12700 Fair Lakes Dr., Suite 340 

Fairfax, VA 22033

jonathan.mattiello@sji.gov 

703.690.4979

SJI.gov

Fiscal Year 2023

Budget Request

March 2022
1

Table of Contents

 Page No.

I. Overview...........................................................................................................2

II. Appropriations Language ..............................................................................7

III. SJI Grant Programs.......................................................................................8

IV. Conclusion.....................................................................................................21

V. Exhibits .........................................................................................................23

A. Summary of Requirements

B. Justification for Base Adjustments

C. Summary of Requirements by Object Class
2

I. Overview of the State Justice Institute

The State Justice Institute (SJI) was established by Congress (42 U.S.C. 10701 et seq.) in 1984 to 

award grants to improve the quality of justice in state courts, and foster innovative, efficient 

solutions to common issues faced by all courts. SJI is a non-profit corporation governed by an 

11-member Board of Directors appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. By law, 

the President must appoint six state court judges, one state court administrator, and four members 

of the public – no more than two of whom may be of the same political party.

SJI is unique in both its mission and how it seeks to fulfill it. Only SJI has the authority to assist 

all state courts – criminal, civil, juvenile, family, and appellate – and the mandate to share the 

success of one state’s innovations with every state court system.

SJI carries out its mission in a variety of ways that maximize the impact of its funding, including: 

 Addressing national court issues as they occur, and developing solutions to those 

problems;

 Placing practical products in the hands of the judges and court staff who can most benefit 

from them; 

 Making sure that effective approaches in one state court are quickly and economically

shared with other courts nationwide; 

 Supporting national, regional, and in-state educational programs to speed the transfer of 

solutions to issues shared by courts across the nation; and, 

 Supporting national technical assistance targeted at specific issues in the courts. 

SJI has supported numerous grants to state courts and court-support organizations that have 

improved the administration of justice in the United States. These include projects that have

enabled the state courts to: respond to the opioid crisis; address mental health issues; adapt to the 

COVID-19 pandemic; identify victims of human trafficking; improve services for military 

families; improve court security; promote fiscally-sound and data-driven policies and practices 

on sentencing; and provide assistance to enhance access to justice. SJI has also supported many 

worthwhile projects that have promoted state court performance, accountability, and the use of 

innovative technology to transform the business of courts. 

SJI’s federal mission to support the state courts is critical to the successful implementation of 

federal policies and programs, most recently in the areas of social services programs and 

automated justice information systems development. In almost 300 provisions of federal law, 

there are obligations, affirmative and negative, on state courts. This is in addition to federal 

policy through regulations, policy statements, and other pronouncements. For example, state 

courts are involved in federal subjects such as child welfare, civil protection orders, crime 

control, national security, consumer protection, and land and water management. SJI grants

enable the state courts to better meet these federal obligations.
3 

SJI has experienced an increase in requests for assistance to help the state courts become more 

administratively effective, so that they can address these challenging issues. SJI support 

provides the state courts with significant opportunities to reorganize, innovate, and improve 

service delivery to the public. 

COVID-19, Access to Justice, and the State Courts 

The COVID-19 pandemic has deeply impacted the U.S. justice system. State courts, attorneys, 

and all justice-involved people have drastically altered the way they conduct business due to the 

pandemic. As courthouses closed and court systems moved to virtual interactions, the court 

community rallied to respond to the ever-growing demands of justice-involved people, as any 

slowdown or restrictions on court operations would have significant implications for essential 

services and urgent matters such as detainees and inmates, victims of violence, parents/guardians 

with custody issues, and tenants facing evictions. State courts at all levels across the country 

have implemented strategies to continue providing access to justice. 

In immediate response to the pandemic, SJI supported the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) 

and the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) Pandemic Rapid Response Team

(RRT) in March 2020. This group of chief justices and state court administrators created a 

roadmap for court operations during and after the pandemic, and continue to provide critical 

guidance and resources to the court community. Previously, SJI funded a first of its kind 

National Pandemic Summit at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in May 2019. The 

summit included court leaders, public health officials, legislators, and executive branch officials 

from 25 states and three territories. The summit focused on the need for states to plan and 

prepare for a pandemic, which would ultimately prove incredibly valuable to the COVID-19 

response. 

SJI identified Emergency Preparedness and Cybersecurity as one of its Priority Investment Areas

for FY 2020, and has invested considerable resources into supporting the courts in pandemic 

planning, response, and recovery activities. SJI is supporting projects that look to the future of 

judicial service delivery by identifying and replicating innovations and alternate means of 

conducting court business because of the pandemic. SJI values a system change approach (as 

opposed to the replication of narrowly focused programs or projects) that emphasize the use of 

case triage to match cases and parties to appropriate resources and services both within and 

outside the courthouse, and support increased information for self- represented litigants. This 

also includes the use of technology innovations such as online dispute resolution (ODR), portal 

development, virtual hearings, and other efforts to allow court business to be conducted outside 

of the courthouse. Finally, since many practices have not yet been measured or evaluated, these

projects will include a review of costs and benefits, not only to the courts, but also to court users.
4 

Priority Investment Areas

Each fiscal year, SJI allocates significant financial resources to support its Priority Investment 

Areas. The Priority Investment Areas are applicable to all grant types. SJI strongly encourages 

grant applicants to consider projects addressing one or more of the Priority Investment Areas, 

and integrate the following factors into each proposed project: 

 Evidence based, data-driven decision making 

 Cross sector collaboration

 Systemic approaches (as opposed to standalone programs)

 Institutionalization of new court processes and procedures 

 Ease of replication

 Sustainability

In FY 2022, the Priority Investment Areas are the following listed below in no specific order: 

Opioids and Other Dangerous Drugs, and Behavioral Health Responses

 Behavioral Health Disparities – Research indicates that justice involved persons have 

significantly greater proportions of mental, substance use, and co-occurring disorders 

than are found in the public. SJI supports cross-sector collaboration and information 

sharing that emphasizes policies and practices designed to improve court responses to 

justice-involved persons with behavioral health and other co-occurring needs. 

