12700 Fair Lakes Dr., Suite 340 

Fairfax, VA 22033

jonathan.mattiello@sji.gov 

703.690.4979

SJI.gov

FISCAL YEAR 2022

BUDGET REQUEST

May 2021
1

Table of Contents

 Page No.

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

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

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

IV. Conclusion.....................................................................................................22

V. Exhibits .........................................................................................................24

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 the impact of human trafficking;

improve services for our military families; reengineer to improve efficiency and effectiveness;

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

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

worthwhile projects that have enhanced state court performance and accountability. 

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. State court proceedings and court-based 

programs are the lynchpin for implementation of timely child placement decisions, civil 

protection orders, and criminal prosecutions. SJI grants improve these systems at the local, state, 

and national levels.
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 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 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.

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. In FY 2021, 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.

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. 
5

 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 – SJI promotes and supports innovative technology projects that will 

improve court processes and procedures, including technology 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; 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 lead their courts in future reform 

efforts.

For FY 2022, SJI requests $7,600,000 to enhance its efforts to improve the quality of justice in 

the state courts. The request is $600,000 above the amount included for SJI in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260).
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.), [$7,000,000] $7,600,000, of which 

$500,000 shall remain available until September 30, [2022] 2023: 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] 504 of this Act, the State Justice Institute shall be 

considered an agency of the United States Government.
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, 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.

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 
9

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 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. 

Based on the interim report of the President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and 

the Opioid Crisis, on August 10, 2017, the President directed the Administration to use all 

appropriate authority to respond to the opioid epidemic. The State Justice Institute (SJI), in 

coordination with state court leaders, including the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and the 

Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA), executed a plan of action, which included

additional SJI resources to address the opioid crisis. 

Beginning in FY 2017, SJI began supporting 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, this initiative is identifying and documenting current interbranch activities to address the opioid crisis. Representatives from state and federal government 

and key national organizations are sharing existing strategies and identifying unmet needs. The 

initiative is creating partnerships with entities 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 to developing guiding principles that state courts can use for successful collaboration 

among treatment providers, criminal justice systems, and child welfare agencies.

FY 2017 SJI funding was provided to create the National Judicial Opioid Task Force (NJOTF). 

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 to date 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 recent report by 

DHS/Administration for Children and Families shows that, after years of decline, the number of 

children in foster care is rising. Nearly three-quarters of all states reported an increase in the 

number of children entering foster care from FY 2014 to 2015. From FY 2012 to 2018, the 

percentage of removals nationally due to parental substance abuse increased 13 percent to 36

percent.1 Nationally, foster care costs increased from $7.6 billion in 2012, to $ 9.2 billion in 

2015. This represents a 21.6 percent increase in cost.2 The number of children served in foster 

care has increased in many states. For example, between FY 2012 and 2018: Georgia – 80

percent; Indiana – 60 percent; Kentucky – 34 percent; and Ohio – 6 percent.

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 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. 

1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (2018).

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport26.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) (2017).

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

In FY 2019, SJI partnered with The U.S. Department of Justice/Bureau of Justice Assistance 

(BJA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) 

to provide funding to 8 rural demonstration sites to address the opioid crisis. SJI funding is 

encouraging the sites to include the state courts in their work, and enable courts to have the 

resources they need to contribute to the overall objectives of each demonstration sites. 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 technical assistance for this 

initiative. 

To address the impact of opioids on children in state courts, BJA and IIR are partnering with SJI 

to support intensive training and technical assistance effort designed to assist local courts and 

their stakeholders in strongly aligning existing opioid initiatives in their communities, and 

developing comprehensive and multidisciplinary approaches to more effectively respond to 

Opioid Use Disorders (OUD) and other emerging drug threats. 

SJI and its partners have been working to address mental illness/mental health on a national 

impact level over the past year. 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 abuse 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 great 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. With

additional resources in FY 2021, SJI will partner with key stakeholders to continue its efforts to 

address the intersection of substance abuse and mental illness.

In FY 2021, SJI will established a Behavioral Health Collaborative Grant Program to 

document and promote innovative court-based programs that are addressing substance abuse and 

mental illness. SJI and its collaborative partners will 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 abuse 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 abuse.

The FY 2022 request will 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. 

With SIG funding, SJI is currently supporting 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 the National 

Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges (NCJFCJ). The Collaborative is 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.

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.
14

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 recently been working 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.

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.

SJI is currently funding the Juvenile Justice Reform and State Courts Initiative, which will 

enable the Resource Center partners to develop national resources and TA for the state courts on 

this critical area. In collaboration with CCJ and COSCA, the initiative will build on the 

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

Change Initiative.
15

The NCSC, NCSL, NCJFCJ, CCLP, NJDC, and RFK-NRC is 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. 

