

voice recognition in the adjudication

process;

• Demonstrate and evaluate the use of

technology to assist judicial

decisionmaking;

• Evaluate the use of digital audio

and video technology in making a

record of court proceedings;

• Demonstrate and evaluate the use of

videoconferencing technology to present

testimony by witnesses in remote

locations, and appellate arguments (but

see the limitations specified below);

• Test and evaluate the effectiveness

of automated systems that would enable

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61033

courts and other justice agencies to

measure their performance with respect

to internal processes and customer

service against benchmarks and strategic

goals;

• Assess the impact of the use of

multimedia CD–ROM-based briefs on

the courts, parties, counsel, and the trial

or appellate process; and

• Evaluate innovative applications of

technology designed to prevent

courthouse incidents that endanger the

lives and property of judges, court

personnel, and courtroom participants.

Ordinarily, the Institute will not

provide support for the purchase of

equipment or software to implement a

technology that is commonly used by

courts, such as videoconferencing

between courts and jails, optical

imaging for recordkeeping, and

automated management information

systems. (See also section X.I.2.b.

regarding other limits on the use of

grant funds to purchase equipment and

software.)

e. 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 and collaborative problemsolving approaches for managing the

courts; for securing, managing, and

demonstrating the effective use of the

resources required to fully meet the

responsibilities of the judicial branch;

and for institutionalizing long-range

planning processes. In particular, the

Institute is interested in demonstration,

evaluation, education, research, and

technical assistance projects to:

• Facilitate collaboration,

communication, information-sharing,

and coordination between the juvenile

and criminal courts, between courts and

criminal justice agencies, and between

courts and court users;

• Identify and assess the effects of

collaborative problem-solving

approaches designed to assure quality

services to court users;

• Strengthen judge and court manager

skills in leadership, collaborative

planning, case management, facilitation,

and human resource development;

• Assess the effects of innovative

management approaches designed to

assure quality services to court users;

• Enhance the core competencies

required of court managers and staff;

• Document and evaluate effective

intergovernmental team-building,

collaboration, and planning among the

judicial, executive, and legislative

branches of government, or courts

within a metropolitan area or multiState region;

• Facilitate, demonstrate, and assess

the effective use of judge-staff teams for

implementing change and encouraging

excellence in court operations; and

• 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.

f. Substance Abuse

This category includes education,

technical assistance, research, and

evaluation projects to assist courts in

handling a large volume of substance

abuse-related criminal, civil, juvenile,

and domestic relations cases fairly and

expeditiously. (It does not include

providing support for planning,

establishing, operating, or enhancing a

local drug court. Applicants interested

in obtaining grants to plan, implement,

operate, or enhance a drug court

program should contact the Drug Court

Program Office, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.)

The Institute is particularly interested

in projects to:

• Identify and test innovative

methods to provide appropriate drug

treatment and services to juveniles

transferred to adult criminal court;

• Evaluate the effectiveness of

‘‘family drug court’’ programs (i.e.,

specialized calendars that provide

intensely supervised, court-enforced

substance abuse treatment and other

services to families involved in child

neglect, child abuse, domestic violence,

or other family cases);

• Document public sector and private

sector managed care programs that

effectively provide court-ordered

treatment and other services to adults

and juveniles; and

• Develop and test State, regional,

and local educational programs for

judges and court staff on the

implications of managed care for the

provision of drug and alcohol treatment,

mental health treatment, and other

services to adult and juvenile offenders,

neglected and abused children and their

families, and persons subject to civil

commitment.

g. Children and Families in Court

This category includes education,

demonstration, evaluation, technical

assistance, and research projects to

identify and inform judges of

innovative, effective approaches for

handling cases involving children and

families. The Institute is particularly

interested in projects to:

• Develop and test guidelines,

curricula, and other materials for judges

that address the implications of

sentencing juveniles as adults,

including the need for age-appropriate

services like schooling, sentencing

alternatives and guidelines, and pre-trial

services;

• Develop and test materials,

strategies, and methods to facilitate

implementation of the judicial

requirements of the Adoption and Safe

Families Act (ASFA);

• Develop and test collaborative

approaches involving community

agencies and members of the public to

improve policies, procedures, rules,

laws and services that affect families

involved with the courts;

• Develop and test innovative

protocol, procedures, educational

programs, and other measures to

determine and address the service needs

of children exposed to family violence

and the methods for mitigating those

effects when issuing protection,

custody, visitation, or other orders;

• Develop guidelines and materials to

assist judges and other court officers

and personnel in critically analyzing

psychological evaluations of children

and the credibility of clinical experts,

their reports, and methods of evaluating

children;

• Compile and distribute information

about innovative and successful

approaches to sentencing and treatment

alternatives for serious youthful

offenders;

• Develop and test restorative justice

approaches that include victims of

offenses committed by youthful

offenders in the juvenile court process

(other than victim-offender mediation

programs);

• Create and test educational

programs, guidelines, and monitoring

systems to assure that the juvenile

justice system meets the needs of girls

and children of color;

• Develop and test innovative

techniques for enhancing collaboration,

communication, information-sharing,

and coordination of juvenile and

criminal courts and divisions;

• Design or evaluate information

systems that not only provide aggregate

data, but also are able to track

individual cases, individual juveniles,

and specific families, so that judges and

court managers can manage their

caseloads effectively, track placement

and service delivery, and coordinate

orders in different proceedings

involving members of the same family;

and

• Develop and test educational

programs to assure that everyone

coming into contact with courts serving

children and families is treated with

dignity, respect, and courtesy.

61034 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

h. Improving the Courts’ Response to

Domestic Violence

This category includes innovative

education, demonstration, technical

assistance, evaluation, and research

projects to improve the fair and effective

processing, consideration, and

disposition of cases concerning

domestic violence and gender-related

violent crimes, including projects to:

• Strengthen judges’ skills in

leadership, collaborative planning, and

facilitation of community efforts to

reduce and prevent domestic violence;

• Train custody evaluators, guardians

ad litem, and other independent

professionals appearing in custody and

visitation cases about domestic violence

and the impact witnessing such

violence has on children;

• Coordinate juvenile, family, and

criminal court management of domestic

violence cases;

• Evaluate the effectiveness of

domestic violence courts (i.e.,

specialized calendars or divisions for

considering domestic violence cases and

related matters), including their impact

on victims, offenders, and court

operations;

• Develop guidelines, curricula, or

other materials that address the

appropriate role of probation in

monitoring domestic violence offenders;

• Assess the effectiveness of

including jurisdiction over family

violence in a unified family court;

• Demonstrate effective ways to

encourage collaboration among courts,

criminal justice agencies, and social

services programs in responding to

domestic violence and gender-related

crimes of violence, and to assure that

the courts are fully accessible to victims

of domestic violence and other genderrelated violent crimes;

• Develop and test methods for

facilitating recognition and enforcement

of protection orders issued by a State,

Federal, or tribal court in another

jurisdiction;

• Determine the effective use of

information contained in protection

order files stored in court electronic

databases, consistent with the

protection of the privacy and safety of

victims of violence;

• Test the effectiveness of innovative

sentencing and treatment approaches in

cases involving domestic violence and

other gender-related crimes, including

sentences that incorporate regular or

periodic judicial review or restorative

justice measures; and

• Implement recommendations or

action plans addressing the cooccurrence of domestic violence and

child maltreatment that stem from the

conference on Domestic Violence and

Child Maltreatment—co-sponsored by

SJI, the Department of Health and

Human Services, and the Ford

Foundation—to be held September 29–

30, 2000, in Jackson, Wyoming.

Institute funds may not be used to

provide operational support to programs

offering direct services or compensation

to victims of crimes. (Applicants

interested in obtaining such operational

support should contact the Office for

Victims of Crime (OVC), Office of

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice, or the agency in their State that

awards OVC funds to State and local

victim assistance and compensation

programs.)

i. The Relationship Between State and

Federal Courts

This category includes education,

research, demonstration, and evaluation

projects designed to facilitate

appropriate and effective

communication, cooperation, and

coordination between State and Federal

courts. The Institute is particularly

interested in innovative projects that:

(1) Develop and test curricula and

disseminate information regarding

effective methods being used at the trial

court, State, and Circuit levels to

coordinate cases and administrative

activities, and share facilities; and

(2) Develop and test new approaches

to:

(a) Implement the habeas corpus

provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of

1996;

(b) Coordinate and process mass tort

cases fairly and efficiently at the trial

and appellate levels;

(c) Handle capital habeas corpus cases

fairly and efficiently; and

(d) Share facilities, jury pools,

alternative dispute resolution programs,

information regarding persons on

pretrial release or probation, and court

services; and

(3) Involve judges in any systemic

effort to examine the efficacy, fairness,

and speed of capital litigation.

C. ‘‘Think Pieces’’

This category addresses the

development of essays of publishable

quality directed to the court community.

The essays should explore emerging

issues that could result in significant

changes in court process or judicial

administration and their implications

for the future for judges, court managers,

policy-makers, and the public. Grants

supporting such projects are limited to

no more than $10,000. Applicants

should follow the procedures for

concept papers requesting an

accelerated award of a grant of less than

$40,000, which are explained in Section

VI.A.3.(b) of this Guideline.

Possible topics include, but are not

limited to:

• The impact of the ‘‘digital divide’’

on pro se litigants who do not have

access to computers, particularly as it

relates to increasing electronic access to

court documents and placing court

services and processes on-line;

• The implications for determining

court jurisdiction in a cyberworld that

may transcend State and national or

other boundaries;

• An examination of the implications

of cybercrime on the courts as potential

victims suffering violations of privacy,

security, and confidentiality;

• The implications of increasing

commerce via the Internet for the State

courts, including unique problems that

may arise and the new rules and

procedures that may be needed to

address them;

• An exploration of issues related to

privacy, data security, and public access

to court records in our increasingly

technological society;

• The potential for the creation of

‘‘cybercourts’’ through the use of the

Internet—a ‘‘courthouseless court’’

instead of a paperless court—and how

the courts would have to be reengineered to accommodate such a

development;

• The implications of changing

expectations about the proper role of

judges—from adjudicators to problemsolvers—on court procedures, court

operations, and judicial selection; and

• The potential use of local court

advisory councils rooted in the

community as a method of promoting

public trust and confidence in the court.

D. Single Jurisdiction Projects

The Board will set aside up to

$300,000 to support projects proposed

by State or local courts that address the

needs of only the applicant State or

local jurisdiction. A project under this

section may address any of the topics

included in the Special Interest

Categories or Statutory Program Areas,

but it need not be innovative. The Board

is particularly interested in supporting

projects to replicate programs,

procedures, or strategies that have been

developed, demonstrated, or evaluated

through an SJI grant. An evaluation

component is not required if a grant is

awarded to replicate another successful

SJI project; however, grants to support

replications are subject to the same

limits on amount and duration as other

project grants. (See section V.)

Ordinarily, the Institute will not provide

support solely for the purchase of

equipment or software.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61035

Concept papers for single jurisdiction

projects may be submitted by a State

court system, an appellate court, or a

limited or general jurisdiction trial

court. All awards under this category

are subject to the matching requirements

set forth in sections III.O. and IX.A.8.a.

The application procedures for Single

Jurisdiction grants are the same as the

procedures for Project Grants (see

section VII.A); however, in addition to

the information presented in the

program narrative, Single Jurisdiction

grant applicants must also demonstrate

that:

1. The proposed project is essential to

meeting a critical need of the

jurisdiction; and

2. The need cannot be met solely with

State and local resources within the

foreseeable future.

E. Technical Assistance Grants

The Board will set aside up to

$400,000 to support the provision of

technical assistance to State and local

courts. The program is designed to

provide State and local courts with

sufficient support to obtain technical

assistance to diagnose a problem,

develop a response to that problem, and

implement any needed changes. The

Institute will reserve sufficient funds

each quarter to assure the availability of

technical assistance grants throughout

the year.

Technical Assistance grants are

limited to no more than $30,000 each,

and may cover the cost of obtaining the

services of expert consultants; travel by

a team of officials from one court to

examine a practice, program, or facility

in another jurisdiction that the

applicant court is interested in

replicating; or both. Technical

assistance grant funds ordinarily may

not be used to support production of a

videotape. Normally, the technical

assistance must be completed within 12

months after the start-date of the grant.

Only a State or local court may apply

for a Technical Assistance grant. The

application procedures may be found in

section VII.D.

III. Definitions

The following definitions apply for

the purposes of this Guideline:

A. Accelerated Award

A grant of up to $40,000 awarded on

the basis of a concept paper (including

a budget and budget narrative) when the

need for and benefits of the proposed

project are clear and an application

would not be needed to provide

additional information about the

project’s methodology and budget. See

section VI.C.1. for more information

about accelerated awards.

B. Acknowledgment of SJI Support

The prominent display of the SJI logo

on the front cover of a written product

or in the opening frames of a videotape

developed with Institute support, and

inclusion of a brief statement on the

inside front cover or title page of the

document or the opening frames of the

videotape identifying the grant number.

See section IX.A.11.a.(2) for the precise

wording of the statement.

C. Application

A formal request for an Institute grant

that is invited by the Board of Directors

after approval of a concept paper. A

complete application consists of: Form

A—Application; Form B—Certificate of

State Approval (for applications from

local trial or appellate courts or

agencies—see Appendix H); Form C—

Project Budget/Tabular Format or Form

C1—Project Budget/Spreadsheet

Format; Form D—Assurances;

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities; a

detailed 25-page description of the need

for the project and all related tasks,

including the time frame for completion

of each task, and staffing requirements;

and a detailed budget narrative that

provides the basis for all costs.

See section VII. for a complete

description of application submission

requirements.

D. Close-Out

The process by which the Institute

determines that all applicable

administrative and financial actions and

all required grant work have been

completed by both the grantee and the

Institute.

E. Concept Paper

A proposal of no more than eight

double-spaced pages that outlines the

nature and scope of a project that would

be supported with State Justice Institute

funds, accompanied by a preliminary

budget. See section VI. for a complete

description of concept paper submission

requirements.

F. Continuation Grant

A grant lasting no longer than 15

months to permit completion of

activities initiated under an existing

Institute grant or enhancement of the

products or services produced during

the prior grant period. See section VII.B

for a complete description of

continuation application requirements.

G. Curriculum

The materials needed to replicate an

education or training program

developed with grant funds including,

but not limited to: The learning

objectives; the presentation methods; a

sample agenda or schedule; an outline

of presentations and relevant

instructors’ notes; copies of overhead

transparencies or other visual aids;

exercises, case studies, hypotheticals,

quizzes, and other materials for

involving the participants; background

materials for participants; evaluation

forms; and suggestions for replicating

the program, including possible faculty

or the preferred qualifications or

experience of those selected as faculty.

H. Curriculum Adaptation Grant

A grant of up to $20,000 to support an

adaptation and pilot test of an

educational program previously

developed with SJI funds. See section

VII.E. for a complete description of

curriculum grant application

requirements.

I. Designated Agency or Council

The office or judicial body which is

authorized under State law or by

delegation from the State Supreme

Court to approve applications for funds

and to receive, administer, and be

accountable for those funds.

J. Disclaimer

A brief statement that must be

included at the beginning of a document

or in the opening frames of a videotape

produced with State Justice Institute

funding that specifies that the points of

view expressed in the document or tape

do not necessarily represent the official

position or policies of the Institute. See

section IX.A.11.a.(2) for the precise

wording of this statement.

K. Grant Adjustment

A change in the design or scope of a

project from that described in the

approved application, acknowledged in

writing by the Institute. See section

XI.A. for a list of the types of changes

requiring a formal grant adjustment.

Ordinarily, changes requiring a Grant

Adjustment (including budget

reallocations between direct cost

categories that individually or

cumulatively exceed five percent of the

approved original budget or the most

recently approved revised budget)

should be requested at least 30 days in

advance of the implementation of the

requested change.

L. Grantee

The organization, entity, or individual

to which an award of Institute funds is

made. For a grant based on an

application from a State or local court,

61036 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

grantee refers to the State Supreme

Court or its designee.

M. Human Subjects

Individuals who are participants in an

experimental procedure or who are

asked to provide information about

themselves, their attitudes, feelings,

opinions, and/or experiences through an

interview, questionnaire, or other data

collection technique.

N. Institute

The State Justice Institute.

O. Match

The portion of project costs not borne

by the Institute. Courts or other units of

State or local government (not including

publicly supported institutions of

higher education) must provide a match

from private or public sources of not

less than 50% of the total amount of the

Institute’s award. 42 U.S.C. 10705(d).

Match includes both in-kind and cash

contributions. Cash match is the direct

outlay of funds by the grantee to support

the project. In-kind match consists of

contributions of time, services, space,

supplies, etc., made to the project by the

grantee or others (e.g., advisory board

members) working directly on the

project. Under normal circumstances,

allowable match may be incurred only

during the project period. When

appropriate, and with the prior written

permission of the Institute, match may

be incurred from the date of the Board

of Directors’ approval of an award.

Match does not include project-related

income such as tuition or revenue from

the sale of grant products, or the time of

participants attending an education

program. Amounts contributed as cash

or in-kind match must be reported

quarterly in the same manner as grant

funds on the Institute’s Financial Status

Report. Cash or in-kind match may not

be recovered through the sale of grant

products during or following the grant

period.

P. Ongoing Support Grant

A grant lasting 36 months to support

a project that is national in scope and

that provides the State courts with

services, programs or products for

which there is a continuing important

need. See section VII.C. for a complete

description of ongoing support

application requirements.

Q. 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.

R. Project Grant

An initial grant lasting up to 15

months to support an innovative

education, research, demonstration, or

technical assistance project that can

improve the administration of justice in

State courts nationwide. Ordinarily, a

project grant may not exceed $200,000

a year; however, a grant in excess of

$150,000 is likely to be rare and

awarded only to support highly

promising projects that will have a

significant national impact. See section

VII.A. for a complete description of

project grant application requirements.

S. Project-Related Income

Interest, royalties, registration and

tuition fees, proceeds from the sale of

products, and other earnings generated

as a result of a State Justice Institute

grant. Project-related income must be

used to offset project year-to-date

expenses and may not be counted as

match. For a more complete description

of different types of project-related

income, see section X.G.

T. Scholarship

A grant of up to $1,500 awarded to a

judge or court employee to cover the

cost of tuition for and transportation to

and from an out-of-State educational

program within the United States. See

section VII.F. for a complete description

of scholarship application requirements.

U. Single Jurisdiction Project Grant

A grant that addresses a critical but

not necessarily innovative need of a

single State or local jurisdiction that

cannot be met solely with State and/or

local resources within the foreseeable

future. See section II.D. for a description

of single jurisdiction projects and

sections VI. and VII.A. for a complete

description of single jurisdiction project

application requirements.

V. Special Condition

A requirement attached to a grant

award that is unique to a particular

project.

W. State Supreme Court

The highest appellate court in a State,

or, for the purposes of the Institute

program, a constitutionally or

legislatively established judicial council

that acts in place of that court. In States

having more than one court with final

appellate authority, State Supreme

Court means that court which also has

administrative responsibility for the

State’s judicial system. State Supreme

Court also includes the office of the

court or council, if any, it designates to

perform the functions described in this

Guideline.

X. Subgrantee

A State or local court which receives

Institute funds through the State

Supreme Court.

Y. Technical Assistance Grant

A grant, lasting up to 12 months, of

up to $30,000 to a State or local court

to support outside expert assistance in

diagnosing a problem and developing

and implementing a response to that

problem. See section VII.D. for a

complete description of technical

assistance grant application

requirements.

IV. Eligibility for Award

The Institute is authorized by

Congress to award grants, cooperative

agreements, and contracts to the

following entities and types of

organizations:

A. State and local courts and their

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

Each application for funding from a

State or local court must be approved,

consistent with State law, by the State’s

Supreme Court or its designated agency

or council. The latter shall receive all

Institute funds awarded to such courts

and be responsible for assuring proper

administration of Institute funds, in

accordance with section X.C.2. of this

Guideline. A list of persons to contact

in each State regarding approval of

applications from State and local courts

and administration of Institute grants to

those courts is contained in Appendix

C.

B. National nonprofit organizations

controlled by, operating in conjunction

with, and serving the judicial branches

of State governments (42 U.S.C.

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

C. National nonprofit organizations

for the education and training of judges

and support personnel of the judicial

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

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

considered a national education and

training applicant under section

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

1. the principal purpose or activity of

the applicant is to provide education

and training to State and local judges

and court personnel; and

2. the applicant demonstrates a record

of substantial experience in the field of

judicial education and training.

D. Other eligible grant recipients (42

U.S.C. 10705(b)(2)(A)–(D)). 

1. Provided that the objectives of the

project can be served better, the Institute

is also authorized to make awards to:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61037

a. Nonprofit organizations with

expertise in judicial administration;

b. Institutions of higher education;

c. Individuals, partnerships, firms,

corporations (for-profit organizations

must waive their fees); and

d. Private agencies with expertise in

judicial administration.