Promoting Access to Justice and Procedural Fairness

 Self-Represented Litigation - SJI promotes court-based solutions to address increases in 

self-represented litigants; specifically making courts more user-friendly by simplifying 

court forms, providing one-on-one assistance, developing guides, handbooks, and 

instructions on how to proceed, developing court-based self-help centers, and using 

Internet technologies to increase access. These projects are improving outcomes for 

litigants and saving valuable court resources.

 Language Access - SJI supports language access in the state courts through remote 

interpretation (outside the courtroom), interpreter training and certification, courtroom 

services (plain language forms, websites, etc.), and addressing the requirements of Title

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. 

 Procedural Fairness – A fundamental role of courts is to ensure fair processes and just

outcomes for litigants. SJI promotes the integration of research-based procedural fairness 

principles, policies, and practices into state court operations to increase public trust and 

confidence in the court system, reduce recidivism, and increase compliance with court 

orders. 
5 

Reducing Disparities and Protecting Victims, Underserved, and Vulnerable Populations

 Human Trafficking - SJI addresses the impact of federal and state human trafficking laws 

on the state courts, and the challenges faced by state courts in dealing with cases 

involving trafficking victims and their families. These efforts are intended to empower 

state courts to identify victims, link them with vital services, and hold traffickers 

accountable. 

 Rural Justice – Rural areas and their justice systems routinely have fewer resources and 

more barriers than their urban counterparts, such as availability of services, lack of 

transportation, and smaller workforces. Programs and practices that are effective in 

urban areas are often inappropriate and or lack supported research for implementation in 

rural areas. SJI supports rural courts by identifying promising and best practices, and

promoting resources, education, and training opportunities uniquely designed for rural 

courts and court users. 

 Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Elder Issues - SJI assists courts in improving court 

oversight of guardians and conservators for the elderly and incapacitated adults through 

visitor programs, electronic reporting, and training.

 Disparities in Justice – SJI supports research and data-driven approaches that examine 

statutory requirements, policies, and practices that result in disparities for justiceinvolved persons. These disparities can be because of inequities in socio-economic, 

racial, ethnic, gender, age, health, or other factors. In addition to identifying disparities, 

SJI promotes systemic approaches to reducing disparities. 

Advancing Justice Reform 

 Criminal Justice Reform - SJI assists state courts in taking a leadership role in reviewing 

fines, fees, and bail practices to ensure processes are fair and access to justice is assured; 

implementing alternative forms of sanction; developing processes for indigency review; 

promoting transparency, governance, and structural reforms that promote access to 

justice, accountability, and oversight; and implementing innovative diversion and reentry programs that serve to improve outcomes for justice-involved persons and the 

justice system. 

 Juvenile Justice Reform - SJI supports innovative projects that advance best practices in 

handling dependency and delinquency cases; promote effective court oversight of 

juveniles in the justice system; address the impact of trauma on juvenile behavior; assist 

the courts in identification of appropriate provision of services for juveniles; and address 

juvenile re-entry. 

 Family and Civil Justice Reform - SJI promotes court-based solutions for the myriad of 

civil case types, such as domestic relations, housing, employment, debt collection, which

are overwhelming court dockets. 
6 

Transforming Courts

 Emergency Response and Recovery - Courts must be prepared for natural disasters and 

public health emergencies, such as pandemics. SJI supports projects that look to the future 

of judicial service delivery by identifying and replicating innovations and alternate means of 

conducting court business because of pandemics and natural disasters such as hurricanes, 

earthquakes, and wildfires.

 Cybersecurity – Courts must also be prepared for cyberattacks on court systems, such as

denial of service and ransomware attacks on court case management systems, websites, 

and other critical information technology infrastructure. SJI supports projects that assist

courts in preparing for, and responding to, these attacks, and share lessons-learned to 

courts across the United States.

 Technology – Courts must integrate technological advances into daily judicial processes 

and proceedings. SJI supports projects that institutionalize the innovative technology that 

has successfully advanced the use of electronic filing and payment systems, online 

dispute resolution, remote work, and virtual court proceedings. SJI promotes projects 

that streamline case filing and management processes, thereby reducing time and costs to 

litigants and the courts; provide online access to courts to litigants so that disputes can be 

resolved more efficiently; and make structural changes to court services that enable them 

to evolve into an online environment. 

 Training, Education, and Workforce Development – State courts require a workforce that

is adaptable to public demands for services. SJI supports projects that focus on the tools 

needed to enable judges, court managers, and staff to be innovative, forward thinking 

court leaders. 

For FY 2023, SJI requests $7,640,000 to enhance its efforts to improve the quality of justice in 

the state courts. The request is $440,000 above the amount included for SJI in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103). 
7 

II. Appropriations Language

For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as authorized by the State Justice

Authorization Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10701 et seq.), [$7,200,000] $7,640,000, of which 

$500,000 shall remain available until September 30, [2023] 2024: Provided, That not to exceed 

$2,250 shall be available for official reception and representation expenses: Provided further, 

That, for the purposes of section 505 of this Act, the State Justice Institute shall be considered an 

agency of the United States Government. (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 – Division B, 

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2022.) 
8 

III. SJI Grant Programs 

In order to carry out its mission of improving the administration of justice in the state courts, SJI 

currently awards six types of grants, detailed below: 

 Strategic Initiatives Grants – provide SJI the flexibility to address national court issues as 

they occur, and develop solutions to those problems. These grants are awarded at the 

discretion of the SJI Board of Directors. 

 Project Grants – are the centerpiece of SJI’s efforts to improve the administration of 

justice in state courts nationwide. Project Grants are intended to support innovative 

technical assistance, education and training, and demonstration projects that can improve 

the administration of justice in state courts. 

 Technical Assistance (TA) Grants – are designed to provide state and local courts with 

funding to obtain expert assistance to diagnose a problem, develop a response to that 

problem, and initiate implementation of any needed changes. 

 Curriculum Adaptation and Training (CAT) Grants – enable courts and regional or 

national court associations to modify and adapt model curricula or course modules to 

meet state or local jurisdiction educational needs; train instructors to present portions or 

all of the curricula; and pilot-test them to determine their appropriateness, quality, and 

effectiveness. 