With SJI support, the NCJFC launched 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.
16

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.

State Court Reengineering to Improve Court Operations

In addition to struggling with the pandemic, the state courts continue to deal with the fallout of 

severe budget reductions as a direct result the economic downturn in 2008. Given that 90 

percent of state court budgets are personnel costs, it is not surprising that many courts are still 

reducing staff.

The budget crisis in the state courts was an emerging and national issue addressed by the SIG 

program. The short-term cost reductions taken by the state courts such as hiring freezes, 

furloughs, and layoffs, had long-term effects, but were not enough to meet the current economic 

demands for further reduction in costs. SJI awarded a SIG grant to the National Center for State 

Courts (NCSC) in FY 2009 to focus on reengineering in the state courts in response to severe 

budget cutbacks. NCSC began Phase I of these efforts by establishing the Budget Resource 

Center (BRC) – a website to track the latest budget issues and cost saving measures in the state 

courts, listed by state. NCSC also provided direct technical assistance to several sites, including: 

1) Vermont Judiciary – a workload assessment for judges and court staff was completed. Using 

the information from the workload study, various recommendations with potential savings were 

developed. A final report was provided to a commission charged with overseeing the project. 

The project began with the state legislature directing the judiciary to examine the court system 

and find efficiencies. Major legislation was passed that unified the courts in Vermont, which 

was a direct result of the final report’s recommendations; 2) 6th Judicial District of Minnesota –

NCSC assisted the Court in adjusting to reduced staff by instituting a change management 
17

process; 3) Salem, Oregon, Municipal Court – the goal of this project was to help the Court 

improve its collections processes. A final report was developed with recommendations which 

were implemented; and 4) Taylorsville, Utah, Municipal Justice Court – NCSC assisted in 

documenting and recommending operational efficiencies.

Additional phases of this program include new technical assistance sites in Alabama, Arkansas, 

New Hampshire, Nebraska, and other states. In addition, it included the continuation of the BRC 

and budget monitoring nationwide, and the development of a toolkit for reengineering that 

provides guidance in making policy decisions and implementing changes in areas such as 

centralized traffic tickets and payables; centralized jury operations; video conferencing; and 

utilizing technology. 

Fines, Fees, and Bail Practices

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

(CCJ) and the Conference of State Court Administrators (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 is to 

understand and address how fines, fees, and bail disproportionately impact the economically 

disadvantaged across the United States.

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

county, and municipal government. The Task Force co-chairs have 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 responsibilities, the Task Force is:

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

setting, collecting and waiving court-imposed payments;

 Compiling and creating suggested best practices for setting, processing and codifying the 

collection of fines and fees and bail;

 Reviewing and revising suggested guidelines for qualifications and oversight of judges in 

courts created by local governments or traffic courts, including reviewing and updating 

state codes of judicial conduct and the jurisdiction of judicial conduct commissions to 

ensure their applicability to all judges;

 Facilitating 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

 Developing an online clearinghouse of information containing resources and best 

practices.
18

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 has yet to be developed. With SJI support in FY 

2020, the Alaska Court System is developing legal content4 from which to draw to create 

personalized action plans for the user. 

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. 

4 Legal information and user interview questions is being 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

With additional support in FY 2021, 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. SJI will also continue support for the Court Component and Litigant Portal 

Exchange (LPX) Standards. New litigant portals will need to interface with other components 

such as ODR and e-filing. Standards are being developed to ensure that portals are developed to 

integrate with these other systems, so that courts have options to choose which functionality best 

meets their needs (“plug and play”). SJI will also continue promoting the use of standards by

vendors. 

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 provide support to the Tennessee Judiciary for an ODR platform to 

address medical debt cases, and the Iowa Judiciary for a platform to address landlord/tenant 

disputes. The 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 guides users to their trial date, which is often held online. Court processes were 

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. 

With additional support in FY 2022, SJI will assist other states in developing or adapting ODR 

solutions. 

Code Assessments and Technology Documentation

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

assessed by an outside reviewer 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. With SJI support in FY 2021, these reviews will be performed by an expert(s) code 

reviewer who knows the courts, and also has a strong technology background. The expert(s) will 

assess how ready the code base is for adoption by other jurisdictions, and assist in the adaptation. 

Technical and business process documentation needs will be created, to ease the rollout of 

technologies to new jurisdictions.

The FY 2022 request will enable SJI to further promote technology advances in state courts. 
20

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 

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 

recent state law; the Arkansas Supreme Court to implement statewide juvenile justice reforms; 

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; 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 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 6th District Court of Minnesota for an opioid reentry project; the 18th Judicial 

District of Kansas to transition from a centralized to individual court calendaring system; the 

Texas Municipal Courts Education Center for court customer service delivery enhancement 

across Texas; the Wyoming Supreme Court for a court security review, which ultimately 

leveraged significant resources for further security enhancements; and the 37th Judicial District 

of Alabama for a caseload assessment. 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. 