2. The Institute may also make awards

to Federal, State or local agencies and

institutions other than courts for

services that cannot be adequately

provided through nongovernmental

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

E. Inter-agency Agreements. The

Institute may enter into inter-agency

agreements with Federal agencies (42

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

to support projects consistent with the

purposes of the State Justice Institute

Act.

V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of

Awards

A. Types of Projects

The Institute supports the following

general types of projects:

1. Education and training;

2. Research and evaluation;

3. Demonstration; and

4. Technical assistance.

B. Types of Grants

The Institute supports the following

types of grants:

1. Project Grants.

See sections II.B. and D., VI., and

VII.A. The Institute places no annual

limitations on the overall number of

project grant awards or the number of

awards in each special interest category.

2. Continuation Grants.

See sections III.F. and VII.B. In FY

2001, the Institute is allocating no more

than 25% of available grant funds for

continuation and ongoing support

grants.

3. Ongoing Support Grants.

See sections III.P. and VII.C. See

Continuation Grants above for

limitations on funding availability in FY

2001.

4. Technical Assistance Grants.

See section II.E. In FY 2001, the

Institute is reserving up to $400,000 for

these grants.

5. Curriculum Adaptation Grants.

See sections II.B.2.b.(2), III.G., and

VII.E. In FY 2001, the Institute is

reserving up to $200,000 for adaptations

of curricula previously developed with

SJI funding.

6. Scholarships.

See section II.B.2.b.(3), III.T, and

VII.F. In FY 2001, the Institute is

reserving up to $200,000 for

scholarships for judges and court

employees. The Institute will reserve

sufficient funds each quarter to assure

the availability of scholarships

throughout the year.

C. Maximum Size of Awards

1. Except as specified below,

applicants for new project grants and

continuation grants may request funding

in amounts up to $200,000 for 15

months, although new and continuation

awards in excess of $150,000 are likely

to be rare and to be made, if at all, only

for highly promising proposals that will

have a significant impact nationally.

2. Applicants for ongoing support

grants may request funding in amounts

up to $600,000 over three years,

although awards in excess of $450,000

are likely to be rare. The Institute will

ordinarily release funds for the second

and third years of ongoing support

grants on the following conditions: (1)

The project is performing satisfactorily;

(2) appropriations are available to

support the project that fiscal year; and

(3) the Board of Directors determines

that the project continues to fall within

the Institute’s priorities.

3. Applicants for technical assistance

grants may request funding in amounts

up to $30,000.

4. Applicants for curriculum

adaptation grants may request funding

in amounts up to $20,000.

5. Applicants for scholarships may

request funding in amounts up to

$1,500.

D. Length of Grant Periods

1. Grant periods for all new and

continuation projects ordinarily may not

exceed 15 months.

2. Grant periods for ongoing support

grants ordinarily may not exceed 36

months.

3. Grant periods for technical

assistance grants and curriculum

adaptation grants ordinarily may not

exceed 12 months.

VI. Concept Papers

Concept papers are an extremely

important part of the application

process because they enable the

Institute to learn the program areas of

primary interest to the courts and to

explore innovative ideas, without

imposing heavy burdens on prospective

applicants. The use of concept papers

also permits the Institute to better

project the nature and amount of grant

awards. The concept paper requirement

and the submission deadlines for

concept papers and applications may be

waived by the Executive Director for

good cause (e.g., the proposed project

could provide a significant benefit to the

State courts or the opportunity to

conduct the project did not arise until

after the deadline).

A. Format and Content

All concept papers must include a

cover sheet, a program narrative, and a

preliminary budget.

1. The Cover Sheet

The cover sheet for all concept papers

must contain:

a. A title that clearly describes the

proposed project;

b. The name and address of the court,

organization, or individual submitting

the paper;

c. The name, title, address (if different

from that in b.), and telephone number

of a contact person who can provide

further information about the paper;

d. The letter of the Special Interest

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

number of the statutory Program Area

(see section II.A.) that the proposed

project addresses most directly; and

e. The estimated length of the

proposed project.

Applicants requesting the Board to

waive the application requirement and

approve a grant of less than $40,000

based on the concept paper should add

APPLICATION WAIVER REQUESTED

to the information on the cover page.

2. The Program Narrative

The program narrative of a concept

paper should be no longer than

necessary, but must not exceed 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 pages should be

numbered. The narrative should

describe:

a. Why is this project needed and how

would it benefit State courts? If the

project is to be conducted in a specific

location(s), applicants should discuss

the particular needs of the project site(s)

to be addressed by the project, why

those needs are not being met through

the use of existing materials, programs,

procedures, services, or other resources,

and the benefits that would be realized

by the proposed site(s).

If the project is not site-specific,

applicants should discuss the problems

that the proposed project would

address, why existing materials,

programs, procedures, services, or other

resources cannot adequately resolve

those problems, and the benefits that

would be realized from the project by

State courts generally.

b. What would be done if a grant is

awarded? Applicants should include a

summary description of the project to be

conducted and the approach to be taken,

including the anticipated length of the

61038 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

grant period. Applicants requesting a

waiver of the application requirement

for a grant of less than $40,000 should

explain the proposed methods for

conducting the project as fully as space

allows, and include a detailed task

schedule as an attachment to the

concept paper.

c. How would the effects and quality

of the project be determined?

Applicants should include a summary

description of how the project would be

evaluated, including the criteria that

would be used to measure its success or

impact.

d. How would others find out about

the project and be able to use the

results? Applicants should describe the

products that would result, the degree to

which they would be applicable to

courts across the nation, and to whom

the products and results of the project

would be disseminated in addition to

the SJI-designated libraries (e.g., State

chief justices, specified groups of trial

judges, State court administrators,

specified groups of trial court

administrators, State judicial educators,

or other audiences). Applicants

proposing to develop web-based

products should provide for sending a

hard-copy document to the SJIdesignated libraries and other

appropriate audiences to alert them to

the availability of the web site or

electronic product (e.g., a written report

with a reference to the web site, a press

release with the web site address and

screens printed from the web site, etc.).

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 G of

this Guideline. Applicants should be

aware that prior written Institute

approval is required for any consultant

rate in excess of $300 per day and that

Institute funds may not be used to pay

a consultant in excess of $900 per day.

b. Concept Papers Requesting

Accelerated Award of a Grant of Less

than $40,000. Applicants requesting a

waiver of the application requirement

and approval of a grant based on a

concept paper under C. in this section

must attach to Form E (see Appendix G)

a budget narrative that explains the

basis for each of the items listed and

indicates whether the costs would be

paid from grant funds, through a

matching contribution, or from other

sources. Courts requesting an

accelerated award must also attach a

Certificate of State Approval—Form B

(Appendix H) signed by the Chief

Justice of the State Supreme Court or the

Chief Justice’s designee.

4. Letters of Cooperation or Support

The Institute encourages concept

paper applicants to attach letters of

cooperation and support from the courts

and related agencies that would be

involved in or directly affected by the

proposed project. Letters of support may

be sent under separate cover; however,

to ensure sufficient time to bring them

to the Board’s attention, support letters

sent under separate cover must be

received no later than January 5, 2001.

5. Page Limits

a. The Institute will not accept

concept papers with program narratives

exceeding eight double-spaced pages

(see A.2. of this section). This page limit

does not include the cover page, budget

form, letters of cooperation or support,

or, for papers requesting accelerated

awards, the budget narrative and task

schedule. Additional material should

not be attached unless it is essential to

impart a clear understanding of the

project.

b. Applicants submitting more than

one concept paper may include material

that would be identical in each concept

paper in a cover letter. This material

will be incorporated by reference into

each paper and counted against the

eight-page limit for each. A copy of the

cover letter should be attached to each

copy of each concept paper.

6. Sample Concept Papers

Sample concept papers from previous

funding cycles are available from the

Institute upon request.

B. Submission Requirements

An original and three copies of all

concept papers submitted for

consideration in Fiscal Year 2001 must

be sent by first class or overnight mail

or by courier (but not by fax or e-mail)

no later than November 22, 2000.

A postmark or courier receipt will

constitute evidence of the submission

date. All envelopes containing concept

papers should be marked CONCEPT

PAPER and sent to: State Justice

Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600,

Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

Receipt of each concept paper will be

acknowledged by the Institute in

writing. Extensions of the deadlines for

submission of concept papers will not

be granted.

C. Institute Review

1. Review Process

Concept papers will be reviewed

competitively by the Institute’s Board of

Directors. Institute staff will prepare a

narrative summary and a rating sheet

assigning points for each relevant

selection criterion for those concept

papers which fall within the scope of

the Institute’s funding program and

merit serious consideration by the

Board. Staff will also prepare a list of

those papers that, in the judgment of the

Executive Director, propose projects that

lie outside the scope of the Institute’s

program or are not likely to merit

serious consideration by the Board. The

narrative summaries, rating sheets, and

list of non-reviewed papers will be

presented to the Board for its review.

Committees of the Board will review

concept paper summaries within

assigned program areas and prepare

recommendations for the full Board.

The full Board of Directors will then

decide which concept paper applicants

will be invited to submit formal

applications for funding. The decision

to invite an application is solely that of

the Board of Directors.

The Board may waive the application

requirement and approve a grant based

on a concept paper for a project

requiring less than $40,000 when the

need for and benefits of the project are

clear and the methodology and budget

require little additional explanation.

Applicants considering whether to

request consideration for an accelerated

award should make certain that the

proposed budget is sufficient to

accomplish the project objectives in a

quality manner. Because the Institute’s

experience has been that projects to

conduct empirical research or a program

evaluation ordinarily require a more

thorough explanation of the

methodology to be used than can be

provided within the space limitations of

a concept paper, the Board is unlikely

to waive the application requirement for

such projects.

2. Selection Criteria

a. All concept papers will be

evaluated on the basis of the following

criteria:

(1) The demonstration of need for the

project;

(2) The soundness and innovativeness

of the approach described;

(3) The benefits to be derived from the

project;

(4) The reasonableness of the

proposed budget;

(5) The proposed project’s

relationship to one of the ‘‘Special

Interest’’ categories set forth in section

II.B; and

(6) The degree to which the findings,

procedures, training, technology, or

other results of the project can be

transferred to other jurisdictions.

Single jurisdiction concept papers

will be rated on the proposed project’s

relation to one of the ‘‘Special Interest’’

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61039

categories set forth in section II.B. and

the special requirements listed in

section II.D. and VII.A.

b. In determining which concept

papers will be approved for award or

selected for development into full

applications, the Institute will also

consider the availability of financial

assistance from other sources for the

project; the amount and nature (cash or

in-kind) of the applicant’s anticipated

match; whether the applicant is a State

court, a national court support or

education organization, a non-court unit

of government, or another type of entity

eligible to receive grants under the

Institute’s enabling legislation (see 42

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

section IV of this Grant Guideline); the

extent to which the proposed project

would also benefit the Federal courts or

help the State courts enforce Federal

constitutional and legislative

requirements; and the level of

appropriations available to the Institute

in the current year and the amount

expected to be available in succeeding

fiscal years.

3. Notification to Applicants

The Institute will send written notice

to all persons submitting concept

papers, informing them of the Board’s

decisions regarding their papers and of

the key issues and questions that arose

during the review process. A decision

by the Board not to invite an application

may not be appealed, but applicants

may resubmit the concept paper or a

revision thereof in a subsequent funding

cycle. The Institute will also notify the

relevant State contact (see Appendix C)

when the Board invites applications

submitted by courts within that State or

that specify a participating site within

that State.

VII. Applications

A. Project Grants

An application for a Project Grant

must include an application form;

budget forms (with appropriate

documentation); a project abstract and

program narrative; a disclosure of

lobbying form, when applicable; and

certain certifications and assurances.

The Institute will send the required

application forms to applicants invited

to submit a full application.

1. Forms

a. Application Form (FORM A)

The application form requests basic

information regarding the proposed

project, the applicant, and the total

amount of funding requested from the

Institute. It also requires the signature of

an individual authorized to certify on

behalf of the applicant that the

information contained in the

application is true and complete; that

submission of the application has been

authorized by the applicant; and that if

funding for the proposed project is

approved, the applicant will comply

with the requirements and conditions of

the award, including the assurances set

forth in Form D.

b. Certificate of State Approval (FORM

B)

An application from a State or local

court must include a copy of FORM B

signed by the State’s Chief Justice or

Chief Judge, the director of the

designated agency, or the head of the

designated council. The signature

denotes that the proposed project has

been approved by the State’s highest

court or the agency or council it has

designated. It denotes further that if

funding for the project is approved by

the Institute, the court or the specified

designee will receive, administer, and

be accountable for the awarded funds.

c. Budget Forms (FORM C or C1)

Applicants may submit the proposed

project budget either in the tabular

format of FORM C or in the spreadsheet

format of FORM C1. Applicants

requesting $100,000 or more are

strongly encouraged to use the

spreadsheet format. If the proposed

project period is for more than a year,

a separate form should be submitted for

each year or portion of a year for which

grant support is requested, as well as for

the total length of the project.

In addition to FORM C or C1,

applicants must provide a detailed

budget narrative providing an

explanation of the basis for the

estimates in each budget category. (See

4. below in this section.)

If funds from other sources are

required to conduct the project, either as

match or to support other aspects of the

project, the source, current status of the

request, and anticipated decision date

must be provided.

d. Assurances (FORM D)

This form lists the statutory,

regulatory, and policy requirements

with which recipients of Institute funds

must comply.

e. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

Applicants other than units of State or

local government are required to

disclose whether they, or another entity

that is part of the same organization as

the applicant, have advocated a position

before Congress on any issue, and to

identify the specific subjects of their

lobbying efforts. (See section IX.A.7.)

2. Project Abstract

The abstract should highlight the

purposes, goals, methods and

anticipated benefits of the proposed

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

3. Program Narrative

The program narrative for an

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

Margins must be at least 1 inch, and

type size must be at least 12-point and

12 cpi. The pages should be numbered.

This page limit does not include the

forms, the abstract, the budget narrative,

and any appendices containing resumes

and letters of cooperation or

endorsement. Additional background

material should be attached only if it is

essential to impart a clear

understanding of the proposed project.

Numerous and lengthy appendices are

strongly discouraged.

The program narrative should address

the following topics:

a. Project Objectives

The applicant should include a clear,

concise statement of what the proposed

project is intended to accomplish. In

stating the objectives of the project,

applicants should focus on the overall

programmatic objective (e.g., to enhance

understanding and skills regarding a

specific subject, or to determine how a

certain procedure affects the court and

litigants) rather than on operational

objectives (e.g., provide training for 32

judges and court managers, or review

data from 300 cases).

b. Program Areas To Be Covered

The applicant should note the Special

Interest Category or Categories that are

addressed by the proposed project (see

section II.B.). If the proposed project

does not fall within one of the Institute’s

Special Interest Categories, the

applicant should list the Statutory

Program Area or Areas that are

addressed by the proposed project. (See

section II.A.)

c. Need for the Project

If the project is to be conducted in a

specific location(s), the applicant

should discuss the particular needs of

the project site(s) to be addressed by the

project and why those needs are not

being met through the use of existing

materials, programs, procedures,

services, or other resources.

If the project is not site-specific, the

applicant should discuss the problems

that the proposed project would

address, and why existing materials,

programs, procedures, services, or other

resources cannot adequately resolve

61040 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

those problems. The discussion should

include specific references to the

relevant literature and to the experience

in the field.

d. Tasks, Methods and Evaluation

(1) Tasks and Methods. The applicant

should delineate the tasks to be

performed in achieving the project

objectives and the methods to be used

for accomplishing each task. For

example:

(a) For research and evaluation

projects, the applicant should include

the data sources, data collection

strategies, variables to be examined, and

analytic procedures to be used for

conducting the research or evaluation

and ensuring the validity and general

applicability of the results. For projects

involving human subjects, the

discussion of methods should address

the procedures for obtaining

respondents’ informed consent,

ensuring the respondents’ privacy and

freedom from risk or harm, and the

protection of others who are not the

subjects of research but would be

affected by the research. If the potential

exists for risk or harm to the human

subjects, a discussion should be

included that explains the value of the

proposed research and the methods to

be used to minimize or eliminate such

risk.

(b) For education and training

projects, the applicant should include

the adult education techniques to be

used in designing and presenting the

program, including the teaching/

learning objectives of the educational

design, the teaching methods to be used,

and the opportunities for structured

interaction among the participants; how

faculty would be recruited, selected,

and trained; the proposed number and

length of the conferences, courses,

seminars, or workshops to be conducted

and the estimated number of persons

who would attend them; the materials to

be provided and how they would be

developed; and the cost to participants.

(c) For demonstration projects, the

applicant should include the

demonstration sites and the reasons

they were selected, or if the sites have

not been chosen, how they would be

identified and their cooperation

obtained; and how the program or

procedures would be implemented and

monitored.

(d) For technical assistance projects,

the applicant should explain the types

of assistance that would be provided;

the particular issues and problems for

which assistance would be provided;

how requests would be obtained and the

type of assistance determined; how

suitable providers would be selected

and briefed; how reports would be

reviewed; and the cost to recipients.

(2) Evaluation. Every project design

must include an evaluation plan to

determine whether the project met its

objectives. The evaluation should be

designed to provide an objective and

independent assessment of the

effectiveness or usefulness of the

training or services provided; the impact

of the procedures, technology, or

services tested; or the validity and

applicability of the research conducted.

In addition, where appropriate, the

evaluation process should be designed

to provide ongoing or periodic feedback

on the effectiveness or utility of the

project in order to promote its

continuing improvement. The plan

should present the qualifications of the

evaluator(s); describe the criteria that

would be used to evaluate the project’s

effectiveness in meeting its objectives;

explain how the evaluation would be

conducted, including the specific data

collection and analysis techniques to be

used; discuss why this approach would

be appropriate; and present a schedule

for completion of the evaluation within

the proposed project period.

The evaluation plan should be

appropriate to the type of project

proposed. For example:

(a) Research. An evaluation approach

suited to many research projects is a

review by an advisory panel of the

research methodology, data collection

instruments, preliminary analyses, and

products as they are drafted. The panel

should be comprised of independent

researchers and practitioners

representing the perspectives affected

by the proposed project.

(b) Education and Training. The most

valuable approaches to evaluating

educational or training programs

reinforce the participants’ learning

experience while providing useful

feedback on the impact of the program

and possible areas for improvement.

One appropriate evaluation approach is

to assess the acquisition of new

knowledge, skills, attitudes or

understanding through participant

feedback on the seminar or training

event. Such feedback might include a

self-assessment on what was learned

along with the participant’s response to

the quality and effectiveness of faculty

presentations, the format of sessions, the

value or usefulness of the material

presented, and other relevant factors.

Another appropriate approach would be

to use an independent observer who

might request both verbal and written

responses from participants in the

program. When an education project

involves the development of curricular

materials, an advisory panel of relevant

experts can be coupled with a test of the

curriculum to obtain the reactions of

participants and faculty as indicated

above.

(c) Demonstration. The evaluation

plan for a demonstration project should

encompass an assessment of program

effectiveness (e.g., how well did it

work?); user satisfaction, if appropriate;

the cost-effectiveness of the program; a

process analysis of the program (e.g.,

was the program implemented as

designed, and/or did it provide the

services intended to the targeted

population?); the impact of the program

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

on the court, and/or what benefits

resulted from the program?); and the

replicability of the program or

components of the program.

(d) Technical Assistance. For

technical assistance projects, applicants

should explain how the quality,

timeliness, and impact of the assistance

provided would be determined, and

develop a mechanism for feedback from

both the users and providers of the

technical assistance.

Evaluation plans involving human

subjects should include a discussion of

the procedures for obtaining

respondents’ informed consent,

ensuring the respondents’ privacy and

freedom from risk or harm, and the

protection of others who are not the

subjects of evaluation but would be

affected by it. Other than the provision

of confidentiality to respondents,

human subject protection issues

ordinarily are not applicable to

participants evaluating an education

program.

e. Project Management

The applicant should present a

detailed management plan, including

the starting and completion date for

each task; the time commitments to the

project of key staff and their

responsibilities regarding each project

task; and the procedures that would

ensure that all tasks are performed on

time, within budget, and at the highest

level of quality. In preparing the project

time line, Gantt Chart, or schedule,

applicants should make certain that all

project activities, including publication

or reproduction of project products and

their initial dissemination, would occur

within the proposed project period. The

management plan must also provide for

the submission of Quarterly Progress

and Financial Reports within 30 days

after the close of each calendar quarter

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

July 30, and October 30).

Applicants should be aware that the

Institute is unlikely to approve more

than one limited extension of the grant

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61041

period. Therefore, the management plan

should be as realistic as possible and

fully reflect the time commitments of

the proposed project staff and

consultants.

f. Products

The program narrative in the

application should contain a description

of the products to be developed (e.g.,

training curricula and materials,

videotapes, articles, manuals, or

handbooks), including when they would

be submitted to the Institute. The budget

should include the cost of producing

and disseminating the product to each

in-State SJI library, State chief justice,

State court administrator, and other

judges or court personnel.

