12700 Fair Lakes Dr., Suite 340 

Fairfax, VA 22033

jonathan.mattiello@sji.gov 

703.690.4979

SJI.gov

Fiscal Year 2025

Budget R equest

March 2024
1

Table of Contents

 Page No.

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

II. Appropriations Language ..............................................................................6

III. SJI Grant Programs.......................................................................................7

IV. Conclusion.....................................................................................................23

V. Exhibits .........................................................................................................25

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; recover 

from the COVID-19 pandemic; improve services for military families; enhance court security;

promote fiscally-sound and data-driven policies and practices on sentencing; and promote access 

to justice. SJI has also supported many worthwhile projects that have improved 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, especially 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 issues 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. 

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 2024, 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. 
4 

 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.

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.

 
5 

 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. 

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 2025, SJI requests $7,640,000 to enhance its efforts to improve the quality of justice in 

the state courts. The request is equal to the amount included for SJI in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328). 
6 

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.), [$7,640,000] $7,640,000, of which 

$500,000 shall remain available until September 30, [2025] 2026: 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, 2023 – Division B, 

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023.) 

Note.—A full year 2024 appropriation for SJI was not enacted at the time the Budget prepared; 

therefore the Budget assumes SJI is under the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2024 and Other 

Extensions Act (Division A of Public Law 118-15, as amended). The amounts included for 2024 

reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution. 
7 

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 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, COVID-19 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 an award. 

SJI also hosts an online Funding Toolkit for state courts and justice system partners. The 

purpose of the Toolkit is to assist state courts and their partners in pursuing grant and funding 

opportunities outside of SJI, such as other federal agency grant solicitations and philanthropic 

funding. The Toolkit provides resources that encompass the entire grant seeking, writing, and 

management process, such as: current funding opportunities; planning checklists; sample 
8 

documents; frequently asked questions, and fact sheets. SJI also provides technical assistance to 

users during the grant development and writing process. The Toolkit enables SJI to maximize 

access to funding for state courts beyond its annual appropriation. 

The state courts are unlikely to experience any budget relief in the near future, and many courts 

struggle to recruit and retain talented judges and staff. Therefore, SJI expects the demand for 

grant assistance will continue to increase. These grants are critical to state and local courts, and 

the FY 2025 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, cybersecurity, 

and juvenile and family justice reform.

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 CCJ, 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.
9 

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:

 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 

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.
10 

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 

(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. 
11 

 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. 

 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 is providing 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. 
12 

The FY 2025 request will enable SJI to continue addressing these critical issues. 

Child Abuse and Neglect, Family and Juvenile Justice Reform

Approximately 437,300 abused and neglected children live in foster care in the United States. 

Every day, state court judges are faced with difficult decisions impacting these children, 

continually challenged to find the right solutions in each of their cases.4 In 2020, 34 percent of 

child maltreatment victims were under age 3, more than half were female (51 percent), 44 

percent were white, and the majority (61 percent) experienced neglect.5 In 2020, American 

Indian/Alaskan Natives, Black, multiple race, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic youth were more 

likely to be victimized than white youth.6

In the 1980s, with the implementation of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 

19807 juvenile and family court judges became responsible for ensuring that a safe, permanent, 

and stable home was secured for each abused or neglected child coming before the court. The 

Act addressed the growing concern that children were being “lost” in foster care through the 

provision of preventive services and permanency planning. The law required courts to evaluate 

the reasonableness of services provided to preserve families, hold periodic review hearings in 

foster care cases, adhere to deadlines for permanency planning decisions, and comply with 

procedural safeguards concerning placement and visitation. 

By the early 1990s, law and policymakers were beginning to recognize the need for timely 

decision-making and active judicial case oversight for abused and neglected children, resulting in 

the passage in 1997 of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA),

8

 which marked the 

culmination of more than two decades of reform in the child welfare field. The Act codified 

many innovative state policies and practices that had emerged to respond to the multiple, often 

complex, needs of children and families. ASFA put time limits in place for permanency and the 

termination of parental rights so that children are provided safe and stable permanent placements 

more quickly. ASFA established the child’s health and safety as the paramount concern in foster 

care cases.