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; 
21

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 Texas Office of Court Administration for a 

Guardianship Online Training Course; the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts for a 

business courts curriculum; the American Judges Association for domestic violence educational 

programming; the St. Louis County, Missouri, Circuit Court for a Minimum Standards for 

Municipal Courts training program; 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. 

Cash Match

The Conference Report (H.R. 109-272) accompanying the FY 2006 Science, State, Justice, and 

Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-108) directed that successful 

applicants for new SJI grants provide a cash match. The impact of the dollar-for-dollar match 

has been profound – since FY 2005 awarded grants have included over $17 million in cash 

match. 5 This has had a significant impact on the state courts and court support organizations. 

After the cash match requirement was established a new dynamic emerged where the state courts 

and court support organizations combined their efforts to compete for SJI grants. The state

courts had the funding available for the cash match requirement, whereas the court organizations

had the expertise to apply for and execute grant projects. SJI now receives numerous grant 

applications where a state court has identified a critical issue to be addressed and a court-support 

5 In response to anticipated Congressional action on a cash match requirement, SJI begin requiring some levels of 

cash match for several new grants in FY 2005. The total amount of cash match included in new grant awards for 

FY 2005 was $193,764. 
22

organization to provide the technical assistance for the project. The result of the cash match 

requirement has been a far greater convergence of court needs and court-support organization 

capabilities; both of which have benefited judicial systems across the United States. 

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 97 percent of all the cases in the 

United States. This includes over 99 percent of all criminal and over 98 percent of all civil 

cases.

6

 

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 are establishing 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. 

6 National Center for State Courts. 2003. Examining the Work of State Courts, 2002: A National Perspective from 

the Court Statistics Project.
23

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 will continue to experience significant budget cuts into the future. 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. 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 2022, including the state courts response to the opioid crisis. 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 2022 will enable SJI to continue 

indentifying issues that impact all courts, fostering innovative solutions, and sharing information 

on successful approaches nationwide. 
V. Exhibits

2 2 7,000

123

(35)

(115)

(2)

29

Total Adjustments to Base 1 1 0

FY 2022 Current Services 3 3 7,000

600

0 0 600

FY 2022 Total Request 3 3 $7,600

A: Summary of Requirements

FY 2021 Enacted

Summary of Requirements

Travel & Transportation of Persons

State Justice Institute

Salaries and Expenses

(Dollars in Thousands)

Total, Program Changes

 Perm. Pos. FTE

Other Services

Program Changes

Strategic Initiatives Grants

FY 2022 Request

Adjustments to Base

Personnel Compensation

Amount

Rent, Communications & Utilities

Printing & Reproduction

24
25

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

2 2 827 1 1 0 3 3 827 0 0 0 3 3 827

454 454 0 454

4,504 4,504 600 5,104

725 725 0 725

315 315 0 315

175 175 0 175

6,173 0 6,173 600 6,773

2 2 $7,000 1 1 $0 3 3 $7,000 0 0 $600 3 3 $7,600

Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grants

Estimates by Budget Activity

 FY 2022 Adjustments to Base 

Technical Assistance Grants

Project Grants

 FY 2022 Increases 

Salaries and Expenses

 FY 2022 Request 

(Dollars in Thousands)

Summary of Requirements

State Justice Institute

Strategic Initiatives Grants

Grand Total

Subtotal, Grants

General Administration

Grants

 FY 2021 Enacted FY 2022 Current Services 

Education Support Program
26

B. Justification for Base Adjustments

Personnel Compensation: For FY 2022, this request includes an increase of $106,237 in salaries and benefits to support an additional FTE.

Justification for Base Adjustments

Decreases

Travel & Transportation of Persons: For FY 2022, this request includes a decrease of -$34,500 for travel.

Other Services: For FY 2022, this request includes an increase of $29,285 for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and General Services Administration (GSA) 

accounting/payroll support.

State Justice Institute

Increases

Printing: For FY 2022, this request includes a decrease of -$2,000 for reduced printing costs in the Federal Register.

Rent, Communications, & Utilities: The request includes a decrease of -$114,764 for rent and other costs in FY 2022.
27

FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount

2 239 3 320 1 81

2 239 3 320 1 81

83 125 42

68 32 (36)

186 71 (115)

11 11 0

11 9 (2)

223 255 32

2 2 0

1 1 0

2 2 0

2 826 3 828 1 2

6,174 6,772 598

2 $7,000 3 $7,600 1 $600

FY 2022 Request

Total 

C: Summary of Requirements by Object Class

Summary of Requirements by Object Class

State Justice Institute

FY 2021 Enacted

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