(1) Dissemination Plan. The

application must explain how and to

whom the products would be

disseminated; describe how they would

benefit the State courts, including how

they could be used by judges and court

personnel; identify development,

production, and dissemination costs

covered by the project budget; and

present the basis on which products and

services developed or provided under

the grant would be offered to the courts

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

whether products would be distributed

at no cost to recipients, or if costs are

involved, the reason for charging

recipients and the estimated price of the

product). (See section IX.A.11.b.)

Ordinarily, applicants should schedule

all product preparation and distribution

activities within the project period.

A copy of each product must be sent

to the library established in each State

to collect the materials developed with

Institute support. (A list of these

libraries is contained in Appendix D.)

Applicants proposing to develop webbased products should provide for

sending a hard-copy document to the

SJI-designated libraries and other

appropriate audiences to alert them to

the availability of the web site or

electronic product (e.g., a written report

with a reference to the web site, a press

release with the web site address and

screens printed from the web site, etc.).

Seventeen (17) copies of all project

products must be submitted to the

Institute. A master copy of each

videotape, in addition to 17 copies of

each videotape product, must also be

provided to the Institute.

(2) Types of Products and Press

Releases. The type of product to be

prepared depends on the nature of the

project. For example, in most instances,

the products of a research, evaluation,

or demonstration project should include

an article summarizing the project

findings that is publishable in a journal

serving the courts community

nationally, an executive summary that

would be disseminated to the project’s

primary audience, or both. Applicants

proposing to conduct empirical research

or evaluation projects with national

import should describe how they would

make their data available for secondary

analysis after the grant period. (See

section IX.A.14.a.).

The curricula and other products

developed 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.

In addition, recipients of project

grants must prepare a press release

describing the project and announcing

the results, and distribute the release to

a list of national and State judicial

branch organizations. SJI will provide

press release guidelines and a list of

recipients to grantees at least 30 days

before the end of the grant period.

(3) Institute Review. Applicants must

submit a final draft of all written grant

products to the Institute for review and

approval at least 30 days before the

products are submitted for publication

or reproduction. For products in a

videotape or CD–ROM format,

applicants must provide for incremental

Institute review of the product at the

treatment, script, rough-cut, and final

stages of development, or their

equivalents. No grant funds may be

obligated for publication or

reproduction of a final grant product

without the written approval of the

Institute. (See section IX.A.11.e.)

(4) Acknowledgment, Disclaimer, and

Logo. Applicants must also include in

all project products a prominent

acknowledgment that support was

received from the Institute and a

disclaimer paragraph based on the

example provided in section

IX.A.11.a.(2) of the Guideline. The ‘‘SJI’’

logo must appear on the front cover of

a written product, or in the opening

frames of a video, unless the Institute

approves another placement.

g. Applicant Status

An applicant that is not a State or

local court and has not received a grant

from the Institute within the past two

years should state whether it is either a

national non-profit organization

controlled by, operating in conjunction

with, and serving the judicial branches

of State governments; or a national 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.

h. Staff Capability

The applicant should include a

summary of the training and experience

of the key staff members and

consultants that qualify them for

conducting and managing the proposed

project. Resumes of identified staff

should be attached to the application. If

one or more key staff members and

consultants are not known at the time of

the application, a description of the

criteria that would be used to select

persons for these positions should be

included. The applicant also should

identify the person who would be

responsible for managing and reporting

on the finances of the proposed project.

i. Organizational Capacity

Applicants that have not received a

grant from the Institute within the past

two years should include a statement

describing their capacity to administer

grant funds, including the financial

systems used to monitor project

expenditures (and income, if any), and

a summary of their past experience in

administering grants, as well as any

resources or capabilities that they have

that would particularly assist in the

successful completion of the project.

Unless requested otherwise, an

applicant that has received a grant from

the Institute within the past two years

should describe only the changes in its

organizational capacity, tax status, or

financial capability that may affect its

capacity to administer a grant.

If the applicant is a non-profit

organization (other than a university), it

must also provide documentation of its

501(c) tax-exempt status as determined

by the Internal Revenue Service and a

copy of a current certified audit report.

For purposes of this requirement,

‘‘current’’ means no earlier than two

years prior to the present calendar year.

If a current audit report is not

available, the Institute will require the

organization to complete a financial

capability questionnaire which must be

signed by a Certified Public Accountant.

Other applicants may be required to

provide a current audit report, a

financial capability questionnaire, or

both, if specifically requested to do so

by the Institute.

j. Statement of Lobbying Activities

Non-governmental applicants must

submit the Institute’s Disclosure of

Lobbying Activities Form, which

documents whether they, or another

entity that is a part of the same

organization as the applicant, have

advocated a position before Congress on

61042 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

any issue, and identifies the specific

subjects of their lobbying efforts.

k. Letters of Cooperation or Support

If the cooperation of courts,

organizations, agencies, or individuals

other than the applicant is required to

conduct the project, the applicant

should attach written assurances of

cooperation and availability to the

application, or send them under

separate cover. To ensure sufficient time

to bring them to the Board’s attention,

letters of support sent under separate

cover must be received no more than 30

days after the deadline for mailing the

application.

4. Budget Narrative

The budget narrative should provide

the basis for the computation of all

project-related costs. When the

proposed project would be partially

supported by grants from other funding

sources, applicants should make clear

what costs would be covered by those

other grants. Additional background or

schedules may be attached if they are

essential to obtaining a clear

understanding of the proposed budget.

Numerous and lengthy appendices are

strongly discouraged.

The budget narrative should cover the

costs of all components of the project

and clearly identify costs attributable to

the project evaluation. Under OMB

grant guidelines incorporated by

reference in this Guideline, grant funds

may not be used to purchase alcoholic

beverages.

a. Justification of Personnel

Compensation

The applicant should set forth the

percentages of time to be devoted by the

individuals who would staff the

proposed project, the annual salary of

each of those persons, and the number

of work days per year used for

calculating the percentages of time or

daily rates of those individuals. The

applicant should explain any deviations

from current rates or established written

organizational policies. If grant funds

are requested to pay the salary and

related costs for a current employee of

a court or other unit of government, the

applicant should explain why this

would not constitute a supplantation of

State or local funds in violation of 42

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

explanation may be that the position to

be filled is a new one established in

conjunction with the project or that the

grant funds would support only the

portion of the employee’s time that

would be dedicated to new or additional

duties related to the project.

b. Fringe Benefit Computation

The applicant should provide a

description of the fringe benefits

provided to employees. If percentages

are used, the authority for such use

should be presented, as well as a

description of the elements included in

the determination of the percentage rate.

c. Consultant/Contractual Services and

Honoraria

The applicant should describe the

tasks each consultant would perform,

the estimated total amount to be paid to

each consultant, the basis for

compensation rates (e.g., the number of

days multiplied by the daily consultant

rates), and the method for selection.

Rates for consultant services must be set

in accordance with section X.I.2.c.

Honorarium payments must be justified

in the same manner as other consultant

payments. Prior written Institute

approval is required for any consultant

rate in excess of $300 per day; Institute

funds may not be used to pay a

consultant more than $900 per day.

d. Travel

Transportation costs and per diem

rates must comply with the policies of

the applicant organization. If the

applicant does not have an established

travel policy, then travel rates must be

consistent with those established by the

Institute or the Federal Government. (A

copy of the Institute’s travel policy is

available upon request.) The budget

narrative should include an explanation

of the rate used, including the

components of the per diem rate and the

basis for the estimated transportation

expenses. The purpose of the travel

should also be included in the narrative.

e. Equipment

Grant funds may be used to purchase

only the equipment necessary to

demonstrate a new technological

application in a court or that is

otherwise essential to accomplishing the

objectives of the project. Equipment

purchases to support basic court

operations ordinarily will not be

approved. The applicant should

describe the equipment to be purchased

or leased and explain why the

acquisition of that equipment is

essential to accomplish the project’s

goals and objectives. The narrative

should clearly identify which

equipment is to be leased and which is

to be purchased. The method of

procurement should also be described.

Purchases for automatic data processing

equipment must comply with section

X.I.2.b.

f. Supplies

The applicant should provide a

general description of the supplies

necessary to accomplish the goals and

objectives of the grant. In addition, the

applicant should provide the basis for

the amount requested for this

expenditure category.

g. Construction

Construction expenses are prohibited

except for the limited purposes set forth

in section IX.A.16.b. Any allowable

construction or renovation expense

should be described in detail in the

budget narrative.

h. Telephone

Applicants should include

anticipated telephone charges,

distinguishing between monthly charges

and long distance charges in the budget

narrative. Also, applicants should

provide the basis used to calculate the

monthly and long distance estimates.

i. Postage

Anticipated postage costs for projectrelated mailings, including distribution

of the final product(s), should be

described in the budget narrative. The

cost of special mailings, such as for a

survey or for announcing a workshop,

should be distinguished from routine

operational mailing costs. The bases for

all postage estimates should be included

in the budget narrative.

j. Printing/Photocopying

Anticipated costs for printing or

photocopying project documents,

reports, and publications should be

included in the budget narrative, along

with the bases used to calculate these

estimates.

k. Indirect Costs

Applicants should describe the

indirect cost rates applicable to the

grant in detail. If costs often included

within an indirect cost rate are charged

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

senior managers to supervise project

activities), the applicant should specify

that these costs are not included within

its approved indirect cost rate. These

rates must be established in accordance

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

an indirect cost rate or allocation plan

approved by any Federal granting

agency, a copy of the approved rate

agreement should be attached to the

application.

l. Match

The applicant should describe the

source of any matching contribution and

the nature of the match provided. Any

additional contributions to the project

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61043

should be described in this section of

the budget narrative as well. If in-kind

match is to be provided, the applicant

should describe how the amount and

value of the time, services, or materials

actually contributed would be

documented for audit purposes.

Applicants should be aware that the

time spent by participants in education

courses does not qualify as in-kind

match.

Applicants that do not contemplate

making matching contributions

continuously throughout the course of

the project or on a task-by-task basis

must provide a schedule within 30 days

after the beginning of the project period

indicating at what points during the

project period the matching

contributions would be made. (See

sections II.O., IX.A.8., and X.E.1.) Match

must be reported quarterly in the same

manner as grant funds on the Institute’s

Financial Status Report.

5. Submission Requirements

a. Every applicant must submit an

original and four copies of the

application package consisting of FORM

A; FORM B, if the application is from

a State or local court, or a Disclosure of

Lobbying Form, if the applicant is not

a unit of State or local government; the

Budget Forms (either FORM C or C–1);

the Application Abstract; the Program

Narrative; the Budget Narrative; and any

necessary appendices.

All applications invited by the

Institute’s Board of Directors must be

sent by first class or overnight mail or

by courier no later than April 25, 2001.

A postmark or courier receipt will

constitute evidence of the submission

date. Please mark APPLICATION on the

application package envelope and send

it to: State Justice Institute, 1650 King

Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314.

Receipt of each application will be

acknowledged in writing. Extensions of

the deadline for submission of

applications will not be granted. See

3.k. above in this section for deadlines

for letters of support.

b. Applicants submitting more than

one application may include material

that would be identical in each

application in a cover letter. This

material will be incorporated by

reference into each application and

counted against the 25-page limit for the

program narrative. A copy of the cover

letter should be attached to each copy

of each application.

B. Continuation Grant Applications

1. Purpose and Scope

Continuation grants are intended to

support projects with a limited duration

that involve the same type of activities

as the previous project. They are

intended to enhance the specific

program or service produced or

established during the prior grant

period. They may be used, for example,

when a project is divided into two or

more sequential phases, for secondary

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

extensive testing of an innovative

technology, procedure, or program

developed with SJI grant support.

Continuation grants should be

distinguished from ongoing support

grants, which are awarded to support

critically needed long-term national

scope projects. See C. below in this

section.

The award of an initial grant to

support a project does not constitute a

commitment by the Institute to continue

funding. For a project to be considered

for continuation funding, the grantee

must have completed all project tasks

and met all grant requirements and

conditions in a timely manner, absent

extenuating circumstances or prior

Institute approval of changes to the

project design. Continuation grants are

not intended to provide support for a

project for which the grantee has

underestimated the amount of time or

funds needed to accomplish the project

tasks.

2. Letters of Intent

In lieu of a concept paper, a grantee

seeking a continuation grant must

inform the Institute, by letter, of its

intent to submit an application for such

funding as soon as the need for

continued funding becomes apparent

but no less than 120 days before the end

of the current grant period.

a. A letter of intent must be no more

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

inch paper and contain a concise but

thorough explanation of the need for

continuation; an estimate of the funds to

be requested; and a brief description of

anticipated changes in the scope, focus,

or audience of the project.

b. Within 30 days after receiving a

letter of intent, Institute staff will review

the proposed activities for the next

project period and inform the grantee of

specific issues to be addressed in the

continuation application and the date

by which the application must be

submitted.

3. Application Format

An application for a continuation

grant must include an application form,

budget forms (with appropriate

documentation), a project abstract

conforming to the format set forth in

A.2. of this section, a program narrative,

a budget narrative, a Certificate of State

Approval—FORM B (Appendix H) if the

applicant is a State or local court, a

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities form

(from applicants other than units of

State or local government), and any

necessary appendices.

The program narrative should

conform to the length and format

requirements set forth in A.3. of this

section. However, rather than the topics

listed there, the program narrative of a

continuation application should

include:

a. Project Objectives. The applicant

should clearly and concisely state what

the continuation project is intended to

accomplish.

b. Need for Continuation. The

applicant should explain why

continuation of the project is necessary

to achieve the goals of the project, and

how the continuation would benefit the

participating courts or the courts

community generally, by explaining, for

example, how the original goals and

objectives of the project would be

unfulfilled if it were not continued; or

how the value of the project would be

enhanced by its continuation.

c. Report of Current Project Activities.

The applicant should discuss the status

of all activities conducted during the

previous project period. Applicants

should identify any activities that were

not completed, and explain why.

d. Evaluation Findings. The applicant

should present the key findings, impact,

or recommendations resulting from the

evaluation of the project, if available,

and how they would be addressed

during the proposed continuation. If the

findings are not yet available, the

applicant should provide the date by

which they would be submitted to the

Institute. Ordinarily, the Board will not

consider an application for continuation

funding until the Institute has received

the evaluator’s report.

e. Tasks, Methods, Staff and Grantee

Capability. The applicant should fully

describe any changes in the tasks to be

performed, the methods to be used, the

products of the project, and how and to

whom those products would be

disseminated, as well as any changes in

the assigned staff or the grantee’s

organizational capacity. Applicants

should include, in addition, the criteria

and methods by which the proposed

continuation project would be

evaluated.

f. Task Schedule. The applicant

should present a detailed task schedule

and timeline for the next project period.

g. Other Sources of Support. The

applicant should indicate why other

sources of support would be inadequate,

inappropriate, or unavailable.

61044 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

4. Budget and Budget Narrative

The applicant should provide a

complete budget and budget narrative

conforming to the requirements set forth

in A.4. in this section. Changes in the

funding level requested should be

discussed in terms of corresponding

increases or decreases in the scope of

activities or services to be rendered. In

addition, the applicant should estimate

the amount of grant funds that would

remain unobligated at the end of the

current grant period.

5. References to Previously Submitted

Material

A continuation application should not

repeat information contained in a

previously approved application or

other previously submitted materials,

but should provide specific references

to such materials where appropriate.

6. Submission Requirements

The submission requirements set forth

in A.5. in this section, other than the

mailing deadline, apply to continuation

applications.

C. Ongoing Support Grants

1. Purpose and Scope

Ongoing support grants are intended

to support projects that are national in

scope and provide the State courts with

services, programs or products for

which there is a continuing critical

need. An ongoing support grant may

also be used to fund longitudinal

research that directly benefits the State

courts. Ongoing support grants are

subject to the limits on size and

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

The Board will consider awarding an

ongoing support grant for a period of up

to 36 months. The total amount of the

grant will be fixed at the time of the

initial award. Funds ordinarily will be

made available in annual increments as

specified in section V.C.2.

The award of an initial grant to

support a project does not constitute a

commitment by the Institute to provide

ongoing support at the end of the

original project period. A project is

eligible for consideration for an ongoing

support grant if:

a. The project is supported by and has

been evaluated under a grant from the

Institute;

b. The project is national in scope and

provides a significant benefit to the

State courts;

c. There is a continuing critical need

for the services, programs or products

provided by the project, indicated by

the level of use and support by members

of the court community;

d. The project is accomplishing its

objectives in an effective and efficient

manner; and

e. It is likely that the service or

program provided by the project would

be curtailed or significantly reduced

without Institute support.

Each ongoing support application

must include an evaluation component

assessing its effectiveness and operation

throughout the grant period. The

evaluation should be independent but

may be designed collaboratively by the

evaluator and the grantee. The design

should call for regular feedback from the

evaluator to the grantee throughout the

project period concerning

recommendations for mid-course

corrections or improvement of the

project, as well as periodic reports to the

Institute at relevant points in the

project.

An interim evaluation report must be

submitted 18 months into the 3-year

grant period. The decision to release

Institute funds to support the third year

of the project will be based on the

interim evaluation findings and the

applicant’s response to any deficiencies

noted in the report, as well as the

availability of appropriations and the

project’s consistency with the Institute’s

priorities.

A final evaluation assessing the

effectiveness, operation of, and

continuing need for the project must be

submitted 90 days before the end of the

3-year project period. In addition, a

detailed annual task schedule must be

submitted not later than 45 days before

the end of the first and second years of

the grant period, along with an

explanation of any necessary revisions

in the projected costs for the remainder

of the project period.

2. Letters of Intent

In lieu of a concept paper, an

applicant seeking an ongoing support

grant must inform the Institute, by

letter, of its intent to submit an

application for such funding as soon as

the need for continuing funding

becomes apparent but no less than 120

days before the end of the current grant

period. The letter of intent should be in

the same format as that prescribed for

continuation grants in B.2. of this

section.

3. Format

An application for an ongoing support

grant must include an application form;

budget forms (with appropriate

documentation); a Certificate of State

Approval—FORM B (Appendix H) if the

applicant is a State or local court; a

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities form

(from applicants other than units of

State or local government); a project

abstract conforming to the format set

forth in A.2. of this section; a program

narrative; a budget narrative; and any

necessary appendices.

The program narrative should

conform to the length and format

requirements set forth in A.3. of this

section; however, rather than the topics

listed there, the program narrative of

applications for ongoing support grants

should address:

a. Description of Need for and

Benefits of the Project. The applicant

should provide a detailed discussion of

the benefits provided by the project to

State courts around the country,

including the degree to which State

courts, State court judges, or State court

managers and personnel are using the

services or programs provided by the

project.

b. Demonstration of Court Support.

The applicant should demonstrate

support for the continuation of the

project from the courts community.

c. Report on Current Project Activities.

The applicant should discuss the extent

to which the project has met its goals

and objectives, identify any activities

that have not been completed, and

explain why they have not been

completed.

d. Evaluation Findings. The applicant

should attach a copy of the final

evaluation report regarding the

effectiveness, impact, and operation of

the project, specify the key findings or

recommendations resulting from the

evaluation, and explain how they would

be addressed during the next three

years. Ordinarily, the Board will not

consider an application for ongoing

support until the Institute has received

the evaluator’s report.

e. Objectives, Tasks, Methods, Staff

and Grantee Capability. The applicant

should describe fully any changes in the

objectives; tasks to be performed; the

methods to be used; the products of the

project; how and to whom those

products would be disseminated; the

assigned staff; and the grantee’s

organizational capacity. The grantee

also should describe the steps it would

take to obtain support from other

sources for the continued operation of

the project.

f. Task Schedule. The applicant

should present a general schedule for

the full proposed project period and a

detailed task schedule for the first year

of the proposed new project period.

g. Other Sources of Support. The

applicant should describe what efforts it

has taken to secure support for the

project from other sources.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61045

4. Budget and Budget Narrative

The applicant should provide a

complete three-year budget and budget

narrative conforming to the

requirements set forth in A.4. of this

section, and estimate the amount of

grant funds that would remain

unobligated at the end of the current

grant period. Changes in the funding

level requested should be discussed in

terms of corresponding increases or

decreases in the scope of activities or

services to be rendered. A complete

budget narrative should be provided for

the full project as well as for each year,

or portion of a year, for which grant

support is requested. The budget should

provide for realistic cost-of-living and

staff salary increases over the course of

the requested project period. Applicants

should be aware that the Institute is

unlikely to approve a supplemental

budget increase for an ongoing support

grant in the absence of welldocumented, unanticipated factors that

would clearly justify the requested

increase.

5. References to Previously Submitted

Material

An application for an ongoing support

grant should not repeat information

contained in a previously approved

application or other previously

submitted materials, but should provide

specific references to such materials

where appropriate.

6. Submission Requirements

The submission requirements set forth

in A.5. of this section, other than the

mailing deadline, apply to applications

for ongoing support grants.