4 National Association of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Online. Available: https://www.ncjfcj.org/childwelfare-and-juvenile-law/child-abuse-and-neglect/.

5 OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Online. Available: 

https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/victims/qa02102.asp?qaDate=2020. Released on April 18, 2022.

6 OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Online. Available: 

https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/victims/qa02107.asp?qaDate=2020. Released on April 18, 2022. 

7 P.L. 96-272.

8 P.L. 105-89.
13 

As a result of these federal laws, and related legislation passed in the states, child abuse and 

neglect proceedings in the nation’s juvenile and family courts were transformed. ASFA clearly 

established juvenile and family court judges’ role as the gatekeepers of our nation’s foster care 

system. New demands were placed upon the courts, with the court’s oversight responsibilities 

requiring a large portion of the court’s attention, workload, and resources. Unfortunately, many 

courts had neither the ability nor the resources to meet these demands. As a result, in many 

jurisdictions, the quality of the court process gravely suffered. Hearings were often rushed, and 

there were frequent and unfortunate delays in the timing of hearings and decisions, which 

resulted in children being left to grow up without permanent homes. 

The report9 accompanying the FY 2023 House Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related 

Agencies (CJS) Appropriations Bill included the following language: 

The additional funding is provided to enhance the Institute’s efforts to improve the 

quality of justice in State courts and address the unique challenges of the opioid 

epidemic, mental health issues, juvenile justice, child abuse, and court technology. 

In response, SJI awarded grants through a special Request for Applications (RFA) process in FY 

2023. The purpose of these grants is to further improve state court efforts in addressing child 

abuse and neglect. The projects will enhance state and local court ability to handle challenging 

cases, and better serve youth and their families. The projects are also addressing one or more of 

the following key principles: 

 Keeping families together; 

 Ensuring access to justice; 

 Cultivating cultural responsiveness; 

 Engaging families through alternative dispute resolution techniques; 

 Ensuring child safety, permanency, and well-being; 

 Ensuring adequate and appropriate family time; 

 Providing judicial oversight; 

 Ensuring competent and adequately compensated representation; and, 

 Advancing the development of adequate resources. 

In addition to meeting all other application requirements, SJI gave priority consideration for 

funding to projects that focused on institutionalizing, replicating, and/or building on national best 

practices and procedures surrounding child abuse and neglect case processing. Projects do not 

duplicate existing activities supported by other sources, such as the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services/Children's Bureau's Court Improvement Program.

SJI provided support to the NCJFCJ’s Enhanced Juvenile Justice Guidelines, which ensures that 

courts have a way to ensure their practices are aligned with recommended practice. In 2017, the 

NCJFCJ updated the Guidelines to ensure that the resource was relevant to the field. In the years 

between the original publication and the update, there were significant changes in juvenile justice 

9 The FY 2022 Senate CJS Bill did not have an accompanying report.
14 

practice, such as advances in brain science and a better understanding of adolescent behavior. 

With SJI additional support in FY 2019 , the NCJFCJ selected 4 juvenile court jurisdictions sites 

to participate in an Enhanced Juvenile Justice Guidelines demonstration project. These sites 

provided the NCJFCJ with information about the accessibility and usability of the Guidelines, 

which assisted in further development of tools and technical assistance. Finally, in FY 2023, SJI 

support is enabling the NCJFCJ to: 1) further develop the Court Self-Assessment Tool; 2) 

identify and address the needs of the juvenile justice field through the use of additional 

demonstration sites to expand the focus areas to include dual status youth and youth with mental 

health disorders; and 3) promulgate the Guidelines as widely as possibly to ensure its broad 

adoption nationwide. 