 Education Support Program – enhance the skills, knowledge, and abilities of judges and 

court managers by supporting attendance at programs sponsored by national and state 

providers that they could not otherwise attend because of limited state, local, and 

personal budgets. 

There are several reasons why the demand for SJI grant funding continues to remain high, 

including: 1) the state courts are dealing with severe budget constraints, and need financial 

assistance in order to conduct critical projects, such as addressing the opioid epidemic, the 

mental health crisis, human trafficking, COVID-19 response and recovery, and the impact of 

juvenile abuse and neglect; and 2) SJI has increased its visibility with the state courts through 

outreach, which combined with limited federal funds for the state courts in general, has led to 

greater demand for these valuable resources. 

While SJI is excited about the continued interest in grant opportunities, there is limited grant 

funding available. SJI reviews grant applications on a competitive basis, and does not allocate 

grant funding by quarter. Therefore, SJI has encouraged potential applicants to submit their 

grant applications as soon as possible, since SJI funding is on a first-come, first-served basis for

grant applications that merit funding. 
9 

The state courts are unlikely to experience any budget relief in the near future. Therefore, SJI 

expects the demand for grant assistance to increase. These grants are critical to state and local 

courts, and this budget request will support these projects, while continuing to use the other 

larger grant programs to address national court issues, such as opioids, mental health, COVID-19 

response and recovery, and human trafficking.

Strategic Initiatives Grants

The Strategic Initiatives Grants (SIG) program provides SJI the flexibility to address national 

court issues as they occur, and develop solutions to those problems. The program also enables 

SJI to work with its stakeholders to address emerging trends that will have an impact on the state 

courts. Through this program, SJI applies its own institutional knowledge and expertise, as well 

as that of its grantees to address the key issues facing the state courts.

Opioids, Emerging Drug Abuse, and Mental Illness: Behavioral Health Collaborative Grant 

Program 

The impact of the opioid crisis touches every aspect of the nation’s public safety and judicial 

system. According the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) data, the criminal justice system is the single 

largest source of referral for substance abuse treatment. Drug-related arrests involving opioids 

are skyrocketing. In many communities, court dockets and probation caseloads are filled with 

individuals with opioid use disorders. Access to treatment is limited, particularly in rural 

communities. The shift from prescription opioid abuse to heroin and fentanyl use is causing a 

dramatic spike in overdose deaths in some regions of the United States, particularly the Midwest

and in the South. 

In response, SJI funded a comprehensive strategy for responding to the challenges facing state 

courts in addressing the national opioid crisis. In partnership with the Conference of Chief 

Justices (CCJ), the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA), and other key 

stakeholders, funding was provided to create the CCJ/COSCA National Judicial Opioid Task 

Force (NJOTF). This initiative identified and documented inter-branch activities to address the 

opioid crisis. Representatives from state and federal government and key national organizations 

shared strategies and identified unmet needs. The NJOTF created partnerships to address the 

impact of opioids on children, with specific emphasis on foster care, assisting state courts in 

developing opioid task forces, and working with existing state task forces to make 

recommendations for local response efforts. In addition, the NJOTF developed guiding 

principles that state courts can use for successful collaboration among treatment providers, 

criminal justice systems, and child welfare agencies.

The NJOTF pursued short and long-term objectives that: 1) highlighted the landscape of current 

responses and effective practices; 2) established a mechanism to engage justice system partners 

in collaborative efforts; and 3) provided immediate tools for state courts in addressing the opioid 

crisis. NJOTF activities include: 
10 

 Launching the Opioids and Courts and National Judicial Opioid Task Force webpages.

 Finalizing Five NJOTF Principles. 

 Conducting a survey to members of CCJ and COSCA regarding their needs related to the 

opioid epidemic. 

 Collecting, disseminating, and evaluating court-based interventions related to the opioid 

epidemic.

 Coordinating efforts with other key stakeholders, such as the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services; National Governors Association; National Association of Attorneys 

General; National Council of State Legislatures; National Association of Counties; 

National Sheriffs Association; National American Society of Addiction Medicine and 

American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry; and the National Association of Drug Court 

Professionals.

In addition to the impact of opioid abuse on criminal courts, the nation’s family and juvenile 

courts, and child welfare systems, are also deeply impacted. A report by DHS/Administration 

for Children and Families shows that from FY 2000 to 2019, the percentage of removals 

nationally due to parental substance abuse increased 18.5 percent to 38.9 percent – an increase of 

20.4 percentage points.1

 Thirteen (13) states report that 50 percent or more of the removals are 

due to parental substance abuse.2

 

Adverse childhood experiences (ACES) significantly impact the likelihood of future substance 

abuse, violence, and justice system involvement.3

 Prevention and intervention strategies, such as 

early identification of trauma and trauma-informed treatment, can significantly reduce the 

impacts of ACES. With SJI support, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), the Institute 

for Intergovernmental Research (IIR), the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges 

(NCJFCJ), and The National Judicial College (NJC) have developed a collaboration to assist 

state courts in addressing the impact of opioids on children and families.

Additionally, SJI is partnering with the U.S. Department of Justice/Bureau of Justice Assistance 

(BJA), and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to provide funding to rural demonstration 

sites through the Rural Responses to the Opioid Epidemic (RROE) initiative. The RROE is part 

of a series of demonstration projects associated with BJA’s Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, 

and Substance Abuse Program (COSSAP). SJI funding is enabling the demonstration sites to

include the state courts in their work, and ensuring courts have the resources they need to 

contribute to the overall objectives of each site. The Institute for Intergovernmental Research 

1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (2020).

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/afcarsreport27.pdf

2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, 

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) (2019 v1).

3 Levenson, Jill, and Grady, Melissa (2016). Childhood Adversity, Substance Abuse, and Violence: Implications for 

Trauma-Informed Social Work Practice. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions. Vol. 16, Issue 1-2.
11 

(IIR) – a non-profit that has a long history serving as a technical assistance provider for BJA 

grants – is providing the coordination and technical assistance for this initiative. 