D. Technical Assistance Grants

1. Purpose and Scope

Technical assistance grants are

awarded to State and local courts to

obtain the assistance of outside experts

in diagnosing, developing, and

implementing a response to a particular

problem in a jurisdiction.

2. Application Procedures

In lieu of formal applications,

applicants for Technical Assistance

grants may submit, at any time, an

original and three copies of a detailed

letter describing the proposed project.

Letters from an individual trial or

appellate court must be signed by the

presiding judge or manager of that court.

Letters from the State court system must

be signed by the Chief Justice or State

Court Administrator.

3. Application Format

Although there is no prescribed form

for the letter nor a minimum or

maximum page limit, letters of

application should include the

following information:

a. Need for Funding. What is the

critical need facing the court? How

would the proposed technical assistance

help the court meet this critical need?

Why cannot State or local resources

fully support the costs of the required

consultant services?

b. Project Description. What tasks

would the consultant be expected to

perform, and how would they be

accomplished? Which organization or

individual would be hired to provide

the assistance, and how was this

consultant selected? If a consultant has

not yet been identified, what procedures

and criteria would be used to select the

consultant? (Applicants are expected to

follow their jurisdictions’ normal

procedures for procuring consultant

services.) What 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

frame and for the proposed cost. The

consultant must agree to submit a

detailed written report to the court and

the Institute upon completion of the

technical assistance.

c. Likelihood of Implementation.

What steps have been or would be taken

to facilitate implementation of the

consultant’s recommendations upon

completion of the technical assistance?

For example, if the support or

cooperation of specific court officials or

committees, other agencies, funding

bodies, organizations, or a court other

than the applicant would be needed to

adopt the changes recommended by the

consultant and approved by the court,

how would they be involved in the

review of the recommendations and

development of the implementation

plan?

d. Support for the Project from the

State Supreme Court or its Designated

Agency or Council. Written concurrence

on the need for the technical assistance

must be submitted. This concurrence

may be a copy of SJI Form B (see

Appendix H) signed by the Chief Justice

of the State Supreme Court or the Chief

Justice’s designee, or a letter from the

State Chief Justice or designee. The

concurrence may be submitted with the

applicant’s letter or under separate

cover prior to consideration of the

application. The concurrence also must

specify whether the State Supreme

Court would receive, administer, and

account for the grant funds, if awarded,

or would designate the local court or a

specified agency or council to receive

the funds directly.

4. Budget and Matching State

Contribution

A completed Form E, Preliminary

Budget (see Appendix G) and budget

narrative must be included with the

letter requesting technical assistance.

The estimated cost of the technical

assistance services should be broken

down into the categories listed on the

budget form rather than aggregated

under the Consultant/Contractual

category. 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. Cash and in-kind matching

contributions should be listed in the

appropriate columns and categories on

Form E.

The budget narrative should provide

the basis for all project-related costs,

including the basis for determining the

estimated consultant costs, if

compensation of the consultant is

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

task times the requested daily

consultant rate). Applicants should be

aware that consultant rates above $300

per day must be approved in advance by

the Institute, and that no consultant will

be paid more than $900 per day. 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 IX.A.3.)

5. Submission Requirements

Letters of application may be

submitted at any time; however, all of

the letters received during a calendar

quarter will be considered at one time.

Applicants submitting letters between

June 12 and September 29, 2000 will be

notified of the Board’s decision by

December 8, 2000; those submitting

letters between September 30, 2000 and

January 12, 2001 will be notified by

March 23, 2001; those submitting letters

between January 13, 2001 and March 9,

2001 will be notified by May 11, 2001;

and those submitting letters between

61046 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

March 10, 2001 and June 8, 2001 will

be notified by August 3, 2001.

Applicants submitting letters between

June 11 and September 28, 2001 will be

notified of the Board’s decision by

December 14, 2001.

If the support or cooperation of

agencies, funding bodies, organizations,

or courts other than the applicant would

be needed in order for the consultant to

perform the required tasks, written

assurances of such support or

cooperation should accompany the

application letter. Support letters also

may be submitted under separate cover;

however, to ensure that there is

sufficient time to bring them to the

attention of the Board’s Technical

Assistance Committee, letters sent

under separate cover must be received

not less than three weeks prior to the

Board meeting at which the technical

assistance requests will be considered

(i.e., by October 20, 2000, and February

9, April 13, July 9, and October 26,

2001).

E. Curriculum Adaptation Grants

1. Purpose and Scope

Curriculum Adaptation grants are

awarded to State and local courts to

support replication or modification of a

model training program originally

developed with Institute funds.

Ordinarily, the Institute will support the

adaptation of a curriculum once (i.e.,

with one grant) in a given State.

2. Application Procedures

In lieu of concept papers and formal

applications, applicants should submit

an original and three photocopies of a

detailed letter.

3. Application Format

Although there is no prescribed

format for the letter, or a minimum or

maximum page limit, letters of

application should include the

following information:

a. Project Description. What is the title

of the model curriculum to be adapted

and who developed it? Why is this

education program needed at the

present time? What are the project’s

goals? What are the learning objectives

of the adapted curriculum? What

program components would be

implemented, and what types of

modifications, if any, are anticipated in

length, format, learning objectives,

teaching methods, or content? Who

would be responsible for adapting the

model curriculum? Who would the

participants be, how many would there

be, how would they be recruited, and

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

across the State, from a single local

jurisdiction, from a multi-State region)?

b. 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?

c. Likelihood of Implementation.

What is the proposed timeline,

including the project start and end dates

and the date(s) the program would be

presented? What process would be used

to modify and present the program?

Who would serve as faculty, and how

were they selected? What measures

would be taken to facilitate subsequent

presentations of the program?

(Ordinarily, an independent evaluation

of a curriculum adaptation project is not

required; however, the results of any

evaluation should be included in the

final report.)

d. 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.)

e. 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 H.)

4. Budget and Matching State

Contribution

Applicants should attach a copy of

budget Form E (see Appendix G) and a

budget narrative (see A.4. in this

section) that describes the basis for the

computation of all project-related costs

and the source of the match offered. As

with other awards to State or local

courts, cash or in-kind match must be

provided in an amount equal to at least

50% of the grant amount requested.

Cash and in-kind matching

contributions should be listed in the

appropriate columns and categories on

Form E.

5. Submission Requirements

Letters of application may be

submitted at any time. However,

applicants should allow at least 90 days

between the date of submission and the

date of the proposed program to allow

sufficient time for needed planning.

F. Scholarships

1. Purpose and Scope

The purposes of the Institute

scholarship program are to enhance the

skills, knowledge, 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 educational program in

another State. An applicant may apply

for a scholarship for only one

educational program during any one

application cycle.

Scholarship funds may be used only

to cover the costs of tuition and

transportation expenses. Transportation

expenses may include round-trip coach

airfare or train fare. Scholarship

recipients are strongly encouraged to

take advantage of excursion or other

special airfares (e.g., reductions offered

when a ticket is purchased 21 days in

advance of the travel date or because the

traveler is staying over a Saturday night)

when making their travel arrangements.

Recipients who drive to a program site

may receive $.325/mile up to the

amount of the advanced-purchase

round-trip airfare between their homes

and the program sites. Funds to pay

tuition and transportation expenses in

excess of $1,500 and other costs of

attending the program—such as lodging,

meals, materials, transportation to and

from airports, and local transportation

(including rental cars)—at the program

site must be obtained from other sources

or borne by the scholarship recipient.

Scholarship applicants are encouraged

to check other sources of financial

assistance and to combine aid from

various sources whenever possible.

A scholarship is not transferable to

another individual. It may be used only

for the course specified in the

application unless attendance at a

different course that meets the eligibility

requirements is approved in writing by

the Institute. Decisions on such requests

will be made within 30 days after the

receipt of the request letter.

2. Eligibility Requirements

a. Recipients. Scholarships can be

awarded only to full-time judges of State

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

personnel with management

responsibilities; and supervisory and

management probation personnel in

judicial branch probation offices. Senior

judges, part-time judges, quasi-judicial

hearing officers including referees and

commissioners, State administrative law

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61047

judges, staff attorneys, law clerks, line

staff, law enforcement officers, and

other executive branch personnel are

not eligible to receive a scholarship.

b. Courses. A Scholarship can be

awarded only for a course presented in

a State other than the one in which the

applicant resides or works that is

designed to enhance the skills of new or

experienced judges and court managers;

address any of the topics listed in the

Institute’s Special Interest categories; or

is offered by a recognized graduate

program for judges or court managers.

The annual or mid-year meeting of a

State or national organization of which

the applicant is a member does not

qualify as an out-of-State educational

program for scholarship purposes, even

though it may include workshops or

other training sessions.

Applicants are encouraged not to wait

for the decision on a scholarship to

register for an educational program they

wish to attend.

3. Forms

a. Scholarship Application—FORM S–1

(Appendix F)

The application form requests basic

information about the applicant and the

educational program the applicant

would like to attend. It also addresses

the applicant’s commitment to share the

skills and knowledge gained with local

court colleagues and to submit an

evaluation of the program the applicant

attends. The Scholarship Application

must bear the original signature of the

applicant. Faxed or photocopied

signatures will not be accepted.

b. Scholarship Application

Concurrence—FORM S–2 (Appendix F)

Judges and court managers applying

for Scholarships must submit the

written concurrence of the Chief Justice

of the State’s Supreme Court (or the

Chief Justice’s designee) on the

Institute’s Judicial Education

Scholarship Concurrence form (see

Appendix F). The signature of the

presiding judge of the applicant’s court

cannot be substituted for that of the

Chief Justice or the Chief Justice’s

designee. Court managers, other than

elected clerks of court, also must submit

a letter of support from their immediate

supervisors.

4. Submission Requirements

Scholarship applications must be

submitted during the periods specified

below:

October 2 and December 1, 2000, for

programs beginning between January 1

and March 31, 2001;

January 5 and March 5, 2001, for

programs beginning between April 1

and June 30, 2001;

April 2 and June 1, 2001, for programs

beginning between July 1 and

September 30, 2001;

July 5 and September 3, 2001, for

programs beginning between October 1

and December 31, 2001; and

October 1 and November 30, 2001, for

programs beginning between January 1

and March 31, 2002.

No exceptions or extensions will be

granted. Applications sent prior to the

beginning of an application period will

be treated as having been sent one week

after the beginning of that application

period. All the required items must be

received for an application to be

considered. If the Concurrence form or

letter of support is sent separately from

the application, the postmark date of the

last item to be sent will be used in

applying the above criteria.

All applications should be sent by

mail or courier (not fax or e-mail) to:

Scholarship Program Coordinator, State

Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite

600, Alexandria, VA 22314.

VIII. Application Review Procedures

A. Preliminary Inquiries

The Institute staff will answer

inquiries concerning application

procedures. The staff contact will be

named in the Institute’s letter

acknowledging receipt of the

application.

B. Selection Criteria

1. Project, Continuation, and Ongoing

Support Grant Applications

a. All applications will be rated on the

basis of the criteria set forth below. The

Institute will accord the greatest weight

to the following criteria:

(1) The soundness of the

methodology;

(2) The demonstration of need for the

project;

(3) The appropriateness of the

proposed evaluation design;

(4) The applicant’s management plan

and organizational capabilities;

(5) The qualifications of the project’s

staff;

(6) The products and benefits

resulting from the project including the

extent to which the project will have

long-term benefits for State courts across

the nation;

(7) The degree to which the findings,

procedures, training, technology, or

other results of the project can be

transferred to other jurisdictions;

(8) The reasonableness of the

proposed budget;

(9) The demonstration of cooperation

and support of other agencies that may

be affected by the project; and

(10) The proposed project’s

relationship to one of the ‘‘Special

Interest’’ categories set forth in section

II.B.

b. For continuation and ongoing

support grant applications, the key

findings and recommendations of

evaluations and the proposed responses

to those findings and recommendations

also will be considered.

c. In determining which applicants to

fund, the Institute will also consider

whether the applicant is a State court,

a national court support or education

organization, a non-court unit of

government, or other type of entity

eligible to receive grants under the

Institute’s enabling legislation (see 42

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

Section IV. above); the availability of

financial assistance from other sources

for the project; the amount and nature

(cash or in-kind) of the applicant’s

match; the extent to which the proposed

project would also benefit the Federal

courts or help State courts enforce

Federal constitutional and legislative

requirements; and the level of

appropriations available to the Institute

in the current year and the amount

expected to be available in succeeding

fiscal years.

2. Technical Assistance Grant

Applications

Technical Assistance grant

applications will be rated on the basis

of the following criteria:

a. Whether the assistance would

address a critical need of the court;

b. The soundness of the technical

assistance approach to the problem;

c. The qualifications of the

consultant(s) to be hired, or the specific

criteria that will be used to select the

consultant(s);

d. Commitment on the part of the

court to act on the consultant’s

recommendations; and

e. The reasonableness of the proposed

budget.

The Institute also will consider factors

such as the level and nature of the

match that would be provided, diversity

of subject matter, geographic diversity,

the level of appropriations available to

the Institute in the current year, and the

amount expected to be available in

succeeding fiscal years.

3. Curriculum Adaptation Grant

Applications

Curriculum Adaptation grant

applications will be rated on the basis

of the following criteria:

61048 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

a. The goals and objectives of the

proposed project;

b. The need for outside funding to

support the program;

c. The appropriateness of the

approach in achieving the project’s

educational objectives;

d. The likelihood of effective

implementation and integration into the

State’s or local jurisdiction’s ongoing

educational programming; and

e. Expressions of interest by the

judges and/or court personnel who

would be directly involved in or

affected by the project.

The Institute will also consider factors

such as the reasonableness of the

amount requested, compliance with

match requirements, diversity of subject

matter, geographic diversity, the level of

appropriations available in the current

year, and the amount expected to be

available in succeeding fiscal years.

4. Scholarships

Scholarships will be awarded on the

basis of:

a. The date on which the application

and concurrence (and support letter, if

required) were mailed (documented by

the postmark);

b. The unavailability of State or local

funds to cover the costs of attending the

program or scholarship funds from

another source;

c. The absence of educational

programs in the applicant’s State

addressing the topic(s) covered by the

educational program for which the

scholarship is being sought;

d. Geographic balance among the

recipients;

e. The balance of scholarships among

educational programs;

f. The balance of scholarships among

the types of courts represented; and

g. The level of appropriations

available to the Institute in the current

year and the amount expected to be

available in succeeding fiscal years.

The postmark or courier receipt will

be used to determine the date on which

the application form and other required

items were sent.

C. Review and Approval Process

1. Project, Continuation, and Ongoing

Support Grant Applications

Applications will be reviewed

competitively by the Board of Directors.

The Institute staff will prepare a

narrative summary of each application

and a rating sheet assigning points for

each relevant selection criterion. When

necessary, applications may also be

reviewed by outside experts.

Committees of the Board will review

applications within assigned program

categories and prepare

recommendations to the full Board. The

full Board of Directors will then decide

which applications to approve for

grants. The decision to award a grant is

solely that of the Board of Directors.

Awards approved by the Board will

be signed by the Chairman of the Board

on behalf of the Institute.

2. Technical Assistance and Curriculum

Adaptation Grant Applications

The Institute staff will prepare a

narrative summary of each application

and a rating sheet assigning points for

each relevant selection criterion.

Applications will be reviewed

competitively by a committee of the

Board of Directors. The Board of

Directors has delegated its authority to

approve Technical Assistance and

Curriculum Adaptation grants to the

committee established for each program.

Approved awards will be signed by

the Chairman of the Board on behalf of

the Institute.

3. Scholarships

Scholarship applications are reviewed

quarterly by a committee of the

Institute’s Board of Directors. The Board

of Directors has delegated its authority

to approve Scholarships to the

committee established for the program.

Approved awards will be signed by

the Chairman of the Board on behalf of

the Institute.

D. Return Policy

Unless a specific request is made,

unsuccessful applications will not be

returned. Applicants are advised that

Institute records are subject to the

provisions of the Federal Freedom of

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

E. Notification of Board Decision

1. The Institute will send written

notice to applicants concerning all

Board decisions to approve, defer, or

deny their respective applications. For

all except Scholarship applications, the

Institute also will convey the key issues

and questions that arose during the

review process. A decision by the Board

to deny an application may not be

appealed, but it does not prohibit

resubmission of a proposal based on

that application in a subsequent funding

cycle. With respect to awards other than

Scholarships, the Institute will also

notify the designated State contact listed

in when grants are approved by the

Board to support projects that will be

conducted by or involve courts in that

State.

2. The Board anticipates acting upon

Curriculum Adaptation grant

applications within 45 days after

receipt. Grant funds will be available

only after Board approval and

negotiation of the final terms of the

grant.

3. The Institute intends to notify each

Scholarship applicant of the Board

committee’s decision within 30 days

after the close of the relevant

application period.

F. Response to Notification of Approval

With the exception of those approved

for Scholarships, applicants have 30

days from the date of the letter notifying

them that the Board has approved their

application to respond to any revisions

requested by the Board. If the requested

revisions (or a reasonable schedule for

submitting such revisions) have not

been submitted to the Institute within

30 days after notification, the approval

may be automatically rescinded and the

application presented to the Board for

reconsideration.

IX. Compliance Requirements

The State Justice Institute Act

contains limitations and conditions on

grants, contracts, and cooperative

agreements awarded by the Institute.

The Board of Directors has approved

additional policies governing the use of

Institute grant funds. These statutory

and policy requirements are set forth

below.

A. Recipients of Project Grants

1. Advocacy

No funds made available by the

Institute may be used to support or

conduct training programs for the

purpose of advocating particular

nonjudicial public policies or

encouraging nonjudicial political

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

2. Approval of Key Staff

If the qualifications of an employee or

consultant assigned to a key project staff

position are not described in the

application or if there is a change of a

person assigned to such a position, the

recipient must submit a description of

the qualifications of the newly assigned

person to the Institute. Prior written

approval of the qualifications of the new

person assigned to a key staff position

must be received from the Institute

before the salary or consulting fee of

that person and associated costs may be

paid or reimbursed from grant funds.

3. Audit

Recipients of project grants must

provide for an annual fiscal audit which

includes an opinion on whether the

financial statements of the grantee

present fairly its financial position and

financial operations are in accordance

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61049

with generally accepted accounting

principles. (See section X.K. of the

Guideline for the requirements of such

audits.) Recipients of scholarships or

curriculum adaptation or technical

assistance grants are not required to

submit an audit, but must maintain

appropriate documentation to support

all expenditures.

4. Budget Revisions

Budget reallocations between direct

cost categories that individually or

cumulatively exceed five percent of the

approved original budget or the most

recently approved revised budget

require prior Institute approval.

Ordinarily, such budget revisions

should be requested at least 30 days in

advance of the transfer of grant funds

among direct cost categories.

5. Conflict of Interest

Personnel and other officials

connected with Institute-funded

programs must adhere to the following

requirements:

a. No official or employee of a

recipient court or organization shall

participate personally through decision,

approval, disapproval, recommendation,

the rendering of advice, investigation, or

otherwise in any proceeding,

application, request for a ruling or other

determination, contract, grant,

cooperative agreement, claim,

controversy, or other particular matter

in which Institute funds are used,

where, to his or her knowledge, he or

she or his or her immediate family,

partners, organization other than a

public agency in which he or she is

serving as officer, director, trustee,

partner, or employee or any person or

organization with whom he or she is

negotiating or has any arrangement

concerning prospective employment, or

has a financial interest.

b. In the use of Institute project funds,

an official or employee of a recipient

court or organization shall avoid any

action which might result in or create

the appearance of:

(1) Using an official position for

private gain; or

(2) Affecting adversely the confidence

of the public in the integrity of the

Institute program.

c. Requests for proposals or

invitations for bids issued by a recipient

of Institute funds or a subgrantee or

subcontractor will provide notice to

prospective bidders that the contractors

who develop or draft specifications,

requirements, statements of work, and/

or requests for proposals for a proposed

procurement will be excluded from

bidding on or submitting a proposal to

compete for the award of such

procurement.

6. Inventions and Patents

If any patentable items, patent rights,

processes, or inventions are produced in

the course of Institute-sponsored work,

such fact shall be promptly and fully

reported to the Institute. Unless there is

a prior agreement between the grantee

and the Institute on disposition of such

items, the Institute shall determine

whether protection of the invention or

discovery shall be sought. The Institute

will also determine how the rights in

the invention or discovery, including

rights under any patent issued thereon,

shall be allocated and administered in

order to protect the public interest

consistent with ‘‘Government Patent

Policy’’ (President’s Memorandum for

Heads of Executive Departments and

Agencies, February 18, 1983, and

statement of Government Patent Policy).

7. Lobbying

a. Funds awarded to recipients by the

Institute shall not be used, indirectly or

directly, to influence Executive Orders

or similar promulgations by Federal,

State or local agencies, or to influence

the passage or defeat of any legislation

by Federal, State or local legislative

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

b. It is the policy of the Board of

Directors to award funds only to support

applications submitted by organizations

that would carry out the objectives of

their applications in an unbiased

manner. Consistent with this policy and

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

Institute will not knowingly award a

grant to an applicant that has, directly

or through an entity that is part of the

same organization as the applicant,

advocated a position before Congress on

the specific subject matter of the

application.