Juvenile court judges are the most important public figures in the juvenile justice system–their 

decisions impact whether hundreds of thousands of youth each year become court involved and 

for how long, whether they are involuntarily removed from their homes and communities, and 

the services they receive. Despite the importance of these judges, states and locales have 

generally not assessed whether and how the structure, roles, and operations of their juvenile 

courts support or hinder public safety and positive youth outcomes. 

With SJI support, the Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center and NCJFCJ 

conducted an analysis in 2021 of how courts that handle juvenile delinquency cases are 

structured and operate in all 50 states. The final report, Courting Judicial Excellence in Juvenile 

Justice: A 50-State Study, highlights key recommendations to improve juvenile court policy and 

practice and includes examples of best practices across the country. Key recommendations 

include: 

1. Establish specialized and dedicated juvenile and family court judges. 

2. Ensure that judges hearing delinquency cases have the tools and resources necessary 

to adjudicate delinquency cases in a developmentally appropriate way. 

3. Require all judges who hear delinquency cases to receive ongoing training on 

juvenile justice. 

4. Establish dedicated forums focused on strengthening and supporting juvenile courts.

5. Identify statewide performance measures for juvenile courts.

Building off the report, CSG and NCJFCJ conducted an implementation initiative that provided 

technical assistance to implement the recommendations in three states: Oregon, Montana, and 

Mississippi. CSG and NCJFCJ also created and launched a first of its kind juvenile justice court 

training institute on juvenile court research and best practices as a resource for judges that handle 

delinquency cases. 

In FY 2022, CSG and the NCJFCJ conducted a follow-up implementation initiative to advance 

the recommendations outlined in the report at both the state and national levels by: 1) providing 

intensive technical assistance for three states to strengthen juvenile court policy and practice, in 

alignment with research on what works to improve public and youth outcomes; and 2) creating 
15 

an unprecedented juvenile justice court training institute to serve as a resource for judges who 

handle delinquency cases. 

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. 

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

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. A second national summit was held in 2019 to further the national 

discussion by those engaged with justice-involved service members and how to best assist them. 

The Summit was a targeted “deep dive” into the realities of the information and practices needed 

to promote effective court-military systems communication and collaboration. 

SJI further 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. 

The Landscape of Domestic Relations in State Courts, published in 2018 by the SJI-funded Cady 

Initiative for Family Justice Reform documented the severe deficiencies in family court data. 

Since then, the NCSC has worked with courts to improve family case management. These efforts 

have not been fully successful because courts lack the data and/or capacity to analyze processes 

beyond the basics. For example, many cases, whether contested or uncontested, consume the 

same amount of time, demonstrating that cases are not managed commensurate with need. In 

part, this is because many courts are unable to distinguish until months after filing if a case is 

contested or not. Furthermore, the data revealed that one in four family cases, especially those 
16 

involving children, are reopened. Many courts are still challenged to report whether activity is 

pre- or post-decree.

In response, and with SJI grant support, the Cady Initiative created a cohort of courts that 

used data to manage family cases effectively, which serves as a national model. The NCSC: 1) 

selected 3-4 court sites according to strict readiness criteria, analyze their data, and 

recommended improvements; 2) conducted a dashboard that the courts populate and use to 

manage cases via individual and group coaching; and 3) analyzed collective results, publicized 

the findings, and solicit the next cohort of court sites. 

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. 

 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.

Despite major efforts to address the equitable enforcement of fines, fees, and bail, there remain 

serious issues. The unjust imposition of fines and fees also raises significant public policy 

concerns. Imposing and enforcing fines and fees on individuals who cannot afford to pay them 

has been shown to cause profound harm. The detrimental effects of unjust fines and fees fall 

disproportionately on low-income communities and people of color, who are overrepresented in 
17 

the criminal justice system. Fines and fees can be particularly burdensome for youth, who may 

be unable to pay court-issued fines and fees themselves, burdening parents and guardians who 

may face untenable choices between paying court debts or basic necessities. In addition, many 

jurisdictions continue to base pretrial release decisions on the payment of money as the primary 

condition, thus elevating the economic status of the defendant over risk assessments. This can 

lead to other disparities. For example, as people of color face disproportionately high rates of 

poverty, they are disproportionately more likely to be incarcerated. 