Building upon the RROE, and with funding from SJI, the NCSC, in partnership with Rulo 

Strategies, launched the Rural Justice Collaborative (RJC) in January 2021 to showcase the 

strengths of rural communities, and highlight the cross-sector collaboration that is a hallmark of 

rural justice systems. The work under the RJC is supported by a cross-sector advisory council 

composed of rural judges, along with additional stakeholders in the justice, child welfare, and 

behavioral health, and public health systems. The RJC Online Resource Center launched in late 

Spring 2021, and serves as a national clearinghouse of promising and innovative rural justice 

practices. The RJC is identifying mentor sites that will host virtual or in-person site visits, 

answer questions from other rural communities via phone, email, or webinars, and participate in 

conferences and workshops to share promising and innovative rural justice practices. A 

nomination and selection process is underway to identify mentor sites that reflect one or more of 

the areas of focus. 

 

SJI and its partners continue to work to address mental illness/mental health on a national level. 

This is in response to the increasing complexity of handling individuals in state courts who have 

mental illness, and oftentimes a co-occurring substance use issue. System-wide, mental illness 

has placed a strain on many communities and their resources, and jails are being used to detain 

those who need mental health treatment. Promising approaches are currently being explored to 

address this problem:

 The Sequential Intercept Model identifies where to intercept individuals with mental 

illness as they move through the criminal justice system, suggests which populations 

might be targeted at each point of interception, and highlights the decision-makers who 

can authorize movement away from or through the criminal justice system.

 Mental health codes require modification to permit timely, appropriately-targeted, courtordered treatment for persons with mental illness, before and after contact with the justice 

system.

It has also been acknowledged that individuals who are intercepted by the criminal justice system 

often have co-occurring mental health and substance use issues, including opioid addiction. 

With SJI support, CCJ/COSCA, in coordination with the NCSC is:

 Developing resources, best practices and recommend standards to address mental illness 

and the state courts response.

 Expanding the NCSC mental health website to create a centralized repository for state 

courts interested in improving court and community responses. 

 Providing resources to improve caseflow management of civil commitment cases as well 

as felony and misdemeanor cases involving persons with mental illness.

 Providing education by developing national, regional, and statewide training and 

education opportunities for judges and court practitioners.
12 

 Developing guides and resources on the Sequential Intercept Model, and adapt the SJIfunded Arizona Presiding Judge Guide titled, Fair Justice for Persons with Mental 

Illness: Improving the Courts Response for use nationally. 

 Building capacity of state and national court leader to lead and implement reforms.

Despite these resources, the state courts still need assistance in dealing with the opioid crisis, 

most notably individuals with mental health issues who also have co-occurring substance abuse 

disorders. Communities are now flooded with fentanyl, and stimulant (methamphetamine and 

cocaine) use is on the rise. State courts must be able to address these emerging issues. In 

response, SJI established a Behavioral Health Collaborative Grant Program to document and 

promote innovative court-based programs that are addressing substance use and mental illness. 

SJI and its collaborative partners will continue to identify court-based programs that integrate 

substance use and behavioral health approaches such as screening, assessment, and 

programming, and share those innovative approaches with the broader court community. Using 

these innovative behavioral health approaches, the program will provide additional technical 

assistance and training to courts across the United States, conduct process and outcome 

evaluations of these new sites, and monitor implementation and overall impact. Additional 

activities include: 

 Providing resources to promote court-based programs that treat families as a whole 

across case types, so that parents and children are linked with critical services.

 Addressing mental health and trauma of children who are involved the courts, both in 

dependency and delinquency cases. 

 Pilot testing and expanding to new jurisdictions the SIM model for child welfare, with 

a behavioral health focus. 

 Addressing polysubstance abuse, such as the increase in methamphetamine and other 

stimulants, and assist state courts in designing systems that are flexible to address the 

full continuum of care.

 Reducing recidivism by supporting court-based programs that link formally 

incarcerated individuals to obtain medical, psychiatric, housing, employment, 

educational, and other critical assistance. 

Addressing individuals with behavioral health needs in state courts is a critical component of the

national response. Despite significant new investments of federal funding in the opioid crisis 

response, more resources are needed to assist state courts in delivering successful outcomes. 

State and local governments, including the courts, bear the greatest burden for the primary and 

secondary costs of untreated mental health and substance use issues. Furthermore, the state 

courts are the most likely point of intersection between a community and an individual with 

behavioral health needs, and the most frequent referral point for treatment. These issues are not 

confined to state criminal courts – family, juvenile, and civil dockets have been exponentially 

affected by the scope and magnitude of mental health and co-occurring substance use. 

The FY 2023 request includes an increase of $407,000 to enable SJI to continue addressing these 

critical issues. 
13 

Human Trafficking and the State Courts

Since 1994, Congress has enacted a series of laws, most notably the Violence Against Women 

Act (VAWA) and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). State courts are also 

beginning to see human trafficking cases under state laws, as 47 states have passed 

criminalization statutes for human trafficking. Judges are becoming aware that human 

trafficking can manifest itself in a variety of court settings, including prostitution and drug cases 

where the individual may be a trafficking victim, child thieves who are part of traffickercontrolled organizations, and abused and neglected children in a variety of settings. In addition, 

human trafficking goes beyond immigrants who are in the United States legally or illegally, but 

also to U.S. citizens who are victims. However, the state courts are finding themselves without 

the knowledge, expertise, processes, and basic infrastructure needed to address this issue. 

SJI is currently supporting the National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project (NIWAP) at the

American University/Washington College of Law, working in partnership with the National

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) to further develop the 

National Judicial Network: Forum on Human Trafficking and Immigration in State Courts

(NJN). The NJN provides an opportunity for judges to: engage in peer-to-peer learning sessions

with judges from across the country; participate in webinars; communicate with other judges in a

member-only confidential Listserv; access topic-specific publications; and attend future inperson trainings on issues that arise in state courts involving human trafficking and immigrant 

victims.