8. Matching Requirements

a. All awards to courts or other units

of State or local government (not

including publicly supported

institutions of higher education) require

a match from private or public sources

of not less than 50% of the total amount

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.O.)

b. The requirement to provide match

may be waived in exceptionally rare

circumstances upon the request of the

Chief Justice of the highest court in the

State and approval by the Board of

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

c. Other eligible recipients of Institute

funds are not required to provide 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. Cash and in-kind matching

contributions must be reported quarterly

in the same manner as grant funds on

the Institute’s Financial Status Report. If

a proposed contribution is not fully met,

the Institute may reduce the award

amount accordingly, in order to

maintain the ratio originally provided

for in the award agreement (see section

X.E).

9. Nondiscrimination

No person may, on the basis of race,

sex, national origin, disability, color, or

creed be excluded from participation in,

denied the benefits of, or otherwise

subjected to discrimination under any

program or activity supported by

Institute funds. Recipients of Institute

funds must immediately take any

measures necessary to effectuate this

provision.

10. Political Activities

No recipient may contribute or make

available Institute funds, program

personnel, or equipment to any political

party or association, or the campaign of

any candidate for public or party office.

Recipients are also prohibited from

using funds in advocating or opposing

any ballot measure, initiative, or

referendum. Officers and employees of

recipients shall not intentionally

identify the Institute or recipients with

any partisan or nonpartisan political

activity associated with a political party

or association, or the campaign of any

candidate for public or party office. 42

U.S.C. 10706(a).

11. Products

a. Acknowledgment, Logo, and

Disclaimer

(1) Recipients of Institute funds must

acknowledge prominently on all

products developed with grant funds

that support was received from the

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

the front cover of a written product, or

in the opening frames of a video

product, unless another placement is

approved in writing by the Institute.

This includes final products printed or

61050 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

otherwise reproduced during the grant

period, as well as reprintings or

reproductions of those materials

following the end of the grant period. A

camera-ready logo sheet is available

from the Institute upon request.

(2) Recipients also must display the

following disclaimer on all grant

products: ‘‘This [document, film,

videotape, etc.] was developed under

[grant/cooperative agreement] number

SJI-[insert number] from the State

Justice Institute. The points of view

expressed are those of the [author(s),

filmmaker(s), etc.] and do not

necessarily represent the official

position or policies of the State Justice

Institute.’’

b. Charges for Grant-Related Products/

Recovery of Costs

(1) When Institute funds fully cover

the cost of developing, producing, and

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

curriculum, videotape or software), the

product should be distributed to the

field without charge. When Institute

funds only partially cover the

development, production, or

dissemination costs, the grantee may,

with the Institute’s prior written

approval, recover its costs for

developing, producing, and

disseminating the material to those

requesting it, to the extent that those

costs were not covered by Institute

funds or grantee matching

contributions.

(2) Applicants should disclose their

intent to sell grant-related products in

both the concept paper and the

application. Grantees must obtain the

written prior approval of the Institute of

their plans to recover project costs

through the sale of grant products.

Written requests to recover costs

ordinarily should be received during the

grant period and should specify the

nature and extent of the costs to be

recouped, the reason that such costs

were not budgeted (if the rationale was

not disclosed in the approved

application), the number of copies to be

sold, the intended audience for the

products to be sold, and the proposed

sale price. If the product is to be sold

for more than $25, the written request

also should include a detailed

itemization of costs that will be

recovered and a certification that the

costs were not supported by either

Institute grant funds or grantee

matching contributions.

(2) 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.S. and X.G.

for requirements regarding projectrelated income realized during the

project period.

c. Copyrights

Except as otherwise provided in the

terms and conditions of an Institute

award, a recipient is free to copyright

any books, publications, or other

copyrightable materials developed in

the course of an Institute-supported

project, but the Institute shall reserve a

royalty-free, nonexclusive and

irrevocable right to reproduce, publish,

or otherwise use, and to authorize

others to use, the materials for purposes

consistent with the State Justice

Institute Act.

d. Distribution

In addition to the distribution

specified in the grant application,

grantees shall send:

(1) Seventeen (17) copies of each final

product developed with grant funds to

the Institute, unless the product was

developed under either a Curriculum

Adaptation or a Technical Assistance

grant, in which case submission of 2

copies is required.

(2) A master copy of each videotape

produced with grant funds to the

Institute.

(3) One copy of each final product

developed with grant funds to the

library established in each State to

collect materials prepared with Institute

support. (A list of the libraries is

contained in Appendix D. Labels for

these libraries are available from the

Institute upon request.) Grantees that

develop web-based electronic products

must send a hard-copy document to the

SJI-designated libraries and other

appropriate audiences to alert them to

the availability of the web site or

electronic product. Recipients of

curriculum adaptation and technical

assistance grants are not required to

submit final products to State libraries.

(4) A press release describing the

project and announcing the results to a

list of national and State judicial branch

organizations provided by the Institute.

e. Institute Approval

No grant funds may be obligated for

publication or reproduction of a final

product developed with grant funds

without the written approval of the

Institute. Grantees shall submit a final

draft of each written product to the

Institute for review and approval. These

drafts shall be submitted at least 30 days

before the product is scheduled to be

sent for publication or reproduction to

permit Institute review and

incorporation of any appropriate

changes agreed upon by the grantee and

the Institute. Grantees shall provide for

timely reviews by the Institute of

videotape or CD–ROM products at the

treatment, script, rough cut, and final

stages of development or their

equivalents, prior to initiating the next

stage of product development.

f. Original Material

All products prepared as the result of

Institute-supported projects must be

originally-developed material unless

otherwise specified in the award

documents. Material not originally

developed that is included in such

products must be properly identified,

whether the material is in a verbatim or

extensive paraphrase format.

12. Prohibition Against Litigation

Support

No funds made available by the

Institute may be used directly or

indirectly to support legal assistance to

parties in litigation, including cases

involving capital punishment.

13. Reporting Requirements

a. Recipients of Institute funds other

than Scholarships must submit

Quarterly Progress and Financial

Reports within 30 days of the close of

each calendar quarter (that is, no later

than January 30, April 30, July 30, and

October 30). Two copies of each report

must be sent. The Quarterly Progress

Reports shall include a narrative

description of project activities during

the calendar quarter, the relationship

between those activities and the task

schedule and objectives set forth in the

approved application or an approved

adjustment thereto, any significant

problem areas that have developed and

how they will be resolved, and the

activities scheduled during the next

reporting period.

b. The quarterly financial status report

must be submitted in accordance with

section X.H.2. of this Guideline. A final

project progress report and financial

status report shall be submitted within

90 days after the end of the grant period

in accordance with X.L.1. of this

Guideline.

14. Research

a. Availability of Research Data for

Secondary Analysis

Upon request, grantees must make

available for secondary analysis a

diskette(s) or data tape(s) containing

research and evaluation data collected

under an Institute grant and the

accompanying code manual. Grantees

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61051

may recover the actual cost of

duplicating and mailing or otherwise

transmitting the data set and manual

from the person or organization

requesting the data. Grantees may

provide the requested data set in the

format in which it was created and

analyzed.

b. Confidentiality of Information

Except as provided by Federal law

other than the State Justice Institute Act,

no recipient of financial assistance from

SJI may use or reveal any research or

statistical information furnished under

the Act by any person and identifiable

to any specific private person for any

purpose other than the purpose for

which the information was obtained.

Such information and copies thereof

shall be immune from legal process, and

shall not, without the consent of the

person furnishing such information, be

admitted as evidence or used for any

purpose in any action, suit, or other

judicial, legislative, or administrative

proceedings.

c. Human Subject Protection

All research involving human subjects

shall be conducted with the informed

consent of those subjects and in a

manner that will ensure their privacy

and freedom from risk or harm and the

protection of persons who are not

subjects of the research but would be

affected by it, unless such procedures

and safeguards would make the research

impractical. In such instances, the

Institute must approve procedures

designed by the grantee to provide

human subjects with relevant

information about the research after

their involvement and to minimize or

eliminate risk or harm to those subjects

due to their participation.

15. State and Local Court Applications

Each application for funding from a

State or local court must be approved,

consistent with State law, by the State’s

Supreme Court, or its designated agency

or council. The Supreme Court or its

designee shall receive, administer, and

be accountable for all funds awarded on

the basis of such an application. 42

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

Guideline lists the person to contact in

each State regarding the administration

of Institute grants to State and local

courts.

16. Supplantation and Construction

To ensure that funds are used to

supplement and improve the operation

of State courts, rather than to support

basic court services, funds shall not be

used for the following purposes:

a. To supplant State or local funds

supporting a program or activity (such

as paying the salary of court employees

who would be performing their normal

duties as part of the project, or paying

rent for space which is part of the

court’s normal operations);

b. To construct court facilities or

structures, except to remodel existing

facilities or to demonstrate new

architectural or technological

techniques, or to provide temporary

facilities for new personnel or for

personnel involved in a demonstration

or experimental program; or

c. Solely to purchase equipment.

17. Suspension of Funding

After providing a recipient reasonable

notice and opportunity to submit

written documentation demonstrating

why fund termination or suspension

should not occur, the Institute may

terminate or suspend funding of a

project that fails to comply substantially

with the Act, the Guideline, or the terms

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

10708(a).

18. Title to Property

At the conclusion of the project, title

to all expendable and nonexpendable

personal property purchased with

Institute funds shall vest in the recipient

court, organization, or individual that

purchased the property if certification is

made to and approved by the Institute

that the property will continue to be

used for the authorized purposes of the

Institute-funded project or other

purposes consistent with the State

Justice Institute Act. If such certification

is not made or the Institute disapproves

such certification, title to all such

property with an aggregate or individual

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

Institute, which will direct the

disposition of the property.

B. Recipients of Curriculum Adaptation

and Technical Assistance Grants

In addition to the compliance

requirements in A. in this section,

recipients of Curriculum Adaptation

and Technical Assistance grants must

comply with the following

requirements.

1. Curriculum Adaptation Grantees

Recipients of Curriculum Adaptation

grants must:

a. Comply with the same quarterly

reporting requirements as other Institute

grantees (see A.13. above in this

section);

b. 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 A.11.a. above

in this section); and

c. Submit one copy of the manuals,

handbooks, or conference packets

developed under the grant at the

conclusion of the grant period, along

with a final report that includes any

evaluation results and explains how the

grantee intends to present the program

in the future.

2. Technical Assistance Grantees

Recipients of Technical Assistance

grants must:

a. Comply with the same quarterly

reporting requirements as other Institute

grantees (see A.13. above in this

section);

b. Ensure that each technical

assistance report prepared by a

consultant includes a prominent

acknowledgment that support was

received from the Institute, along with

the ‘‘SJI’’ logo and a disclaimer

paragraph (see A.11.a. above in this

section);

c. Submit to the Institute one copy of

a final report that explains how it

intends to act on the consultant’s

recommendations, as well as a copy of

the consultant’s written report; and

d. Complete a Technical Assistance

Evaluation Form at the conclusion of

the grant period.

C. Scholarship Recipients

1. Scholarship recipients are

responsible for disseminating the

information received from the course to

their court colleagues locally and if

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

developing a formal seminar, circulating

the written material, or discussing the

information at a meeting or conference).

Recipients also must submit to the

Institute a certificate of attendance at

the program, an evaluation of the

educational program they attended, and

a copy of the notice of any scholarship

funds received from other sources. A

copy of the evaluation must be sent to

the Chief Justice of their State. A State

or local jurisdiction may impose

additional requirements on scholarship

recipients.

2. To receive the funds authorized by

a scholarship award, recipients must

submit a Scholarship Payment Voucher

(Form S3) together with a tuition

statement from the program sponsor,

and a transportation fare receipt (or

statement of the driving mileage to and

from the recipient’s home to the site of

the educational program).

Scholarship Payment Vouchers

should be submitted within 90 days

after the end of the course which the

recipient attended.

61052 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

2. Scholarship recipients are

encouraged to check with their tax

advisors to determine whether the

scholarship constitutes taxable income

under Federal and State law.

X. Financial Requirements

A. Purpose

The purpose of this section is to

establish accounting system

requirements and offer guidance on

procedures to assist all grantees,

subgrantees, contractors, and other

organizations in:

1. Complying with the statutory

requirements for the award,

disbursement, and accounting of funds;

2. Complying with regulatory

requirements of the Institute for the

financial management and disposition

of funds;

3. Generating financial data to be used

in planning, managing, and controlling

projects; and

4. Facilitating an effective audit of

funded programs and projects.

B. References

Except where inconsistent with

specific provisions of this Guideline, the

following regulations, directives and

reports are applicable to Institute grants

and cooperative agreements under the

same terms and conditions that apply to

Federal grantees. The following

circulars 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 202–395–3080 or visiting the

OMB website at www.whitehouse.gov/

OMB.)

1. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–21, Cost Principles

for Educational Institutions.

2. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–87, Cost Principles

for State and Local Governments.

3. Office of Management and Budget

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

Cost Rates, Audit and Audit Follow-up

at Educational Institutions.

4. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–102, Uniform

Administrative Requirements for

Grants-in-Aid to State and Local

Governments.

5. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–110, Grants and

Agreements with Institutions of Higher

Education, Hospitals and other NonProfit Organizations.

6. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–128, Audits of State

and Local Governments.

7. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–122, Cost Principles

for Non-profit Organizations.

8. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–133, Audits of

Institutions of Higher Education and

Other Non-profit Institutions.

C. Supervision and Monitoring

Responsibilities

1. Grantee Responsibilities

All grantees receiving awards from

the Institute are responsible for the

management and fiscal control of all

funds. Responsibilities include

accounting for receipts and

expenditures, maintaining adequate

financial records, and refunding

expenditures disallowed by audits.

2. Responsibilities of State Supreme

Court

a. Each application for funding from

a State or local court must be approved,

consistent with State law, by the State’s

Supreme Court, or its designated agency

or council. (See III.I.)

b. The State Supreme Court or its

designee shall receive all Institute funds

awarded to such courts; be responsible

for assuring proper administration of

Institute funds; and be responsible for

all aspects of the project, including

proper accounting and financial

recordkeeping by the subgrantee. These

responsibilities include:

(1) Reviewing Financial Operations.

The State Supreme Court or its designee

should be familiar with, and

periodically monitor, its subgrantees’

financial operations, records system,

and procedures. Particular attention

should be directed to the maintenance

of current financial data.

(2) Recording Financial Activities.

The subgrantee’s grant award or contract

obligation, as well as cash advances and

other financial activities, should be

recorded in the financial records of the

State Supreme Court or its designee in

summary form. Subgrantee expenditures

should be recorded on the books of the

State Supreme Court or evidenced by

report forms duly filed by the

subgrantee. Non-Institute contributions

applied to projects by subgrantees

should likewise be recorded, as should

any project income resulting from

program operations.

(3) Budgeting and Budget Review. The

State Supreme Court or its designee

should ensure that each subgrantee

prepares an adequate budget as the basis

for its award commitment. The detail of

each project budget should be

maintained on file by the State Supreme

Court.

(4) Accounting for Non-Institute

Contributions. The State Supreme Court

or its designee will ensure, in those

instances where subgrantees are

required to furnish non-Institute

matching funds, that the requirements

and limitations of the SJI Grant

Guideline are applied to such funds.

(5) Audit Requirement. The State

Supreme Court or its designee is

required to ensure that subgrantees have

met the necessary audit requirements

set forth by the Institute (see sections K.

below and IX.A.3.)

(6) Reporting Irregularities. The State

Supreme Court, its designees, and its

subgrantees are responsible for

promptly reporting to the Institute the

nature and circumstances surrounding

any financial irregularities discovered.

D. Accounting System

The grantee is responsible for

establishing and maintaining an

adequate system of accounting and

internal controls for itself and for

ensuring that an adequate system exists

for each of its subgrantees and

contractors. An acceptable and adequate

accounting system:

1. Properly accounts for receipt of

funds under each grant awarded and the

expenditure of funds for each grant by

category of expenditure (including

matching contributions and project

income);

2. Assures that expended funds are

applied to the appropriate budget

category included within the approved

grant;

3. Presents and classifies historical

costs of the grant as required for

budgetary and evaluation purposes;

4. Provides cost and property controls

to assure optimal use of grant funds;

5. Is integrated with a system of

internal controls adequate to safeguard

the funds and assets covered, check the

accuracy and reliability of the

accounting data, promote operational

efficiency, and assure conformance with

any general or special conditions of the

grant;

6. Meets the prescribed requirements

for periodic financial reporting of

operations; and

7. Provides financial data for

planning, control, measurement, and

evaluation of direct and indirect costs.

E. Total Cost Budgeting and Accounting

Accounting for all funds awarded by

the Institute must be structured and

executed on a total project cost basis.

That is, total project costs, including

Institute funds, State and local matching

shares, and any other fund sources

included in the approved project budget

serve as the foundation for fiscal

administration and accounting. Grant

applications and financial reports

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61053

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,

grantees must report match quarterly in

the same manner as grant funds on the

Institute’s Financial Status Report.

Ordinarily, the full matching share must

be obligated during the award period;

however, with the prior written

permission of the Institute,

contributions made following approval

of the grant by the Institute’s Board of

Directors but before the beginning of the

grant may be counted as match.

Grantees that do not contemplate

making matching contributions

continuously throughout the course of a

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

required to submit a schedule within 30

days after the beginning of the project

period indicating at what points during

the project period the matching

contributions will be made. If a

proposed cash match is not fully met,

the Institute may reduce the award

amount accordingly to maintain the

ratio of grant funds to matching funds

stated in the award agreement.

2. Records for Match

All grantees must maintain records

which clearly show the source, amount,

and timing of all matching

contributions. In addition, if a project

has included, within its approved

budget, contributions which exceed the

required matching portion, the grantee

must maintain records of those

contributions in the same manner as it

does Institute funds and required

matching shares. For all grants made to

State and local courts, the State

Supreme Court has primary

responsibility for grantee/subgrantee

compliance with the requirements of

this section. (See C.2. above in this

section.)

F. Maintenance and Retention of

Records

All financial records, supporting

documents, statistical records, and all

other records pertinent to grants,

subgrants, cooperative agreements, or

contracts under grants must be retained

by each organization participating in a

project for at least three years for

purposes of examination and audit.

State Supreme Courts may impose

record retention and maintenance

requirements in addition to those

prescribed in this section.

1. Coverage

The retention requirement extends to

books of original entry, source

documents supporting accounting

transactions, the general ledger,

subsidiary ledgers, personnel and

payroll records, canceled checks, and

related documents and records. Source

documents include copies of all grant

and subgrant awards, applications, and

required grantee/subgrantee financial

and narrative reports. Personnel and

payroll records shall include the time

and attendance reports for all

individuals reimbursed under a grant,

subgrant or contract, whether they are

employed full-time or part-time. Time

and effort reports will be required for

consultants.

2. Retention Period

The three-year retention period starts

from the date of the submission of the

final expenditure report or, for grants

which are renewed annually, from the

date of submission of the annual

expenditure report.

3. Maintenance

Grantees and subgrantees are

expected to see that records of different

fiscal years are separately identified and

maintained so that requested

information can be readily located.

Grantees and subgrantees are also

obligated to protect records adequately

against fire or other damage.

When records are stored away from

the grantee’s/subgrantee’s principal

office, a written index of the location of

stored records should be on hand, and

ready access should be assured.

4. Access

Grantees and subgrantees must give

any authorized representative of the

Institute access to and the right to

examine all records, books, papers, and

documents related to an Institute grant.

G. Project-Related Income

Records of the receipt and disposition

of project-related income must be

maintained by the grantee in the same

manner as required for the project funds

that gave rise to the income and must be

reported to the Institute. (See H.2. below

in this section) The policies governing

the disposition of the various types of

project-related income are listed below.

1. Interest

A State and any agency or

instrumentality of a State, including

institutions of higher education and

hospitals, shall not be held accountable

for interest earned on advances of

project funds. When funds are awarded

to subgrantees through a State, the

subgrantees are not held accountable for

interest earned on advances of project

funds. Local units of government and

nonprofit organizations that are grantees

must refund any interest earned.

Grantees shall ensure minimum

balances in their respective grant cash

accounts.

2. Royalties

The grantee/subgrantee may retain all

royalties received from copyrights or

other works developed under projects or

from patents and inventions, unless the

terms and conditions of the grant

provide otherwise.

3. Registration and Tuition Fees

Registration and tuition fees shall be

used to pay project-related costs not

covered by the grant, or to reduce the

amount of grant funds needed to

support the project. Registration and

tuition fees may be used for other

purposes only with the prior written

approval of the Institute. Estimates of

registration and tuition fees, and any

expenses to be offset by the fees, should

be included in the application budget

forms and narrative.