In response, SJI awarded a grant to the CCJ/COSCA Fines, Fees, and Pretrial Taskforce 2.0 in 

FY 2023, which will: 1) update the landscape of initiatives undertaken by state courts; 2) 

broaden the scope to include fees and fines in juvenile cases; and 3) develop and disseminate 

practical tools and educational materials to assist state courts across the country.

State Court Technology 

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

processes and procedures. 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. 

Additionally, SJI continues to support the examination of potential integration of Artificial 

Intelligence (AI) into court processes, including identification of positive outcomes and potential 

limitations of AI. In 2023, SJI awarded a grant to the NCSC to develop two products: 1) 

guidelines for the ethical and evidence-based use of AI technologies in the state courts; and 2) an 

AI Impact Assessment Tool for the state courts. The guidelines will provide a framework for 

defining norms, values, and ethical principles related to the uses of AI in state courts. The 

impact assessment tool will lead courts that are considering adopting specific AI tools through 

the decision-making process. The AI guidelines and AI Impact Assessment Tool will help 

ensure that state courts are aligned with each other and with the latest scientific developments in 

their policy making around AI. The project will build a structure for keeping both the guidelines 

and the impact assessment tool up to date as the science of AI advances.

State courts rely on secure and functional technology systems to serve the public; therefore, it is 

critical that court leadership have the knowledge and tools to mitigate, and to quickly respond to, 

events that impact those systems. This is especially important as cybersecurity attacks have 

increased in complexity and sophistication, paired with the impact of natural disasters on 

technology systems. Over the past few years, three state court systems, and many local courts 

have experienced cyberattacks. In 2024, SJI funded a grant to the NCSC to conduct five regional 

hybrid summits (online and then in-person), where court leaders will gain a deeper understanding 

of cybersecurity and technical disaster recovery resources and tools, enabling them to prevent, 

respond to, and recover from cybersecurity events. 
18 

Experts from the NCSC, Center for Internet Security/Multistate Information Sharing and 

Analysis Center will review, compile, and create materials that will be used both online and in 

person to facilitate the regional summits. The curriculum development process include a review 

of the materials by members of the COSCA and National Association for Court Management 

Joint Technology Committee. The regional summits will enable participants to better prepare 

for, and respond to cybersecurity events. Teams will be encouraged to establish recovery plans, 

policies, and annual tabletop exercises to ensure ongoing preparedness for cybersecurity and 

disaster recovery events.

With SJI grant funding, the Utah and New York judiciaries were able to develop Online Dispute 

Resolution (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; and 2) 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. 

The National Open Court Data Standards (NODS) were developed by the NCSC, and are 

endorsed by COSCA and the National Association for Court Management (NACM). The 

purpose of the SJI-funded NODS implementation project is to facilitate the consistency and 

sharing of state court data by standardizing logical and technical data standards. NCSC is 

working with states and courts to help them assess their needs, develop strategic plans for NODS 

adoption, helping courts map their data to the standards and then creating programs that enable 

consistent extracts. NCSC is also providing assistance to courts in developing data governance 

policies relative to data standards, data quality, and data sharing. NCSC will apply the 

knowledge gained from this process to create implementation case studies, improve the 

leadership and user guides to NODS, and create a NODS guide for users of court data. 