With SJI support, NIWAP and the NCJFCJ are: 1) launching Community of Practice\ (COP)

judicial peer-to-peer forums, addressing key topics on human trafficking and procedural fairness 

for immigrant victims; 2) hosting topical NJN Webinars and ongoing access to the confidential

NJN Listserv for judges and judicial officials; 3) conducting pilot training of a SJI-funded 

curriculum on human trafficking and immigration; 4) developing judicial resource materials,

including enhancement of an online library for on-demand access; and 5) providing technical 

assistance to local jurisdictions in further addressing human trafficking and immigrant victims of 

crime.

With SIG funding, SJI launched a Human Trafficking and the State Courts Collaborative (HT 

Collaborative). The HT Collaborative members include the Center for Public Policy Studies 

(CPPS), Center for Court Innovation (CCI), The National Judicial College (NJC), the National 

Association of Women Judges (NAWJ), Legal Momentum, and NCJFCJ. The Collaborative 

focused on 4 strategic priorities: 1) increasing understanding and awareness about the challenges 

faced by state courts in dealing with cases involving trafficking victims and their families, and 

traffickers; 2) developing and testing state and local approaches for assessing and addressing the 

impact of human trafficking victims and defendants in the state courts; 3) enhancing state and 

local court capacity to improve court services affected by human trafficking-related case

processing demands; and 4) building effective national, state, and local partnerships for

addressing the impacts of human trafficking case processing in the state courts. 
14 

The HT Collaborative has resulted in a variety of products benefiting the state courts, including: 

 A comprehensive resource inventory of background information about the demographics, 

scope, dynamics, and implications for the courts and justice system of various forms of 

human trafficking; 

 Measurement framework that includes measures and tools for monitoring the impacts of 

human trafficking case processing in the state courts; 

 Summary of changes in federal and state trafficking law, policy, and practice that might 

better serve the interests of the state courts; 

 A human trafficking and the state courts web-based resource network and clearinghouse 

for judges and court personnel; 

 A best practices toolkit for jurisdictions interested in establishing a specialized 

prostitution/trafficking court; 

 A series of bench cards targeting human trafficking-related issues;

 Best practice guidelines;

 Model planning and technical assistance process and supporting materials;

 Training on human trafficking via 12 courses for judges; 

 Intensive technical assistance in six jurisdictions, and proven nationally applicable 

technical assistance approaches; and 

 Published articles in various court periodicals about the project and the issue in general. 

The members of the HT Collaborative each bring specific expertise to these efforts, and work

together to accomplish these goals. CPPS developed expertise in delivering statewide technical 

assistance. NJC developed training for judges on human trafficking. CCI has experience helping 

jurisdictions set up specialized prostitution/trafficking courts. In addition to eliminating the 

"stove-pipe" effect of separate organizations conducting projects with little to no coordination, 

the HT Collaborative established a network of courts and court associations and organizations 

committed to this issue. With SJI support, the HT Collaborative has worked with the state 

judiciaries in Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

Juvenile Justice Reform and the State Courts 

Over the past several years, the MacArthur Foundation has provided significant funding to 

support the Models for Change initiative, which has identified and developed juvenile justice 

reform efforts and programs across the U.S. Beginning in 2013, MacArthur transitioned to a 

“legacy phase” which developed Resource Centers for juvenile justice focused on specific areas 

of reform. The state courts have been a major stakeholder group throughout these efforts. As 

part of the legacy phase, MacArthur funded five Conference of Chief Justices/Conference of 

State Court Administrators (CCJ/COSCA) regional juvenile justice reform summits, led by the 

CCJ/COSCA Courts, Children, and Families Committee and staffed by the National Center for 

State Courts (NCSC). For the summits, the Chief Justices were invited to send a 5-person state 

team to participate in each region. The purpose of the summits was to identify best practices and 

develop state level plans for addressing juvenile justice reform. States are now in the process of 

implementing these action plans.
15 

Resource Center partners and other key organizations have been involved in the Models for 

Change initiative and the CCJ/COSCA summits, including the NCSC, the National Council of 

State Legislatures (NCSL), the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), 

the Center for Children’s Law & Policy (CCLP), the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC), 

and the RFK National Resource Center (RFK-NRC). Unfortunately, there were no resources to 

provide technical assistance to state teams as they implement their action plans, and work with 

key stakeholders on juvenile justice reform efforts.

In response, SJI supported the Juvenile Justice Reform and State Courts Initiative, which is

enabling the Resource Center partners to develop national resources and technical assistance for 

the state courts on this critical area. In collaboration with CCJ and COSCA, the initiative builds 

on the CCJ/COSCA regional summit and state team work, and is informed by the Models for 

Change Initiative.

The NCSC, NCSL, NCJFCJ, CCLP, NJDC, and RFK-NRC are serving as the Expert Working 

Group for the project. The Expert Working Group is: 

 identifying juvenile justice policy, procedures, and practices that should be reformed;

 proposing projects to be funded by the initiative; 

 providing expertise to identify subject matter experts; and

 providing technical assistance, training, and other activities to the state teams as they

continue to implement their action plans.

The Expert Working Group is also promoting court community sharing by disseminating 

information about the initiative and its resources through various websites, conference 

presentations, and social media. Initial topics identified by the Expert Working Group include: 

access to counsel; dual status youth; mental and behavioral health; probation; risk/needs 

assessments; status offenders; court administration (e.g., data collection, court rules, alternatives 

to fines and fees); and model protocols for special populations, such as military families.

Military Families in Juvenile and Family Courts 

With SJI support, NCJFCJ hosted the first-ever National Summit on Courts and the Military in

March 2015. The goal of summit was to create a forum for collaborative relationships between 

the state courts and military bases to better assist military families. Post-summit, NCJFCJ

worked to identify the following major needs: 1) education and training for courts and the 

military on their roles and responsibilities; 2) resources available for military families; 3) judicial 

and command collaboration; 4) judicial and command leadership; and 5) assessing the needs and 

risks for military families. These needs were further highlighted via surveys to family and 

juvenile court judges, who confirmed they wanted to know more about issues such as kinship 

care for children of deployed parent(s), the effects of military service on neurological and 

psychological status, and domestic violence issues. 
16 

SJI enabled the NCJFC to launch a Military Families in Juvenile and Family Courts Initiative. 