4. Income From the Sale of Grant

Products

a. When grant funds fully cover the

cost of producing and disseminating a

limited number of copies of a product,

the grantee may, with the written prior

approval of the Institute, sell additional

copies reproduced at its expense at a

reasonable market price, as long as the

income is applied to court improvement

projects consistent with the State Justice

Institute Act. When grant funds only

partially cover the costs of developing,

producing and disseminating a product,

the grantee may, with the written prior

approval of the Institute, recover costs

for developing, reproducing, and

disseminating the material to the extent

that those costs were not covered by

Institute grant funds or grantee

matching contributions. If the grantee

recovers its costs in this manner, then

amounts expended by the grantee to

develop, produce, and disseminate the

material may not be considered match.

b. If the sale of products occurs during

the project period, the costs and income

generated by the sales must be reported

on the Quarterly Financial Status

Reports and documented in an auditable

manner. Whenever possible, the intent

to sell a product should be disclosed in

the concept paper and application or

reported to the Institute in writing once

a decision to sell products has been

made. The grantee must request

approval to recover its product

development, reproduction, and

61054 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

dissemination costs as specified in

section IX.A.11.b.

5. Other

Other project income shall be treated

in accordance with disposition

instructions set forth in the grant’s terms

and conditions.

H. Payments and Financial Reporting

Requirements

1. Payment of Grant Funds

The procedures and regulations set

forth below are applicable to all

Institute grant funds and grantees.

a. Request for Advance or

Reimbursement of Funds. Grantees will

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

Upon receipt, review, and approval of a

Request for Advance or Reimbursement

by the Institute, a check will be issued

directly to the grantee or its designated

fiscal agent. A request must be limited

to the grantee’s immediate cash needs.

The Request for Advance or

Reimbursement, along with the

instructions for its preparation, will be

included in the official Institute award

package.

b. Continuation and Ongoing Support

Awards. For purposes of submitting

Requests for Advance or

Reimbursement, recipients of

continuation and ongoing support

grants should treat each grant as a new

project and number the requests

accordingly (i.e., on a grant rather than

a project basis). The first Request for

Advance or Reimbursement submitted

after a continuation grant has been

awarded, or funds have been approved

for the next year of an ongoing support

grant, should reflect the grant number

with the new extension (e.g., SJI–99–N–

xxx–C01–1). This Request would be

number 1, the second number 2, etc. If

another continuation or increment of an

ongoing support grant is awarded, the

next series of Requests for Advance or

Reimbursement would reflect the grant

number with the new extension (e.g.,

SJI–99–N–xxx–C02–1), and the

numbering would begin again. (See

Appendix B, Questions Frequently

Asked by Grantees.)

c. Termination of Advance and

Reimbursement Funding. When a

grantee organization receiving cash

advances from the Institute:

(1) Demonstrates an unwillingness or

inability to attain program or project

goals, or to establish procedures that

will minimize the time elapsing

between cash advances and

disbursements, or cannot adhere to

guideline requirements or special

conditions;

(2) Engages in the improper award

and administration of subgrants or

contracts; or

(3) Is unable to submit reliable and/

or timely reports; the Institute may

terminate advance financing and require

the grantee organization to finance its

operations with its own working capital.

Payments to the grantee shall then be

made by check to reimburse the grantee

for actual cash disbursements. In the

event the grantee continues to be

deficient, the Institute may suspend

reimbursement payments until the

deficiencies are corrected.

d. Principle of Minimum Cash on

Hand. Grantees should request funds

based upon immediate disbursement

requirements. Grantees should time

their requests to ensure that cash on

hand is the minimum needed for

disbursements to be made immediately

or within a few days. Idle funds in the

hands of subgrantees impair the goals of

good cash management.

2. Financial Reporting

a. General Requirements. To obtain

financial information concerning the

use of funds, the Institute requires that

grantees/subgrantees submit timely

reports for review.

b. Two copies of the Financial Status

Report are required from all grantees,

other than scholarship recipients, for

each active quarter on a calendarquarter basis. This report is due within

30 days after the close of the calendar

quarter. It is designed to provide

financial information relating to

Institute funds, State and local matching

shares, project income, and any other

sources of funds for the project, as well

as information on obligations and

outlays. A copy of the Financial Status

Report, along with instructions for its

preparation, is included in each official

Institute Award package. If a grantee

requests substantial payments for a

project prior to the completion of a

given quarter, the Institute may request

a brief summary of the amount

requested, by object class, to support the

Request for Advance or Reimbursement.

c. Additional Requirements for

Continuation and Ongoing Support

Grants. Grantees receiving continuation

or ongoing support grants should

number their quarterly Financial Status

Reports on a grant rather than a project

basis. The first quarterly report

submitted after a continuation grant has

been awarded, or funds have been

approved for the next year of an ongoing

support grant, should reflect the grant

number with the new extension (e.g.,

SJI–99–N–xxx–C01–1). This report

would be number 1, the second number

2, etc. If another continuation grant is

awarded, the next series of quarterly

reports would reflect the grant number

with the new extension (e.g., SJI–99–N–

xxx–C02–1), and the numbering would

begin again.

3. Consequences of Non-Compliance

With Submission Requirement

Failure of the grantee to submit

required financial and progress reports

may result in suspension or termination

of grant payments.

I. Allowability of Costs

1. General

Except as may be otherwise provided

in the conditions of a particular grant,

cost allowability is determined in

accordance with the principles set forth

in OMB Circular A–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 incurred after the approved

grant period. Circulars may be obtained

from OMB by calling 202–395–3080 or

visiting the OMB website at

www.whitehouse.gov/OMB.

2. Costs Requiring Prior Approval

a. Pre-agreement Costs. The written

prior approval of the Institute is

required for costs considered necessary

to the project but which occur prior to

the award date of the grant.

b. Equipment. Grant funds may be

used to purchase or lease only that

equipment essential to accomplishing

the goals and objectives of the project.

The written prior approval of the

Institute is required when the amount of

automated data processing (ADP)

equipment to be purchased or leased

exceeds $10,000 or software to be

purchased exceeds $3,000.

c. Consultants. The written prior

approval of the Institute is required

when the rate of compensation to be

paid a consultant exceeds $300 a day.

Institute funds may not be used to pay

a consultant more than $900 per day.

d. Budget Revisions. Budget revisions

among direct cost categories that

individually or cumulatively exceed

five percent of the approved original

budget or the most recently approved

revised budget require prior Institute

approval.

3. Travel Costs

Transportation and per diem rates

must comply with the policies of the

grantee. If the grantee does not have an

established written travel policy, then

travel rates must be consistent with

those established by the Institute or the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61055

Federal Government. Institute funds

may not be used to cover the

transportation or per diem costs of a

member of a national organization to

attend an annual or other regular

meeting of that organization.

4. Indirect Costs

These are costs of an organization that

are not readily assignable to a particular

project but are necessary to the

operation of the organization and the

performance of the project. The cost of

operating and maintaining facilities,

depreciation, and administrative

salaries are examples of the types of

costs that are usually treated as indirect

costs. The Institute’s policy requires all

costs to be budgeted directly; however,

if a grantee has an indirect cost rate

approved by a Federal agency as set

forth below, the Institute will accept

that rate.

a. Approved Plan Available.

(1) The Institute will accept an

indirect cost rate or allocation plan

approved for a grantee during the

preceding two years by any Federal

granting agency on the basis of

allocation methods substantially in

accord with those set forth in the

applicable cost circulars. A copy of the

approved rate agreement must be

submitted to the Institute.

(2) Where flat rates are accepted in

lieu of actual indirect costs, grantees

may not also charge expenses normally

included in overhead pools, e.g.,

accounting services, legal services,

building occupancy and maintenance,

etc., as direct costs.

(3) When utilizing total direct costs as

the base, organizations with approved

indirect cost rates usually exclude

contracts under grants from any

overhead recovery. The negotiated

agreement will stipulate that contracts

are excluded from the base for overhead

recovery.

b. Establishment of Indirect Cost

Rates. To be reimbursed for indirect

costs, a grantee must first establish an

appropriate indirect cost rate. To do

this, the grantee must prepare an

indirect cost rate proposal and submit it

to the Institute within three months

after the start of the grant period to

assure recovery of the full amount of

allowable indirect costs. The rate must

be developed in accordance with

principles and procedures appropriate

to the type of grantee institution

involved as specified in the applicable

OMB Circular.

c. No Approved Plan. If an indirect

cost proposal for recovery of actual

indirect costs is not submitted to the

Institute within three months after the

start of the grant period, indirect costs

will be irrevocably disallowed for all

months prior to the month that the

indirect cost proposal is received.

J. Procurement and Property

Management Standards

1. Procurement Standards

For State and local governments, the

Institute has adopted the standards set

forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular

A–102. Institutions of higher education,

hospitals, and other non-profit

organizations will be governed by the

standards set forth in Attachment O of

OMB Circular A–110. 

2. Property Management Standards

The property management standards

as prescribed in Attachment N of OMB

Circulars A–102 and A–110 apply to all

Institute grantees and subgrantees

except as provided in section IX.A.18.

All grantees/subgrantees are required to

be prudent in the acquisition and

management of property with grant

funds. If suitable property required for

the successful execution of projects is

already available within the grantee or

subgrantee organization, expenditures of

grant funds for the acquisition of new

property will be considered

unnecessary.

K. Audit Requirements

1. Implementation

Each recipient of a grant from the

Institute other than a scholarship,

curriculum adaptation, or technical

assistance grant must provide for an

annual fiscal audit. This requirement

also applies to a State or local court

receiving a subgrant from the State

Supreme Court. The audit may be of the

entire grantee or subgrantee

organization or of the specific project

funded by the Institute. Audits

conducted in accordance with the

Single Audit Act of 1984 and OMB

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

will satisfy the requirement for an

annual fiscal audit. The audit must be

conducted by an independent Certified

Public Accountant, or a State or local

agency authorized to audit government

agencies. Grantees must send two copies

of the audit report to the Institute.

Grantees that receive funds from a

Federal agency and satisfy audit

requirements of the cognizant Federal

agency must submit two copies of the

audit report prepared for that Federal

agency to the Institute in order to satisfy

the provisions of this section. Cognizant

Federal agencies do not send reports to

the Institute. Therefore, each grantee

must send copies of 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 grantee must have policies

and procedures for acting on audit

recommendations by designating

officials responsible for: follow-up;

maintaining a record of the actions

taken on recommendations and time

schedules; responding to and acting on

audit recommendations; and submitting

periodic reports to the Institute on

recommendations and actions taken.

3. Consequences of Non-Resolution of

Audit Issues

Ordinarily, the Institute will not make

a new grant award to an applicant that

has an unresolved audit report

involving Institute awards. Failure of

the grantee to resolve audit questions

may also result in the suspension or

termination of payments for active

Institute grants to that organization.

L. Close-Out of Grants

1. Grantee Close-Out Requirements

Within 90 days after the end date of

the grant or any approved extension

thereof (see L.2. below in this section),

the following documents must be

submitted to the Institute by grantees

(other than scholarship recipients):

a. Financial Status Report. The final

report of expenditures must have no

unliquidated obligations and must

indicate the exact balance of

unobligated funds. Any unobligated/

unexpended funds will be deobligated

from the award by the Institute. Final

payment requests for obligations

incurred during the award period must

be submitted to the Institute prior to the

end of the 90-day close-out period.

Grantees on a check-issued basis, who

have drawn down funds in excess of

their obligations/expenditures, must

return any unused funds as soon as it is

determined that the funds are not

required. In no case should any unused

funds remain with the grantee beyond

the submission date of the final

financial status report.

b. Final Progress Report. This report

should describe the project activities

during the final calendar quarter of the

project and the close-out period,

including to whom project products

have been disseminated; provide a

summary of activities during the entire

project; specify whether all the

objectives set forth in the approved

application or an approved adjustment

have been met and, if any of the

objectives have not been met, explain

why not; and discuss what, if anything,

61056 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

could have been done differently that

might have enhanced the impact of the

project or improved its operation.

These reporting requirements apply at

the conclusion of any non-scholarship

grant, even when the project will

continue under a continuation or

ongoing support grant.

2. Extension of Close-Out Period

Upon the written request of the

grantee, the Institute may extend the

close-out period to assure completion of

the grantee’s close-out requirements.

Requests for an extension must be

submitted at least 14 days before the

end of the close-out period and must

explain why the extension is necessary

and what steps will be taken to assure

that all the grantee’s responsibilities

will be met by the end of the extension

period.

XI. Grant Adjustments

All requests for programmatic or

budgetary adjustments requiring

Institute approval must be submitted in

a timely manner (ordinarily 30 days

prior to the implementation of the

adjustment being requested) by the

project director. All requests for changes

from the approved application will be

carefully reviewed for both consistency

with this Guideline and the

enhancement of grant goals and

objectives.

A. Grant Adjustments Requiring Prior

Written Approval

There are several types of grant

adjustments that require the prior

written approval of the Institute.

Examples of these adjustments include:

1. Budget revisions among direct cost

categories that individually or

cumulatively exceed five percent of the

approved original budget or the most

recently approved revised budget. See

section X.I.2.d.

For continuation and ongoing support

grants, funds from the original award

may be used during the new grant

period and funds awarded through a

continuation or ongoing support grant

may be used to cover project-related

expenditures incurred during the

original award period, with the prior

written approval of the Institute.

2. A change in the scope of work to

be performed or the objectives of the

project (see D. below in this section).

3. A change in the project site.

4. A change in the project period,

such as an extension of the grant period

and/or extension of the final financial or

progress report deadline (see E. below).

5. Satisfaction of special conditions, if

required.

6. A change in or temporary absence

of the project director (see F. and G.

below).

7. The assignment of an employee or

consultant to a key staff position whose

qualifications were not described in the

application, or a change of a person

assigned to a key project staff position

(see section IX.A.2.).

8. A change in or temporary absence

of the person responsible for managing

and reporting on the grant’s finances.

9. A change in the name of the grantee

organization.

10. A transfer or contracting out of

grant-supported activities (see H.

below).

11. A transfer of the grant to another

recipient.

12. Preagreement costs (see section

X.I.2.a.).

13. The purchase of automated data

processing equipment and software (see

section X.I.2.b.).

14. Consultant rates (see section

X.I.2.c.).

15. A change in the nature or number

of the products to be prepared or the

manner in which a product would be

distributed.

B. Requests for Grant Adjustments

All grantees and subgrantees must

promptly notify their SJI program

managers, in writing, of events or

proposed changes that may require

adjustments to the approved project

design. In requesting an adjustment, the

grantee must set forth the reasons and

basis for the proposed adjustment and

any other information the program

manager determines would help the

Institute’s review.

C. Notification of Approval/Disapproval

If the request is approved, the grantee

will be sent a Grant Adjustment signed

by the Executive Director or his

designee. If the request is denied, the

grantee will be sent a written

explanation of the reasons for the

denial.

D. Changes in the Scope of the Grant

Major changes in scope, duration,

training methodology, or other

significant areas must be approved in

advance by the Institute. A grantee may

make minor changes in methodology,

approach, or other aspects of the grant

to expedite achievement of the grant’s

objectives with subsequent notification

of the SJI program manager.

E. Date Changes

A request to change or extend the

grant period must be made at least 30

days in advance of the end date of the

grant. A revised task plan should

accompany a request for a no-cost

extension of the grant period, along with

a revised budget if shifts among budget

categories will be needed. A request to

change or extend the deadline for the

final financial report or final progress

report must be made at least 14 days in

advance of the report deadline (see

section X.L.2.).

F. Temporary Absence of the Project

Director

Whenever an absence of the project

director is expected to exceed a

continuous period of one month, the

plans for the conduct of the project

director’s duties during such absence

must be approved in advance by the

Institute. This information must be

provided in a letter signed by an

authorized representative of the grantee/

subgrantee at least 30 days before the

departure of the project director, or as

soon as it is known that the project

director will be absent. The grant may

be terminated if arrangements are not

approved in advance by the Institute.

G. Withdrawal of/Change in Project

Director

If the project director relinquishes or

expects to relinquish active direction of

the project, the Institute must be

notified immediately. In such cases, if

the grantee/subgrantee wishes to

terminate the project, the Institute will

forward procedural instructions upon

notification of such intent. If the grantee

wishes to continue the project under the

direction of another individual, a

statement of the candidate’s

qualifications should be sent to the

Institute for review and approval. The

grant may be terminated if the

qualifications of the proposed

individual are not approved in advance

by the Institute.

H. Transferring or Contracting Out of

Grant-Supported Activities

No principal activity of a grantsupported project may be transferred or

contracted out to another organization

without specific prior approval by the

Institute. All such arrangements must be

formalized in a contract or other written

agreement between the parties involved.

Copies of the proposed contract or

agreement must be submitted for prior

approval of the Institute at the earliest

possible time. The contract or agreement

must state, at a minimum, the activities

to be performed, the time schedule, the

policies and procedures to be followed,

the dollar limitation of the agreement,

and the cost principles to be followed in

determining what costs, both direct and

indirect, will be allowed. The contract

or other written agreement must not

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61057

affect the grantee’s overall responsibility

for the direction of the project and

accountability to the Institute.

State Justice Institute Board of

Directors

Robert A. Miller, Chairman, Chief

Justice, Supreme Court of South

Dakota, Pierre, SD

Joseph F. Baca, Vice-Chairman, Justice,

New Mexico Supreme Court, Santa

Fe, NM

Sandra A. O’Connor, Secretary, States

Attorney of Baltimore County,

Towson, MD

Terrence B. Adamson, Esq., Executive

Committee Member, Senior VicePresident, The National Geographic

Society, Washington, D.C

Robert N. Baldwin, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of

Virginia, Richmond, VA

Carlos R. Garza, Esq., Administrative

Judge (ret.), Vienna, VA

Sophia H. Hall, Presiding Judge,

Juvenile Court, Circuit Court of Cook

County, Chicago, IL

Tommy Jewell, District Judge,

Albuquerque, NM

Arthur A. McGiverin, Chief Justice,

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines,

IA

Keith McNamara, Esq., McNamara &

McNamara, Columbus, OH

Florence K. Murray, Justice (ret.),

Supreme Court of Rhode Island,

Providence, RI

David I. Tevelin, Executive Director (ex

officio)

David I. Tevelin,

Executive Director.

Appendix A—Recommendations to

Grant Writers

Over the past 14 years, Institute staff have

reviewed approximately 3,800 concept

papers and 1,700 applications. On the basis

of those reviews, inquiries from applicants,

and the views of the Board, the Institute

offers the following recommendations to help

potential applicants present workable,

understandable proposals that can meet the

funding criteria set forth in this Guideline.

The Institute suggests that applicants make

certain that they address the questions and

issues set forth below when preparing a

concept paper or application. Concept papers

and applications should, however, be

presented in the formats specified in sections

VI. and VII. of the Guideline, respectively.

1. What is the subject or problem you wish

to address?

Describe the subject or problem and how

it affects the courts and the public. Discuss

how your approach will improve the

situation or advance the state of the art or

knowledge, and explain why it is the most

appropriate approach to take. When statistics

or research findings are cited to support a

statement or position, the source of the

citation should be referenced in a footnote or

a reference list.

2. What do you want to do?

Explain the goal(s) of the project in simple,

straightforward terms. The goals should

describe the intended consequences or

expected overall effect of the proposed

project (e.g., to enable judges to sentence

drug-abusing offenders more effectively, or to

dispose of civil cases within 24 months),

rather than the tasks or activities to be

conducted (e.g., hold three training sessions,

or install a new computer system).

To the greatest extent possible, an

applicant should avoid a specialized

vocabulary that is not readily understood by

the general public. Technical jargon does not

enhance a paper, nor does a clever but

uninformative title.

3. How will you do it?

Describe the methodology carefully so that

what you propose to do and how you would

do it are clear. All proposed tasks should be

set forth so that a reviewer can see a logical

progression of tasks, and relate those tasks

directly to the accomplishment of the

project’s goal(s). When in doubt about

whether to provide a more detailed

explanation or to assume a particular level of

knowledge or expertise on the part of the

reviewers, provide the additional

information. A description of project tasks

also will help identify necessary budget

items. All staff positions and project costs

should relate directly to the tasks described.

The Institute encourages applicants to attach

letters of cooperation and support from the

courts and related agencies that will be

involved in or directly affected by the

proposed project.

4. How will you know it works?

Include an evaluation component that will

determine whether the proposed training,

procedure, service, or technology

accomplished the objectives it was designed

to meet. Concept papers and applications

should present the criteria that will be used

to evaluate the project’s effectiveness;

identify program elements which will require

further modification; and describe how the

evaluation will be conducted, when it will

occur during the project period, who will

conduct it, and what specific measures will

be used. In most instances, the evaluation

should be conducted by persons not

connected with the implementation of the

procedure, training, service, or technique, or

the administration of the project.

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 publiclysupported institutions of higher education)

are required by the State Justice Institute Act

to contribute a match (cash, non-cash, or

both) of at least 50 percent of the grant funds

requested from the Institute. All other

applicants also are encouraged to provide a

matching contribution to assist in meeting

the costs of a project.