The Eviction Settlement Program (ESP) was created in June 2020 as a partnership between the 

City of Memphis, Tennessee, Shelby County, the Shelby County General Sessions Court 

Clerk, Neighborhood Preservations, Inc., Memphis Area Legal Services, the University of 

Memphis School of Law’s Legal Clinic, among other local partners, to provide settlement funds 

and pro-bono legal representation to housing insecure tenants during the pandemic. With SJI 

support, NPI is improving court data management and accessibility to assist the Shelby County 

Courts, Memphis-area attorneys, litigants, and social service providers in navigating eviction 

proceedings during and beyond the pandemic. External data collection and analysis will support 

the courts and its legal partners in implementing and charting the impacts of the ESP. Through 

data sharing and systems-level analyses, the project will assist court staff, judges, pro-bono 

attorneys, and housing-insecure tenants in preparing for virtual proceedings, determining The 
19 

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act10 eligibility of litigants, and 

examining the replicability of the ESP for post-pandemic court operations. NPI has: 

 Developed an easy-access, interactive database that provides hearing information for 

litigants, and flags for the courts any properties awaiting proceedings that are protected 

from eviction under the CARES Act; 

 Conducted an efficiency study of the current eviction case filing, hearing processes, and 

court operations in Shelby County; and 

 Conducted an evaluation and cost-analysis of the ESP. 

The database makes it possible to more quickly access information about upcoming cases and 

triage which tenants need immediate representation. The virtual platform created by this project 

will be available in perpetuity – a valuable asset for post-pandemic court operations. The 

evaluation of ESP, as well as the efficiency study of eviction proceedings in Shelby County 

courts, provided critical insights on how the courts may proceed with both pro-bono legal 

representation and eviction court proceedings following the pandemic. 

With SJI grant support the Puerto Rico Office of Courts Administration has improved remote 

access through remote email-filing and videoconferencing for emergency petitions. Residents 

with access to a computer, tablet, or a smart phone are able to:

 Request a restraining order under the Domestic Abuse Prevention Act and the Protection

of Victims of Sexual Violence in Puerto Rico Act; 

 Request to relocate minors outside of the jurisdiction and other urgent matters regarding 

family and juvenile affairs; and

 Request involuntary admission orders under the mental health code. 

The Judicial Branch developed case management interface features for the web-based

application, including: 1) a secure login feature to protect the petitioner’s personal information 

and index in one file all email linked to the petitioner; 2) the record and classification of the 

petitioner’s information to develop statistical reports; 3) a notification function for courts to 

quickly know a new petition has been filed; and 4) Integration of the email-filing system with the 

Judicial Branch webpage.

The FY 2025 request will enable SJI to further promote technology advances in the state courts.

 

10 P.L. 116-136.
20 

COVID-19 Pandemic Response and Recovery 

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

all justice-involved people drastically altered the way they conducted 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 

implemented strategies to continue providing access to justice. 

In immediate response to the pandemic, SJI supported the CCJ/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 has Emergency Preparedness and Cybersecurity as one of its Priority Investment Areas, and 

has invested considerable resources into supporting the courts in pandemic planning, response, 

and recovery activities. SJI supported projects that examined the future of judicial service 

delivery by identifying and replicating innovations and alternate means of conducting court 

business because of the pandemic. 

Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Elder Issues 

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. 
21 

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 

Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts for a summit on mental health; 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 strategic planning and technology 

projects; the Kansas Judicial Branch for an organizational assessment and to implement e-filing 

services for self-represented litigants; the 37th Judicial Circuit of Alabama for a caseload 

assessment to improve operations; 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 landlord-tenant 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. 
22 

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. 
23

Budget and Administration

Of the amount appropriated in FY 2024 under continuing resolutions,11 89 percent of funding 

will support grants and 11 percent will support General/Administration (G/A). The FY 2025 

request will continue this consistent trend of maximizing funding towards grant awards. During 

the fiscal year, SJI seeks opportunities to realign G/A funding towards grants whenever possible. 