The initiative is: formulating uniform standards for information and resource sharing, with a 

major emphasis on the development of templates for MOUs between state courts and military 

posts; identifying and recruiting juvenile and family courts in jurisdictions with significant 

military presence to serve as pilot sites; creating an online National Resource Center on Military

Families in the Juvenile and Family Courts, which will include documents for state 

courts/military installations, such as template MOUs, bench cards, resource guidelines, and links 

to services; and developing a training curriculum for judges, military command, and key 

stakeholders on the unique issues of military families.

Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Elder Issues 

A recent survey by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) shows an estimated $50 billion 

in assets are currently under state courts’ watch in conservatorship cases across the country. This 

number is based on projections from data from a handful of states. Some 176,000 new 

conservatorship or guardianship cases were filed in state courts nationally in 2015, and there 

were an estimated 1.3 million open cases. These statistics provide valuable insight to a growing 

national problem and how courts recognize and deal with the financial exploitation of people 

under a conservatorship. 

With support from SJI, the Center for Elders and the Courts is addressing guardianship and 

conservatorship issues in the state courts through a multi-year response that targets four key 

goals: 1) Develop and maintain a partnership of key stakeholders; 2) Prioritize the protection and 

enhancement of individual rights; 3) Promote modernization and transparency in the 

guardianship process; and, 3) Enhance guardianship/conservatorship court processes and 

oversight. SJI has also provided direct support to the Minnesota Judiciary to develop an 

electronic conservatorship monitoring system, which is being replicated in other states. A 

parallel electronic guardianship monitoring system is also being developed to better enable state 

courts to monitor guardianship reports and provide online access to guardians, which will 

improve compliance and reduce the burden of reporting. The project focuses on how the state 

courts, in partnership with their justice system stakeholders, can fulfill the obligation of 

upholding the Constitution and protecting the individual rights of all citizens.

Fines, Fees, and Bail Practices

With support from SJI and DOJ/Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Conference of Chief Justices 

CCJ and COSCA formed a National Task Force on Fines, Fees and Bail Practices to address the 

ongoing impact that court fines and fees and bail practices have on communities. One of the 

aims of the nationally-led initiative was to understand and address how fines, fees, and bail 

disproportionately impact the economically disadvantaged across the United States.

The Task Force was comprised of national judicial and legal leaders, and policy makers from 

state, county, and municipal government. The Task Force co-chairs formed three working 

groups: 1) Access to Justice and Fairness; 2) Transparency, Governance & Structural Reform; 3) 

Accountability, Judicial Performance and Qualifications, and Oversight. 
17 

Among other significant accomplishments, the Task Force has: 

 Drafted model statutes, court rules, written policies, processes and procedures for setting, 

collecting, and waiving court-imposed payments; 

 Compiled and created suggested best practices for setting, processing, and codifying the 

collection of fines, fees, and bail; 

 Reviewed and revised suggested guidelines for qualifications and oversight of judges in 

courts created by local governments or traffic courts, including state codes of judicial 

conduct and the jurisdiction of judicial conduct commissions to ensure their applicability 

to all judges; 

 Facilitated a court “hackathon” designed to develop innovative technological solutions 

that ensure courts are providing 21st century customer service through mobile 

applications and software platforms; and

 Developed an online clearinghouse of information containing resources and best 

practices.

State Court Technology 

SJI has a strong history of supporting innovative technology projects that have improved court 

processes and procedures. These include technology projects that have: streamlined case filing 

and management processes, thereby reducing time and costs to litigants and the courts; 

established electronic guardianship and conservatorship monitoring programs that have 

improved compliance and effectively monitored the safety of wards; and provided online access 

to courts to litigants, so that disputes can be resolved more efficiently. 

Portals, Online Dispute Resolution, and Artificial Intelligence 

Rapid technology advances have already begun transforming how courts operate, both in the 

United States and internationally. Given the rapid advancement of technology solutions such as 

litigant portals, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), SJI has 

committed to not only provide seed funding for these efforts, but also play a critical leadership 

role. SJI is promoting the development and implementation of these technologies, and working 

with key stakeholders both nationally and internationally to adapt proven technology platforms 

in the state courts. These developments will fundamentally change the way individuals interact 

with the courts, in addition to further streamlining court operations. 

In 2016, the Alaska Court System was chosen as one of two pilot sites (Hawaii as the other), to 

work with Microsoft to develop a legal access portal. Microsoft provided the technical

development and support for the infrastructure of the portal, including capabilities for natural 

language processing, machine learning, and real-time information exchange between the portal 

and other providers, including the courts. However, Microsoft exited the project, and while the 

technology is in place for the portal, the content was not developed. With SJI support, the 
18

Alaska Court System developed legal content4 that enables users to create personalized action 

plans for their legal needs. The Alaska portal will also leverage AI to deliver highly 

individualized legal self-help. Curated experiences will interactively guide users through a set of 

questions and suggest pathways for addressing legal issues. As the user answers each question, 

the portal will determine the next question to ask with the ultimate goal of providing information 

that is relevant to the user’s unique situation. Unlike earlier script-based self-help systems, the 

portal will learn from user searches, providing increasingly relevant and use information. The 

more the system is used, the better it will get at associating user descriptions of their issue to 

actual legal terminology necessary to point them in the right direction. SJI will assist other state 

courts in adapting the Alaska portal. SJI will also work with other stakeholders to determine if 

there are additional portal solutions that can be developed and adapted. Leveraging AI whenever 

possible will be key to these efforts. 

With SJI grant funding, the Utah and New York judiciaries were able to develop ODR platforms 

to better assist litigants. Both states launched ODR platforms that are mandatory for small 

claims cases. Recently, SJI provided support to develop ODR platforms for: 1) the Tennessee 

Judiciary to address medical debt cases; 2) the Iowa Judiciary to address landlord/tenant 

disputes; 3) and the Ohio Judiciary to address evictions/foreclosures and family cases. These

systems allow parties to access their case online, communicate and negotiate a resolution, 

receive individualized assistance from a facilitator, and if necessary, involve a judge. The 

systems guide users to their trial date, which is often held online. Court processes are adapted to 

work efficiently in an online environment without sacrificing the rights or interests of parties. 