The match requirement works as follows:

If, for example, the total cost of a project is

anticipated to be $150,000, a State or local

court or executive branch agency may request

up to $100,000 from the Institute to

implement the project. The remaining

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

SJI) must be provided as match.

Cash match includes funds directly

contributed to the project by the applicant, or

by other public or private sources. It does not

include income generated from tuition fees or

the sale of project products. Non-cash match

refers to in-kind contributions by the

applicant, or other public or private sources.

This includes, for example, the monetary

value of time contributed by existing

personnel or members of an advisory

committee (but not the time spent by

participants in an educational program

attending program sessions). When match is

offered, the nature of the match (cash or inkind) should be explained and, at the

application stage, the tasks and line items for

which costs will be covered wholly or in part

by match should be specified.

8. Which of the two budget forms should

be used?

Section VII.A.1.c. of the SJI Grant

Guideline encourages use of the spreadsheet

format of Form C1 if the application requests

$100,000 or more. Form C1 also works well

for projects with discrete tasks, regardless of

the dollar value of the project. Form C, the

tabular format, is preferred for projects

lacking a number of discrete tasks, or for

projects requiring less than $100,000 of

Institute funding. Generally, use the form

that best lends itself to representing most

accurately the budget estimates for the

project.

9. How much detail should be included in

the budget narrative?

The budget narrative of an application

should provide the basis for computing all

project-related costs, as indicated in VII.A.4.

of the Guideline. To avoid common

shortcomings of application budget

narratives, applicants should include the

following information:

Personnel estimates that accurately provide

the amount of time to be spent by personnel

involved with the project and the total

associated costs, including current salaries

61058 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

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 policies apply to the project.

The budget narrative also should include

the estimated fare, the number of persons

traveling, the number of trips to be taken, and

the length of stay. The estimated costs of

travel, lodging, ground transportation, and

other subsistence should be listed and

explained separately. It is preferable for the

budget to be based on the actual costs of

traveling to and from the project or meeting

sites. If the points of origin or destination are

not known at the time the budget is prepared,

an average airfare may be used to estimate

the travel costs. For example, if it is

anticipated that a project advisory committee

will include members from around the

country, a reasonable airfare from a central

point to the meeting site, or the average of

airfares from each coast to the meeting site

may be used. Applicants should arrange

travel so as to be able to take advantage of

advance-purchase price discounts whenever

possible.

11. May grant funds be used to purchase

equipment?

Generally, grant funds may be used to

purchase only the equipment that is

necessary to demonstrate a new technological

application in a court, or that is otherwise

essential to accomplishing the objectives of

the project. The budget narrative must list the

equipment to be purchased and explain why

the equipment is necessary to the success of

the project. Written prior approval is

required when the amount of computer

hardware to be purchased or leased exceeds

$10,000, or the software to be purchased

exceeds $3,000.

12. To what extent may indirect costs be

included in the budget estimates?

It is the policy of the Institute that all costs

should be budgeted directly; however, if an

indirect cost rate has been approved by a

Federal agency within the last two years, an

indirect cost recovery estimate may be

included in the budget. A copy of the

approved rate agreement should be submitted

as an appendix to the application.

If an applicant does not have an approved

rate agreement and cannot budget directly for

all costs, an indirect cost rate proposal

should be prepared in accordance with X.I.4.

of the Guideline, based on the applicant’s

audited financial statements for the prior

fiscal year. (Applicants lacking an audit

should budget all project costs directly.)

13. What meeting costs may be covered

with grant funds?

SJI grant funds may cover the reasonable

cost of meeting rooms, necessary audiovisual equipment, meeting supplies, and

working meals.

14. Does the budget truly reflect all costs

required to complete the project?

After preparing the program narrative

portion of the application, applicants may

find it helpful to list all the major tasks or

activities required by the proposed project,

including the preparation of products, and

note the individual expenses, including

personnel time, related to each. This will

help to ensure that, for all tasks described in

the application (e.g., development of a

videotape, research site visits, distribution of

a final report), the related costs appear in the

budget and are explained correctly in the

budget narrative.

Appendix B—Questions Frequently

Asked by Grantees

The Institute’s staff works with grantees to

help assure the smooth operation of the

project and compliance with the Guideline.

On the basis of monitoring more than 1,000

grants, the Institute staff offers the following

suggestions to aid grantees in meeting the

administrative and substantive requirements

of their grants.

1. After the grant has been awarded, when

are the first quarterly reports due?

Quarterly Progress Reports and Financial

Status Reports must be submitted within 30

days after the end of every calendar quarter—

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

30, and October 30—regardless of the

project’s start date. The reporting periods

covered by each quarterly report end 30 days

before the respective deadline for the report.

When an award period begins December 1,

for example, the first quarterly progress

report describing project activities between

December 1 and December 31 will be due on

January 30. A financial status report should

be submitted even if funds have not been

obligated or expended.

By documenting what has happened over

the past three months, quarterly progress

reports provide an opportunity for project

staff and Institute staff to resolve any

questions before they become problems, and

make any necessary changes in the project

time schedule, budget allocations, etc. The

quarterly progress report should describe

project activities, their relationship to the

approved timeline, and any problems

encountered and how they were resolved,

and outline the tasks scheduled for the

coming quarter. It is helpful to attach copies

of relevant memos, draft products, or other

requested information. An original and one

copy of a quarterly progress report and

attachments should be submitted to the

Institute.

Additional quarterly progress report or

financial status report forms may be obtained

from the grantee’s Program Manager at SJI, or

photocopies may be made from the supply

received with the award.

2. Do reporting requirements differ for

continuation and ongoing support grants?

Recipients of continuation or ongoing

support grants are required to submit

quarterly progress and financial status

reports on the same schedule and with the

same information as recipients of grants for

single new projects.

A continuation grant and each yearly grant

under an ongoing support award should be

considered as a separate phase of the project.

The reports should be numbered on a grant

rather than project basis. Thus, the first

quarterly report filed under a continuation

grant or a yearly increment of an ongoing

support award should be designated as

number one, the second as number two, and

so on, through the final progress and

financial status reports due within 90 days

after the end of the grant period.

3. What information about project activities

should be communicated to SJI?

In general, grantees should provide prior

notice of critical project events such as

advisory board meetings or training sessions

so that the Institute Program Manager can

attend, if possible. If methodological,

schedule, staff, budget allocations, or other

significant changes become necessary, the

grantee should contact the Program Manager

prior to implementing any of these changes,

so that possible questions may be addressed

in advance. Questions concerning the

financial requirements, quarterly financial

reporting, or payment requests should be

addressed to the Institute’s Grants Financial

Manager listed in the award letter.

It is helpful to include the grant number

assigned to the award on all correspondence

to the Institute.

4. Why are special conditions attached to

the award document?

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, assure that the

Institute has an opportunity to offer

suggestions at critical stages of the project,

and provide reminders of some (but not

necessarily all) of the requirements contained

in the Grant Guideline. Accordingly, it is

important for grantees to check the special

conditions carefully and discuss with their

Program Managers any questions or problems

they may have with the conditions. Most

concerns about timing, response time, and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61059

the level of detail required can be resolved

in advance through a telephone conversation.

The Institute’s primary concern is to work

with grantees to assure that their projects

accomplish their objectives, not to enforce

rigid bureaucratic requirements. However, if

a grantee fails to comply with a special

condition or with other grant requirements,

the Institute may, after proper notice,

suspend payment of grant funds or terminate

the grant.

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

Guideline contain the Institute’s

administrative and financial requirements.

Institute Finance Division staff is always

available to answer questions and provide

assistance regarding these provisions.

5. What is a Grant Adjustment?

A Grant Adjustment is the Institute’s form

for acknowledging the satisfaction of special

conditions, or approving changes in grant

activities, schedule, staffing, sites, or budget

allocations requested by the project director.

It also may be used to correct errors in grant

documents or deobligate funds from the

grant.

6. What schedule should be followed in

submitting requests for reimbursements or

advance payments?

Requests for reimbursements or advance

payments may be made at any time after the

project start date and before the end of the

90-day close-out period. However, the

Institute follows the U.S. Treasury’s policy

limiting advances to the minimum amount

required to meet immediate cash needs.

Given normal processing time, grantees

should not seek to draw down funds for

periods greater than 30 days from the date of

the request.

7. Do procedures for submitting requests

for reimbursement or advance payment differ

for continuation or ongoing support grants?

The basic procedures are the same for any

grant. A continuation grant or the yearly

grant under an ongoing support award

should be considered as a separate phase of

the project. Payment requests should be

numbered on a grant rather than a project

basis. The first request for funds from a

continuation grant or a yearly increment

under an ongoing support award should be

designated as number one, the second as

number two, and so on through the final

payment request for that grant.

8. If things change during the grant period,

can funds be reallocated from one budget

category to another?

The Institute recognizes that some

flexibility is required in implementing a

project design and budget. Thus, grantees

may shift funds among direct cost budget

categories. When any one reallocation or the

cumulative total of reallocations is expected

to exceed five percent of the approved project

budget, a grantee must specify the proposed

changes, explain the reasons for the changes,

and request Institute approval.

The same standard applies to continuation

and ongoing support grants. In addition,

prior written Institute approval is required to

shift leftover funds from the original award

to cover activities to be conducted under the

renewal award, or to use renewal grant

monies to cover costs incurred during the

original grant period.

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

Following the last day of the grant, a 90-

day period is provided to allow for all grantrelated 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?

Unless they are inconsistent with the

express provisions of the SJI Grant Guideline,

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Circulars A–110, A–21, A–87, A–88, A–102,

A–122, A–128 and A–133 are incorporated

into the Grant Guideline by reference.

Because the Institute’s enabling legislation

specifically requires the Institute to

‘‘conduct, or require each recipient to

provide for, an annual fiscal audit’’ (see 42

U.S.C. 10711(c)(1)), the Grant Guideline sets

forth options for grantees to comply with this

statutory requirement. (See Section X.K.)

SJI will accept audits conducted in

accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984

and OMB Circulars A–128 or A–133 to satisfy

the annual fiscal audit requirement. Grantees

that are required to undertake these audits in

conjunction with Federal grants may include

SJI funds as part of the audit even if the

receipt of SJI funds would not require such

audits. This approach gives grantees an

option to fold SJI funds into the

governmental audit rather than to undertake

a separate audit to satisfy SJI’s Guideline

requirements.

In sum, educational and nonprofit

organizations that receive payments from the

Institute that are sufficient to meet the

applicability thresholds of OMB Circular A–

133 must have their annual audit conducted

in accordance with Government Auditing

Standards issued by the Comptroller General

of the United States rather than with

generally accepted auditing standards.

Grantees in this category that receive

amounts below the minimum threshold

referenced in Circular A–133 must also

submit an annual audit to SJI, but they would

have the option to conduct an audit of the

entire grantee organization in accordance

with generally accepted auditing standards;

include SJI funds in an audit of Federal funds

conducted in accordance with the Single

Audit Act of 1984 and OMB Circulars A–128

or A–133; or conduct an audit of only the SJI

funds in accordance with generally accepted

auditing standards. (See Guideline section

X.K.) Circulars may be obtained from OMB

by calling 202–395–3080 or visiting the OMB

website at www.whitehouse.gov/OMB.

12. Does SJI have a CFDA number?

Auditors often request that a grantee

provide the Institute’s Catalog of Federal

Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for

guidance in conducting an audit in

accordance with Government Accounting

Standards.

Because SJI is not a Federal agency, it has

not been issued such a number, and there are

no additional compliance tests to satisfy

under the Institute’s audit requirements

beyond those of a standard governmental

audit.

Moreover, because SJI is not a Federal

agency, SJI funds should not be aggregated

with Federal funds to determine if the

applicability threshold of Circular A–133 has

been reached. For example, if in fiscal year

1999 grantee ‘‘X’’ received $10,000 in Federal

funds from a Department of Justice (DOJ)

grant program and $20,000 in grant funds

from SJI, the minimum A–133 threshold

would not be met. The same distinction

would preclude an auditor from considering

the additional SJI funds in determining what

Federal requirements apply to the DOJ funds.

Grantees who are required to satisfy either

the Single Audit Act, OMB Circulars A–128

or A–133, and who include SJI grant funds

in those audits, need to remember that

because of its status as a private non-profit

corporation, SJI is not on routing lists of

cognizant Federal agencies. Therefore, the

grantee needs to submit a copy of the audit

report prepared for such a cognizant Federal

agency directly to SJI. The Institute’s audit

requirements may be found in section X.K. of

the Grant Guideline.

Appendix C—List of State Contacts

Regarding Administration of Institute

Grants to State and Local Courts

Mr. Frank Gregory, Administrative Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, 300

Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36104,

(334) 242–0300

Ms. Stephanie J. Cole, Administrative

Director of the Courts, Alaska Court

System, 303 K Street, Anchorage, AK

99501, (907) 264–0547

Mr. Eliu F. Paopao, Court Administrator,

High Court of American Samoa, P.O. Box

309, Pago Pago, AS 96799, 011 (684) 633–

1150

Mr. David K. Byers, Administrative Director

of the Courts, Supreme Court of Arizona,

1501 West Washington Street, Suite 411,

Phoenix, AZ 85007, (602) 542–9301

Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts,

Supreme Court of Arkansas, Justice

Building, Little Rock, AR 72201, (501) 682–

9400

61060 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San

Francisco, CA 94102, (415) 865–4200

Honorable Gerald (Jerry) A. Marroney, State

Court Administrator, Colorado Judicial

Department, 1301 Pennsylvania Street,

Suite 300, Denver, CO 80203, (303) 837–

3668

Honorable Robert C. Leuba, Chief Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of

Connecticut, 231 Capitol Avenue, Hartford,

CT 06106, (860) 566–4461

Dennis B. Jones, Director, Administrative

Office of the Courts, Carvel State Office

Building, 11th Floor, 820 N. French Street,

Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 577–2480

Ms. Anne B. Wicks, Acting Executive Officer,

District of Columbia Courts, 500 Indiana

Avenue, N.W., Suite 1500, Washington,

D.C. 20001, (202) 879–1700

Mr. Kenneth R. Palmer, State Courts

Administrator, Florida Supreme Court

Building, 500 South Duval Street,

Tallahassee, FL 32399–1900, (850) 922–

5081

Mr. Jay Martin, Interim Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, 47

Trinity Avenue, Suite 414, Atlanta, GA

30334, (404) 656–5171

Mr. Daniel J. Tydingco, Executive Officer,

Supreme Court of Guam, Guam Judicial

Center, Suite 300, 120 West O’Brien Drive,

Hagatna, Guam 96910–5174, 011 (671)

475–3278

Mr. Michael F. Broderick, Administrative

Director of the Courts, The Judiciary, State

of Hawaii, 417 S. King Street, Room 206,

Honolulu, HI 96813, (808) 539–4900

Ms. Patricia Tobias, Administrative Director

of the Courts, Supreme Court Building, 451

West State Street (Zip Code 83702), Post

Office Box 83720, Boise, ID 83720–0101,

(208) 334–2246

Mr. Joseph A. Schillaci, Director,

Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts,

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

IL 60601, (312) 793–3250

Ms. Lilia G. Judson, Executive Director,

Division of State Court Administration,

Indiana Supreme Court, 115 W.

Washington, Suite 1080, Indianapolis, IN

46204–3417, (317) 232–2542

Mr. William J. O’Brien, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Iowa,

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

281–5241

Dr. Howard P. Schwartz, Judicial

Administrator, Kansas Judicial Center, 301

West Tenth Street, Topeka, KS 66612, (785)

296–4873

Ms. Cicely Jaracz Lambert, Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, 100

Millcreek Park, Frankfort, KY 40601–9230,

(502) 573–2350

Dr. Hugh M. Collins, Judicial Administrator,

Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1555 Poydras

Street, Suite 1540, New Orleans, LA

70112–3701, (504) 568–5747

Mr. James T. Glessner, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, P.O. Box 4820, 62 Elm Street,

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

Mr. Frank Broccolina, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, Maryland Judicial Center, 580

Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD 21401,

(410) 260–1290

Honorable Barbara A. Dortch-Okara, Chief

Justice for Administration and

Management, Administrative Office of the

Trial Courts, Two Center Plaza, Fifth Floor,

Boston, MA 02108, (617) 742–8575

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

Administrator 309 N. Washington Square,

Lansing, MI 48909, (517) 373–2222

Ms. Sue K. Dosal, State Court Administrator,

Supreme Court of Minnesota, 25

Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155,

(651) 296–2474

Mr. Rick D. Patt, Acting Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts,

Supreme Court of Mississippi, P.O. Box

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

Mr. Michael L. Buenger, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Missouri,

P.O. Box 104480, Jefferson City, MO 65110,

(573) 751–3585

Mr. Patrick A. Chenovick, State Court

Administrator, Office of the Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Montana,

Justice Building, Room 315, 215 North

Sanders, Post Office Box 203002, Helena,

MT 59620–3002, (406) 444–2621

Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts/Probation, State Capitol Building,

Room 1220, Post Office Box 98910,

Lincoln, NE 68509–8910, (404) 471–3730

Ms. Karen Kavanau, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, Supreme Court Building, 201 South

Carson Street, Suite 250, Carson City, NV

89701–4702, (775) 684–1717

Mr. Donald Goodnow, Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, Two

Noble Drive, Concord, NH 03301, (603)

271–2521

Honorable Richard J. Williams, Acting

Administrative Director, Administrative

Office of the Courts, Post Office Box 037

RJH Justice Complex 25 Market Street,

Trenton, NJ 08625, (609) 292–1747

Mr. John M. Greacen, Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts 237

Don Gaspar, Room 25, Sante Fe, NM

87501–2178, (505) 827–4800

Honorable Jonathan Lippman, Chief

Administrative Judge, New York State

Unified Court System, Office of Court

Administration, 25 Beaver Street, New

York, NY 10004, (212) 428–2100

Honorable Thomas W. Ross, Administrative

Director of the Courts, North Carolina

Administrative Office of the Courts, 2 East

Morgan Street (Zip Code 27601), Post

Office Box 2448, Raleigh, NC 27602, (919)

733–7107

Mr. Keithe E. Nelson, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of North

Dakota, State Capitol Building, 600 East

Boulevard Avenue, Dept. 180, Bismarck,

ND 58505–0530, (701) 328–4216

Ms. Margarita M. Palacios, Director of Court,

Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of

the Northern Mariana Islands, P.O. Box

2165 CK, Saipan, MP 96950, (670) 235–

9800

Mr. Steven C. Hollon, Administrative

Director, Supreme Court of Ohio, Rhodes

Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street,

Columbus, OH 43266–0419, (614) 466–

2653

Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Administrative

Director of the Courts, 1925 N. Stiles, Suite

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

2450

Ms. Kingsley W. Click, State Court

Administrator, Office of the State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court Building,

Salem, OR 97310, (503) 986–5900

Mr. Zygmont A. Pines, Acting Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of

Pennsylvania Courts, Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania 1515 Market Street, Suite

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

6337

Ms. Mercedes M. Bauermeister,

Administrative Director of the Courts,

General Court of Justice, Office of Court

Administration, 6 Vela Street, Post Office

Box 190917, Hato Rey, PR 00919, (787)

763–3358

Dr. Robert C. Harrall, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Rhode

Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, RI

02903, (401) 277–3263

Ms. Rosalyn Woodson Frierson, Director,

South Carolina Court Administration, 1015

Sumter Street, Suite 200, Columbia, SC

29201, (803) 734–1800

Mr. Daniel Schenk, Acting State Court

Administrator, Unified Judicial System,

500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501,

(605) 773–3474

Ms. Cornelia A. Clark, Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts,

Tennessee Supreme Court, 511 Union

Street, Suite 600, Nashville, TN 37243–

0607, (615) 741–2687

Mr. Jerry L. Benedict, Administrative

Director, Office of Court Administration,

Tom C. Clark State Courts Building, Post

Office Box 12066 (Zip Code 78711–2066),

205 West 14th Street, Suite 600, Austin, TX

78701, (512) 463–1625

Mr. Daniel Becker, State Court Administrator,

450 South State, Post Office Box 140241,

Salt Lake City, UT 84114–0241, (801) 578–

3806

Mr. Lee Suskin, Court Administrator,

Supreme Court of Vermont, 109 State

Street, Montpelier, VT 05609–0701, (802)

828–3278

Ms. Glenda L. Lake, Territorial Court of the

Virgin Islands, P.O. Box 70, Charlotte

Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00804,

(340) 774–6680

Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Virginia,

100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor,

Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786–6455

Ms. Mary Campbell McQueen, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of

Washington, Temple of Justice, P.O. Box

41174, Olympia, WA 98504–1174, (360)

357–2121

Mr. James M. Albert, Administrative Director,

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals,

E–100, State Capitol Bldg., 1900 Kanawha

Blvd. East, Charleston, WV 25305–0833,

(304) 558–0145

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

Room LL2, 119 Martin Luther King Jr.