Over the years, SJI has decreased costs by contracting with the General Services Administration 

for financial management and payroll services, and private firms for consulting and information 

technology support for day-to-day operations. SJI launched an online Grant Management 

System in 2020 which provides applicants and grantees a portal to apply for, and manage their 

grants. GMS has not only been overwhelmingly popular with applicants and grantees, but has 

also reduced the need for physical files and storage internally at SJI. SJI also relocated in its 

headquarters in FY 2021, reducing rent costs by approximately one-half. 

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.

12 In 2022, state courts handled 64.6 million new cases, an increase of 2 percent 

over 2021. New civil cases were up 5 percent from 2021 to 2022; domestic relations and 

criminal cases were up 2 percent; traffic cases increased by 1 percent; and juvenile cases, 

increased 7 percent. Nearly all of the increase in juvenile cases was a result of increased 

delinquency cases, reversing a downward trend over the last five years.

13

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

aftermath of 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. 

11 As provided by the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2024 and Other Extensions Act (P.L. 118-15), Further 

Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-22), and Further Additional Continuing 

Appropriations and Other Extensions Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-25).

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

13 National Center for State Courts. Court Statistics Project. 2024. 2022 Caseload Highlights.
24

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. 

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. 

The state courts continue to deal with the fallout of severe budget reductions and the ability to 

recruit and retain judges and court staff. 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 2025. 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 

2025 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 7,640

38

6

(1)

11

Total Adjustments to Base 54

FY 2025 Current Services 3 3 7,694

(54)

0 0 (54)

FY 2025 Total Request 3 3 $7,640

FY 2024 Continuing Resolutions Annualized

Summary of Requirements

State Justice Institute

Salaries and Expenses

(Dollars in Thousands)

Total, Program Changes

 Perm. Pos. FTE

Other Services

Program Changes

FY 2025 Request

Adjustments to Base

Personnel Compensation

Amount

Rent, Communications & Utilities

Printing & Reproduction

25
26 

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

3 3 928 0 0 54 3 3 982 0 0 0 3 3 982

712 712 0 712

4,695 4,695 (54) 4,641

725 725 0 725

315 315 0 315

265 265 0 265

6,712 0 6,712 (54) 6,658

3 3 $7,640 0 0 $54 3 3 $7,694 0 0 ($54) 3 3 $7,640

Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grants

Estimates by Budget Activity

 FY 2025 Adjustments to Base 

Technical Assistance Grants

Project Grants

 FY 2025 Program Changes 

Salaries and Expenses

 FY 2025 Request 

(Dollars in Thousands)

Summary of Requirements

State Justice Institute

Strategic Initiatives Grants

Grand Total

Subtotal, Grants

General Administration

Grants

 FY 2024 Continuing Resolutions 

Annualized FY 2025 Current Services 

Education Support Program
27 

B. Justification for Base Adjustments

Personnel Compensation: For FY 2025, this request includes an increase of $37,526 in salaries and benefits.

Rent, Communications, & Utilities: The request includes an increase of $5,646 for rent and communications costs in FY 2025.

Justification for Base Adjustments

Decreases

Other Services: For FY 2025, this request includes an increase of $11,322 for other services.

State Justice Institute

Increases

Printing: For FY 2025, this request includes a decrease of -$1,000 for commercial printing costs.
28 

FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount

3 339 3 366 0 27

3 339 3 366 0 27

132 142 10

34 34 0

97 102 5

9 10 1

9 8 (1)

251 263 12

1 1 0

1 1 0

1 1 0

3 874 3 928 0 54

6,766 6,712 (54)

3 $7,640 3 $7,640 0 $0

FY 2025 Request

Total 

C: Summary of Requirements by Object Class

Summary of Requirements by Object Class

State Justice Institute

FY 2024 CRs Annualized

25.0 Other services

26.0 Supplies, & Materials

Other Object Classes:

Salaries and Expenses

Object Classes

(Dollars in Thousands)

Increase/Decrease

11.1 Salaries

 Total Obligations

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