ODR is proving to be easier, faster, and cheaper than traditional practice, while providing all 

parties the opportunity to be heard and treated fairly. 

Code Assessments and Technology Documentation

Before states can adopt innovative solutions such as portals and ODR, these solutions must be

assessed by outside reviewers to understand how the code base works, and the barriers for 

bringing a new jurisdiction on-board. The unknown for a new state is how the code is 

architected. SJI is supporting these reviews, which are being conducted by expert code 

reviewers who knows the courts, and also have a strong technology background. The experts are

assessing how ready the code base is for adoption by other jurisdictions, and assisting in the 

adaptation. Technical and business process documentation needs are being created, to ease the 

rollout of technologies to new jurisdictions.

The FY 2023 request will enable SJI to further promote technology advances in the state courts.

 

4 Legal information and user interview questions were developed for the following six case types: Domestic

Violence; Sexual Assault; Stalking; Ending the Marriage; Custody/Parenting Plans Between Unmarried Parents

Child Support; Debt Collection; and Eviction.
19 

Project Grants

Project Grants are the centerpiece of SJI’s efforts to improve the administration of justice in state 

courts nationwide, and are intended to: 1) formulate new court procedures and techniques, or 

creatively enhance existing procedures and techniques; 2) address aspects of state judicial 

systems that are in special need of attention; 3) develop products, services, and techniques of 

national significance that may be used in other states; and/or 4) create and disseminate products 

that transfer information and ideas developed for relevant audiences, or provide technical 

assistance to facilitate the adaptation of effective programs in other court jurisdictions. 

There have been many successful Project Grants funded by SJI. These include support to: the 

Pennsylvania Courts for a National Open Data Standards project; the Texas Judiciary to examine 

and enhance remote hearings; the Center for Court Innovation to develop an online human 

trafficking tool and technical assistance; the Missouri Judiciary to develop a comprehensive 

circuit court realignment plan, as required by state law; the Judicial Council of California for a 

pretrial risk assessment project; the Minnesota Judicial Branch to expand an electronic 

conservatorship system by adding guardianship filing to improve compliance and effectively 

monitor the safety of wards; the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts to improve 

access to justice for native peoples in state courts; and the North Carolina Administrative Office 

of the Courts to support a statewide commission on judicial reform. 

Technical Assistance Grants

Technical Assistance (TA) Grants provide state and local courts with funding to obtain expert 

assistance to diagnose a problem, develop a response to that problem, and initiate 

implementation of any needed changes. While much smaller in size, scope, and awarded amount 

than Project or Partner Grants, TA Grants are still valuable to state courts because they help them 

address significant issues such as caseload, strategic planning, and court procedures. 

SJI awards numerous TA Grants each year that have a positive impact on the state courts. This 

includes grants to: the New Hampshire Judicial Branch for a technology project; the 37th Judicial 

Circuit of Alabama for a caseload assessment to improve operations; the Kansas Judicial Branch 

to improve and expand services to self-represented litigants; the 18th Judicial District of Kansas 

to transition from a centralized to individual court calendaring system; the Connecticut Judicial 

Branch for electronic records management and triage projects; the Pennsylvania Courts for the 

translation of the most critical statewide court forms into other languages, including landlordtenant and expungement; the Texas courts for various projects, including family law cases and 

municipal court improvements; and the Illinois Supreme Court for a mental health task force 

implementation project. 

In addition to supporting TA Grants in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, SJI has also 

supported the judiciaries in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands. 
20 

Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grants

Curriculum Adaptation & Training (CAT) Grants enable courts and national court associations to 

modify and adapt model curricula or course modules to meet state or local jurisdiction 

educational needs; train instructors; and pilot-test curricula. More specifically, CAT Grants are 

intended to enable courts, court associations, and court support organizations to create, modify, 

and adapt model curricula or course modules to meet national, state, or local educational needs; 

train instructors to present portions or all of the curricula; and pilot-test them to determine their 

appropriateness, quality, and effectiveness. In addition, CAT Grants help conduct judicial 

branch education and training programs led by either expert or in-house personnel, designed to 

prepare judges and court personnel for innovations, reforms, and/or new technologies recently 

adopted by grantee courts. These grants are extremely important because state court budget 

reductions have significantly reduced, and in some cases eliminated, judicial training 

opportunities. CAT Grants support in-state training and certification programs, some of which 

are conducted online using proven distance learning models, thereby minimizing travel costs and 

taking advantage of training resources that are still available. 

Recent CAT Grants include support to: the New York Unified Court System for a judicial 

faculty development program; the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts for an online 

Kentucky Pretrial Service Education Program; the Lubbock County, Texas judiciary for a 

training on mental health cases; the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts for a business 

courts curriculum; the American Judges Association for domestic violence educational 

programming; the Georgia Council of Superior Court Judges for a judicial education project; the 

National Association of Women Judges for judicial education on elder issues and the courts; and 

the National Judicial College for a state court faculty development training curriculum. 

Education Support Program

SJI’s Education Support Program (ESP) enhances the skills, knowledge, and abilities of judges 

and court managers by supporting attendance at programs sponsored by national and state

providers that they could not otherwise attend because of limited state, local, and personal 

budgets. The program also provides state courts, judicial educators, and court staff with 

evaluative information on a range of judicial and court-related education programs. ESP awards 

are provided to qualifying judges and court managers to attend out-of-state, court-related 

educational programs within the United States, or online court-related educational programs. 
21

IV. Conclusion

SJI remains the only source of federal or private funding dedicated exclusively to improving the 

quality of justice in the state courts. There is a strong national interest in continuing to support 

the state courts, as there is with federal funding for state and local law enforcement, corrections, 

prosecution, and public defense. The state courts handle over 99 percent of all the cases in the 

United States.