Blvd. (Zip Code 53703), Post Office Box

1688, Madison, WI 53702, (608) 266–6828

Ms. Holly A. Hansen, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of

Wyoming, Supreme Court Building, 2301

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61061

Capital Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82002,

(307) 777–7480

Appendix D—SJI Libraries: Designated

Sites and Contacts

Alabama

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Timothy A. Lewis, State Law Librarian,

Alabama Supreme Court Building, 300

Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36104,

(334) 242–4347

Alaska

Anchorage Law Library

Ms. Cynthia S. Fellows, State Law Librarian,

Alaska Court Libraries, 820 W. Fourth

Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501, (907) 264–

0583

Arizona

State Law Library

Ms. Gladys A. Wells, Collection Dev.,

Research Division, AZ Dept. of Library,

Archives, and Public Records, State Law

Library, 1501 W. Washington, Phoenix, AZ

85007, (602) 542–4035

Arkansas

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts,

Supreme Court of Arkansas, Justice

Building, 625 Marshall Street, Little Rock,

AR 72201–1078, (501) 682–9400

California

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San

Francisco, CA 94102, (415) 865–4200

Colorado

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Lois Calvert, Supreme Court Law

Librarian, Colorado Supreme Court

Library, Colorado State Judicial Building, 2

East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, (303)

837–3720

Connecticut

State Library

Ms. Denise D. Jernigan, State Librarian,

Connecticut State Library, 231 Capital

Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106, (860) 566–

2516

Delaware

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Dennis B. Jones, Director, Administrative

Office of the Courts, Carvel State Office

Building, 820 N. French, 11th Floor, Box

8911, Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 577–

2480

District of Columbia

Executive Office, District of Columbia Courts

Ms. Anne B. Wicks, Acting Executive Officer,

Courts of the District of Columbia, 500

Indiana Avenue NW., Room 1500,

Washington, DC 20001, (202) 879–1700

Florida

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Kenneth R. Palmer, State Courts

Administrator, Florida State Courts

System, Supreme Court Building, 500

South Duval Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399–

1900, (850) 922–5081

Georgia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Jay Martin, Interim Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, 47

Trinity Avenue Suite 414, Atlanta, GA

30334

Hawaii

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Ann S. Koto, State Law Librarian, The

Supreme Court Law Library, 417 South

King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813, (808)

539–4965

Idaho

AOC Judicial Education Library/State Law

Library

Ms. Beth Peterson, State Law Librarian, Idaho

State Law Library, 451 West State Street,

Boise, ID 83720, (208) 334–3316

Illinois

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Brenda I. Larison, State Law Librarian,

Supreme Court Library, Supreme Court

Building, 200 E. Capitol, Springfield, IL

62701–1791, (217) 782–2424

Indiana

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Dennis Lager, Supreme Court Librarian,

Supreme Court Library, State House, Room

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

2557

Iowa

Administrative Office of the Court

Dr. Jerry K. Beatty, Executive Director

Education, Office of the State Court

Administrator, 700 3rd. St. Upper Level,

Des Moines, IA 50309, (515) 281–8279

Kansas

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Fred Knecht, Law Librarian, Kansas

Supreme Court Library, 301 West 10th

Street, Topeka, KS 66612, (913) 296–3257

Kentucky

State Law Library

Ms. Marge Jones, State Law Librarian, State

Law Library, State Capital Room 200–A,

700 Capital Avenue, Frankfort, KY 40601,

(502) 564–4848

Louisiana

State Law Library

Ms. Carol D. Billings, Director, Louisiana

Law Library, Supreme Court of Louisiana,

301 Loyola Avenue, Room 301, New

Orleans, LA 70112, (504) 568–5705

Maine

State Law and Legislative Reference Library

Ms. Lynn E. Randall, State Law Librarian,

State Law & Legislative Reference Library,

State House Station 43, Augusta, ME

04333, (207) 287–1600

Maryland

State Law Library

Mr. Michael S. Miller, Director, Maryland

State Law Library, Court of Appeal

Building, 361 Rowe Blvd., Annapolis, MD

21401, (410) 260–1430

Massachusetts

Middlesex Law Library

Ms. Sandra Lindheimer, Library Director,

Middlesex Law Library, Superior Court

House, 40 Thorndike Street, Cambridge,

MA 02141, (617) 494–4148

Michigan

Michigan Judicial Institute

Mr. Kevin J. Bowling, Director, Michigan

Judicial Institute, P.O. Box 30205, 222

Washington Square North Suite 220,

Lansing, MI 48909–7705, (517) 334–7805

Ext 112

Minnesota

State Law Library (Minnesota Judicial Center)

Mr. Marvin R. Anderson, State Law

Librarian, Minnesota Judicial Center, 25

Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155,

(612) 297–2084

Mississippi

Mississippi Judicial College

Mr. Leslie G. Johnson, Executive Director,

Mississippi Judicial College, University of

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

38677, (662) 915–5955

Montana

State Law Library

Ms. Judith Meadows, State Law Librarian,

State Law Library of Montana, Justice

Building, 215 North Sanders, Helena, MT

59620, (406) 444–3660

Nebraska

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts/Probation, State Capitol Building,

Room 1220, Lincoln, NE 68509, (402) 471–

3730

Nevada

National Judicial College

Ms. Clara Kelly, Law Librarian, National

Judicial College, Judicial College Building,

University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89550,

(702) 784–6747

New Jersey

New Jersey State Library

Ms. Marjorie Garwig, Supervising Law

Librarian, NJ State Law Library, 185 West

State St., P.O. Box 520, Trenton, NJ 08625,

(609) 292–6230

New Mexico

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Thaddeus Bejnar, Librarian, New Mexico

Supreme Court Library, P.O. Drawer L,

Santa Fe, NM 87504, (505) 827–4850

61062 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

New York

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Colleen Stella, Principal Law Librarian,

New York State Supreme Court Law

Library, Onondaga County Court House,

401 Montgomery Street, Syracuse, NY

13202, (315) 435–2063

North Carolina

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Thomas P. Davis, Librarian, NC State

Law Library 2 East Morgan Street, P.O. Box

28006, Raleigh, NC 27601, (919) 733–3425

North Dakota

Supreme Court Library

Ms. Marcella Kramer, Assistant Law

Librarian, Supreme Court Law Library, 600

East Boulevard Ave., 2nd Floor, Judicial

Wing, Bismarck, ND 58505–0530, (701)

328–2229

Northern Mariana Islands

Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana

Islands

Hon. Miguel Sablan Demapan, Chief Justice,

Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana

Islands, P.O. Box 2165 C.K., Saipan, MP

96950, (670) 236–9700

Ohio

Supreme Court Library

Mr. Paul S. Fu, Law Librarian, Supreme

Court Law Library, Supreme Court of Ohio,

30 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH

43266–0419, (614) 466–2044

Oklahoma

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Administrative

Director of the Courts, 1915 North Stiles,

Suite 305, Oklahoma City, OK 73105, (405)

521–2450

Oregon

Administrative Office of the Courts

Ms. Kingsley W. Click, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Oregon,

Supreme Court Building, Salem, OR 97310,

(503) 986–5900

Pennsylvania

State Library of Pennsylvania

Ms. Kathy Hale, Collection Management,

State Library of Pennsylvania, Room G–48

Forum Building, P.O. Box 1601,

Harrisburg, PA 17105–1601, (717) 787–

5718,

Puerto Rico

Office of Court Administration

Mr. Alfredo Rivera-Mendoza, Director, Office

of Court Administration, P.O. Box 917,

Hato Rey, PR 00919

Rhode Island

Roger Williams Law School Library

Ms. Gail Winson, Director of the Library,

Roger Williams University, School of Law

Library 10 Metacom Avenue, Bristol, RI

02809, (401) 254–4546

South Carolina

Coleman Karesh Law Library (University of

South Carolina School of Law)

Mr. Steve Hinckley, Library Director,

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

Center, University of South Carolina,

Columbia, SC 29208, (803) 777–5944

South Dakota

State Law Library

Librarian, Supreme Court of South Dakota,

500 East Capitol, Pierre, SD 57501, (605)

773–4898

Tennessee

Tennessee State Law Library

Hon. Cornelia A. Clark, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, 511 Union Street, Suite 600,

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

Texas

State Law Library

Ms. Kay Schleuter, Director, State Law

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

(512) 463–1722

US Virgin Islands

Library of the Territorial Court of the Virgin

Islands (St. Thomas)

Ms. Glenda L. Lake, Court Administrator,

Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands, PO

Box 70, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, VI

00804

Utah

Utah State Judicial Administration Library

Ms. Debbie Christiansen, Librarian,

Administrative Office of the Courts

Library, 450 South State, PO Box 140241,

Salt Lake City, UT 84114–0241, (801) 578–

3832

Vermont

Supreme Court of Vermont

Mr. Paul J. Donovan, Law Librarian,

Department of Libraries, 109 State Street,

Montpelier, VT 05609, (802) 828–3268

Virginia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Virginia,

100 North Ninth Street, Third Floor,

Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 786–6455

Washington

Washington State Law Library

Ms. Deborah Norwood, State Law Librarian,

Washington State Law Library, Temple of

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

98504–0751, (360) 357–2136

West Virginia

Administrative Office of the Courts

Law Librarian, West Virginia Supreme Court

of Appeals, State Capitol, Capitol E–404,

1900 Kanawha, Charleston, WV 25305–

0830, (304) 558–2607

Wisconsin

State Law Library

Ms. Jane Colwin, Director of Public Services,

State Law Library, 310 East State Capitol,

P.O. Box 7881, Madison, WI 53707, (608)

261–2340

Wyoming

Wyoming State Law Library

Ms. Kathleen B. Carlson, Law Librarian,

Wyoming State Law Library, Supreme

Court Building 2301 Capitol Avenue,

Cheyenne, WY 82002, (307) 777–7509

National

American Judicature Society

Ms. Clara Wells, Information and Library

Services, American Judicature Society, 180

North Michigan Avenue, Room 600,

Chicago, IL 60601–7401, (312) 558–6900

National Center for State Courts

Ms. Peggy Rogers, Acquisitions/Serials

Librarian, National Center for State Courts,

P.O. Box 8798, 300 Newport Avenue,

Williamsburg, VA 23187–8798, (757) 259–

1857

JERITT

Dr. Maureen Conner, Executive Director,

JERITT Project, Suite 330 Nisbet, 1407 S.

Harrison, East Lansing, MI 48824–5239,

(517) 353–8603, (517) 432–3965 (fax) email: connerm@msu.edu, website: http://

jeritt.msu.edu

Appendix E—Illustrative List of Model

Curricula

The following list includes examples of

model SJI-supported curricula that State

judicial educators may wish to adapt for

presentation in education programs for

judges and other court personnel with the

assistance of a Curriculum Adaptation Grant.

Please refer to section VII.E. for information

on submitting a letter application for a

Curriculum Adaptation Grant. A list of all

SJI-supported education projects is available

on the SJI website (http://

www.statejustice.org/). Please also check

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

and with your State SJI-designated library

(see Appendix D) for information on other

SJI-supported curricula that may be

appropriate for in-State adaptation.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Judicial Settlement Manual (National Judicial

College: SJI–89–089)

Improving the Quality of Dispute Resolution

(Ohio State University College of Law: SJI–

93–277)

Comprehensive ADR Curriculum for Judges

(American Bar Association: SJI–95–002)

Domestic Violence and Custody Mediation

(American Bar Association: SJI–96–038)

Court Coordination

Bankruptcy Issues for State Trial Court

Judges (American Bankruptcy Institute:

SJI–91–027)

Intermediate Sanctions Handbook:

Experiences and Tools for Policymakers

(Center for Effective Public Policy: IAA–88-

NIC–001)

Regional Conference Cookbook: A Practical

Guide to Planning and Presenting a

Regional Conference on State-Federal

Judicial Relationships (U.S. Court of

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61063

Bankruptcy Issues and Domestic Relations

Cases (American Bankruptcy Institute: SJI–

96–175)

Court Management

Managing Trials Effectively: A Program for

State Trial Judges (National Center for State

Courts/National Judicial College: SJI–87–

066/067, SJI–89–054/055, SJI–91–025/026)

Caseflow Management Principles and

Practices (Institute for Court Management/

National Center for State Courts: SJI–87–

056)

A Manual for Workshops on Processing

Felony Dispositions in Limited Jurisdiction

Courts (National Center for State Courts:

SJI–90–052)

Managerial Budgeting in the Courts;

Performance Appraisal in the Courts;

Managing Change in the Courts; Court

Automation Design; Case Management for

Trial Judges; Trial Court Performance

Standards (Institute for Court Management/

National Center for State Courts: SJI–91–

043)

Strengthening Rural Courts of Limited

Jurisdiction and Team Training for Judges

and Clerks (Rural Justice Center: SJI–90–

014, SJI–91–082)

Interbranch Relations Workshop (Ohio

Judicial Conference: SJI–92–079)

Integrating Trial Management and Caseflow

Management (Justice Management

Institute: SJI–93–214)

Leading Organizational Change (California

Administrative Office of the Courts: SJI–

94–068)

Privacy Issues in Computerized Court Record

Keeping: An Instructional Guide for Judges

and Judicial Educators (National Judicial

College: SJI–94–015)

Managing Mass Tort Cases (National Judicial

College: SJI–94–142)

Employment Responsibilities of State Court

Judges (National Judicial College: SJI–95–

025)

Dealing with the Common Law Courts: A

Model Curriculum for Judges and Court

Staff (Institute for Court Management/

National Center for State Courts: SJI–96–

159)

Caseflow Management (Justice Management

Institute: SJI–98–041)

Courts and Communities

A National Program for Reporting on the

Courts and the Law (American Judicature

Society: SJI–88–014)

Victim Rights and the Judiciary: A Training

and Implementation Project (National

Organization for Victim Assistance: SJI–

89–083)

National Guardianship Monitoring Project:

Trainer and Trainee’s Manual (American

Association of Retired Persons: SJI–91–

013)

Access to Justice: The Impartial Jury and the

Justice System and When Implementing

the Court-Related Needs of Older People

and Persons with Disabilities: An

Instructional Guide (National Judicial

College: SJI–91–054)

You Are the Court System: A Focus on

Customer Service (Alaska Court System:

SJI–94–048)

Serving the Public: A Curriculum for Court

Employees (American Judicature Society:

SJI–96–040)

Courts and Their Communities: Local

Planning and the Renewal of Public Trust

and Confidence: A California Statewide

Conference (California Administrative

Office of the Courts: SJI–98–008)

Public Trust and Confidence in the Courts

(Mid-Atlantic Association for Court

Management: SJI–98–208)

Trial Court Judicial Leadership Program:

Judges and Court Administrators Serving

the Courts and Community (National

Center for State Courts: SJI–98–268)

ACA National Conference: Public Trust and

Confidence (Arizona Courts Association:

SJI–99–063)

Criminal Process

Search Warrants: A Curriculum Guide for

Magistrates (American Bar Association

Criminal Justice Section: SJI–88–035)

Diversity, Values, and Attitudes

Troubled Families, Troubled Judges

(Brandeis University: SJI–89–071)

The Crucial Nature of Attitudes and Values

in Judicial Education (National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI–90–

058)

Enhancing Diversity in the Court and

Community (Institute for Court

Management/National Center for State

Courts: SJI–91–043)

Cultural Diversity Awareness in Nebraska

Courts from Native American Alternatives

to Incarceration Project (Nebraska Urban

Indian Health Coalition: SJI–93–028)

Race Fairness and Cultural Awareness

Faculty Development Workshop (National

Judicial College: SJI–93–063)

A Videotape Training Program in Ethics and

Professional Conduct for Nonjudicial Court

Personnel and The Ethics Fieldbook: Tool

For Trainers (American Judicature Society:

SJI–93–068)

Court Interpreter Training Course for Spanish

Interpreters (International Institute of

Buffalo: SJI–93–075)

Doing Justice: Improving Equality Before the

Law Through Literature-Based Seminars

for Judges and Court Personnel (Brandeis

University: SJI–94–019)

Multi-Cultural Training for Judges and Court

Personnel (St. Petersburg Junior College:

SJI–95–006)

Ethical Standards for Judicial Settlement:

Developing a Judicial Education Module

(American Judicature Society: SJI–95–082)

Code of Ethics for the Court Employees of

California (California Administrative Office

of the Courts: SJI 95–245)

Workplace Sexual Harassment Awareness

and Prevention (California Administrative

Office of the Courts: SJI 96–089)

Just Us On Justice: A Dialogue on Diversity

Issues Facing Virginia Courts (Virginia

Supreme Court: SJI–96–150)

When Bias Compounds: Insuring Equal

Treatment for Women of Color in the

Courts (National Judicial Education

Program: SJI 96–161)

When Judges Speak Up: Ethics, the Public,

and the Media (American judicature

Society: SJI–96–152)

Family Violence and Gender-Related Violent

Crime

National Judicial Response to Domestic

Violence: Civil and Criminal Curricula

(Family Violence Prevention Fund: SJI–87–

061, SJI–89–070, SJI–91–055)

Domestic Violence: A Curriculum for Rural

Courts (Rural Justice Center: SJI–88–081)

Judicial Training Materials on Spousal

Support; Judicial Training Materials on

Child Custody and Visitation (Women

Judges’ Fund for Justice: SJI–89–062)

Judicial Response to Stranger and

Nonstranger Rape and Sexual Assault

(National Judicial Education Program: 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

Environmental Law Resource Handbook

(University of New Mexico Institute for

Public Law: SJI–92–162)

A Judge’s Deskbook on the Basic

Philosophies and Methods of Science:

Model Curriculum (University of Nevada,

Reno: SJI–97–030)

Judicial Education for Appellate Court

Judges

Career Writing Program for Appellate Judges

(American Academy of Judicial Education:

SJI–88–086)

Civil and Criminal Procedural Innovations

for Appellate Courts (National Center for

State Courts: SJI–94–002)

Judicial Education Faculty, and Program

Development

The Leadership Institute in Judicial

Education and The Advanced Leadership

Institute in Judicial Education (University

of Memphis: SJI–91–021)

‘‘Faculty Development Instructional

Program’’ from Curriculum Review

(National Judicial College: SJI–91–039)

Resource Manual and Training for Judicial

Education Mentors (National Association

of State Judicial Educators: SJI–95–233)

Institute for Faculty Excellence in Judicial

Education, (National Council of Juvenile

and Family Court Judges: SJI–96–042)

Orientation, Mentoring, and Continuing

Professional Education of Judges and Court

Personnel

Legal Institute for Special and Limited

Jurisdiction Judges (National Judicial

College: SJI–89–043, SJI–91–040)

Pre-Bench Training for New Judges

(American Judicature Society: SJI–90–028)

A Unified Orientation and Mentoring

Program for New Judges of All Arizona

Trial Courts (Arizona Supreme Court: SJI–

90–078)

Court Organization and Structure (Institute

for Court Management/National Center for

State Courts: SJI–91–043)

61064 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

Judicial Review of Administrative Agency

Decisions (National Judicial College: SJI–

91–080)

New Employee Orientation Facilitators Guide

(Minnesota Supreme Court: SJI–92–155)

Magistrates Correspondence Course (Alaska

Court System: SJI–92–156)

Computer-Assisted Instruction for Court

Employees (Utah Administrative Office of

the Courts: SJI–94–012)

Bench Trial Skills and Demeanor: An

Interactive Manual (National Judicial

College: SJI 94–058)

Ethical Issues in the Election of Judges

(National Judicial College: SJI–94–142)

Professional Development for Court

Managers: Educational Criteria in the 21st

Century (National Association for Court

Management: SJI–96–148)

Innovative Approaches to Improving

Competencies of General Jurisdiction

Judges (National Judicial College: SJI–98–

001)

Juveniles and Families in Court

Fundamental Skills Training Curriculum for

Juvenile Probation Officers (National

Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges: SJI–90–017)

Child Support Across State Lines: The

Uniform Interstate Family Support Act

from Uniform Interstate Family Support

Act: Development and Delivery of a

Judicial Training Curriculum (ABA Center

on Children and the Law: SJI 94–321)

Strategic and Futures Planning

Minding the Courts into the Twentieth

Century (Michigan Judicial Institute: SJI–

89–029)

An Approach to Long-Range Strategic

Planning in the Courts (Center for Public

Policy Studies: SJI–91–045)

Substance Abuse

Effective Treatment for Drug-Involved

Offenders: A Review & Synthesis for Judges

and Court Personnel (Education

Development Center, Inc.: SJI–90–051)

Good Times, Bad Times: Drugs, Youth, and

the Judiciary (Professional Development

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

Gaining Momentum: A Model Curriculum for

Drug Courts (Florida Office of the State

Courts Administrator: SJI–94–291)

Judicial Response to Substance Abuse:

Children, Adolescents, and Families

(National Council of Juvenile and Family

Court Judges: SJI–95–030)

BILLING CODE 6820–SC–P

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61065

61066 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61067

61068 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 61069

61070 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

[FR Doc. 00–26071 Filed 10–12–00; 8:45]

BILLING CODE 6820–SC–C