5

 

Many state courts are struggling to provide efficient and effective services to the public during 

the COVID-19 pandemic. Civil actions – foreclosures, tort, contract, small claims, probate, 

mental health, and civil appeals cases – constitute a growing area for state courts as the 

population ages, discovery delays increase, appeals courts are inundated with dissatisfied 

litigants and substantive legal challenges, and rental markets are saturated with homeowners 

displaced by foreclosures. SJI has experienced an increase in grant applications seeking 

assistance to help the state courts become more administratively effective, so that they can 

address these issues. SJI support provides the state courts with significant opportunities to

reorganize, innovate, and improve service delivery to the public. 

Many states have established human trafficking, domestic violence, and sexual assault laws for

victims, modeled after federal laws and policies. These federal and state laws are focused 

primarily on law enforcement and prosecution, and the state courts need to be knowledgeable 

about the impact of these laws on victims and their families. For example, state court judges can 

play a significant role in identifying victims of human trafficking and linking them to appropriate 

services. In addition to supporting direct technical assistance to the state courts, SJI will also 

continue coordinating with its federal partners to promote collaboration between the state courts 

and federal agencies on this critical issue. 

In addition to addressing the opioid crisis, SJI is currently addressing mental illness in state court 

cases. This is in response to the increasing complexity of handling individuals in state courts 

who have mental illness, and oftentimes a co-occurring substance use issue. System-wide, 

mental illness has placed a strain on many communities and their resources, and jails are being 

used to detain those who need mental health treatment. The problem is exacerbated by the lack 

of a coordinated national, state, and community effort involving all three branches of 

government. In addition, lack of resources, empirically-based data, and a clearinghouse for state 

court leaders to learn the practical steps they can take to address the problem in their court 

systems also contribute to the problem. 

5 National Center for State Courts. Court Statistics Project. 2018. State Court Caseload Digest.
22

Working with CCJ/COSCA, SJI has identified four areas for further action in addressing mental 

health: 1) developing resources, best practices, and recommended standards in state court 

responses to mental health issues; 2) improving caseflow management by examining civil 

commitment and criminal cases involving persons with mental illness to identify barriers to, and 

opportunities for, timely and effective case processing; 3) promoting education; and 4) building 

capacity to implement reforms. 

In addition to struggling with the COVID-19 pandemic, the state courts continue to deal with the 

fallout of severe budget reductions. Given that 90 percent of state court budgets are personnel 

costs, it is not surprising that many courts are still reducing staff. This will negatively impact 

their efforts to provide services to those most vulnerable and susceptible to denial of basic needs. 

In addition, there is significant concern that this could erode public trust and confidence in the 

state courts when access to justice is limited due to resources and capacity. Therefore, a strong 

SJI grant program is required to assist the state courts in better serving the public, and 

administering justice fairly and effectively. 

SJI will continue leveraging funding whenever possible to help the state courts address the most 

critical issues in FY 2023. The effectiveness of the state courts is critical to ensuring that the 

public experiences the justice guaranteed by the Constitution. The funding requested for FY 

2023 will enable SJI to continue identifying issues that impact all courts, fostering innovative 

solutions, and sharing information on successful approaches nationwide. 
V. Exhibits

3 3 7,200

13

24

(3)

(1)

Total Adjustments to Base 33

FY 2023 Current Services 3 3 7,233

407

0 0 407

3 3 $7,640

FY 2023 Request

Adjustments to Base

Personnel Compensation

Amount

Rent, Communications & Utilities

Program Changes

 Perm. Pos. FTE

Other Services

Supplies, & Materials

Total, Program Changes

A: Summary of Requirements

FY 2022 Enacted

Summary of Requirements

State Justice Institute

Salaries and Expenses

(Dollars in Thousands)

FY 2023 Total Request

23
24 

Pos. FTE Amount Pos. FTE Amount Pos. FTE Amount Pos. FTE Amount Pos. FTE Amount

3 3 836 0 0 33 3 3 869 0 0 0 3 3 869

454 454 0 454

4,695 4,695 407 5,102

725 725 0 725

315 315 0 315

175 175 0 175

6,364 0 6,364 407 6,771

3 3 $7,200 0 0 $33 3 3 $7,233 0 0 $407 3 3 $7,640

Education Support Program

General Administration

Grants

 FY 2022 Enacted FY 2023 Current Services 

Strategic Initiatives Grants

Grand Total

Subtotal, Grants

(Dollars in Thousands)

Summary of Requirements

State Justice Institute

 FY 2023 Request 

Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grants

Estimates by Budget Activity

 FY 2023 Adjustments to Base 

Technical Assistance Grants

Project Grants

 FY 2023 Program Changes 

Salaries and Expenses
25 

Other Services: For FY 2023, this request includes a decrease of -$2,676 for other services.

Supplies: For FY 2023, this requests includes decrease of -$1,400 for supplies.

State Justice Institute

Increases

Communications & Utilities: The request includes a decrease of -$1,928 for other communications and utilities in FY 2023.

B. Justification for Base Adjustments

Personnel Compensation: For FY 2023, this request includes an increase of $31,240 in salaries and benefits.

Rent, Communications, & Utilities: The request includes an increase of $25,384 for rent costs in FY 2023.

Justification for Base Adjustments

Decreases
26 

FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount

3 326 3 335 0 9

3 326 3 335 0 9

127 130 3

34 34 0

71 96 25

11 9 (2)

9 9 0

253 252 (1)

2 1 (1)

1 1 0

2 2 0

3 836 3 869 0 33

6,364 6,771 407

 Total Obligations 3 $7,200 3 $7,640 0 $440

Subtotal, General Administration

 Subtotal, Grant Funding

12.0 Personnel benefits

21.0 Travel and transportation of persons

(Multiple) Comm., util., & other misc. charges

24.0 Printing and reproduction

31.0 Equipment

28.1 Taxes & Fees

23.1 Rent

25.0 Other services

26.0 Supplies, & Materials

Other Object Classes:

Salaries and Expenses

Object Classes

(Dollars in Thousands)

Increase/Decrease

11.1 Salaries

FY 2023 Request

Total 

C: Summary of Requirements by Object Class

Summary of Requirements by Object Class

State Justice Institute

FY 2022 Enacted