December 2007

E-SJI News

Vol. 18, No. 3

What’s Inside

Scholarship Reimbursement (cont.) 2 The Role of the Court in Problem-Solving Courts 2 Announcements 3

On Wednesday, December 19, 2007,

Congress passed and the President is

expected to sign H.R. 2764, the FY 2008

Omnibus appropriations bill which provides funding for the majority of the

Federal government. The spending bill

includes $3,760,000 for SJI, which is an

increase of $305,000 (or 8.8%) over

FY 2006 and 2007 levels. SJI recognizes

the tough budget environment this fiscal

year, which makes the Institute all the more

appreciative of the increase provided by

Congress. SJI also greatly appreciates the

time and effort of House and Senate appropriations staff and other Congressional staff

who continue to support SJI’s mission. 

SJI will provide the final public law and any

other appropriations information in the

January E-SJI News.

STATUS OF FY 2008 APPROPRIATIONS

In recent months, SJI has been carefully reviewing the Scholarship

Program and making various

changes which have been mentioned in previous versions of the ESJI News. 

SJI would like to remind both applicants and recipients that scholarship

funding may not be used to supplant

State funding for training courses.

SJI scholarship funds were never

intended to be used in lieu of funding that would have been contributed by the courts towards personnel training. For example, if a

State already has training funds

available to send a judge or court

manager to a class, then it would be

supplanting State funds, should the

individual apply for and receive a

SJI scholarship. In other words, the

State would be using SJI funds to

“free up” State funds for other purposes. 

SJI recently introduced a revised

Scholarship Application Form

(Forms S1 and S2) that specifically

ask whether there are State funds

budgeted to cover the courses, and

if so, how much. In the past, some

states have requested that SJI send

the scholarship check directly to the

court, because they were providing

an advance to the individual to

allow payment prior to the program.

Since this makes it difficult for SJI

to determine if supplantation of

existing court/state funds is occurring, SJI is now requiring that all

scholarship funds be sent directly to

the scholarship recipient.

To apply for reimbursement, the

recipient should submit a Scholarship Payment Voucher (Form S3) to

SJI, together with a certificate of

attendance, a paid tuition statement

from the program sponsor, a transportation fare receipt (or statement

of the driving mileage to and from

the recipient’s home to the site of

the educational program), and a

SCHOLARSHIP REIMBURSEMENT

continued on next page
Page 2 E-SJI News - Vol. 18, No. 3

THE ROLE OF THE COURT IN PROBLEM-SOLVING CASES

In 2006, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of

Justice Assistance (BJA) and SJI held a two-day meeting of judges and court administrators to discuss how

problem solving court programs function within, and

are influenced by, the traditional court system. This

group included members who did not directly work in

a problem-solving court program, but who had extensive experience with court management issues within

jurisdictions where problem-solving courts operate. 

One of the questions that continued to be asked at the

meeting was, “what is the role of the court in many of

the problem-solving cases?” There is a general acceptance that drug courts work and the success of that

approach has set a precedent for adopting more problem-solving approaches for other types of cases. Yet

one of the first challenges from the traditional court

perspective was determining whether the role of the

court is to solve societal issues, or simply to adjudicate

cases that come into the justice system. In some cases,

moving the problem-solving approach into areas that

were not normally a part of the system was viewed as

problematic for the court, and would actually cause a

net-widening impact. For example, the validity of

homeless courts was questioned, given that being

homeless is not illegal even though there may be some

homeless defendants that do get involved in criminal

activity. It was noted that in some homeless courts,

individuals were being brought to court on public nuisance charges, which would not have resulted in the

same action for an individual on the street who was not

homeless. Some court personnel felt that courts

should not have the same hold on these individuals as

they would if a more serious issue was involved. In

addition, it was also noted that using these charges for

the homeless, even though it did provide some advantages for the defendant (placing him/her in a shelter,

etc.), further raised the question of fairness. Are all

individuals with the same types of charges being treated the same way by the court, or are the homeless

being treated differently simply because they are

homeless?

Some of the traditional court participants argued that

courts were being pushed to become gatekeepers for

social services or health concerns that should be handled by the relevant social service providers, not the

courts. This was concerning to some of the participants, even though the individuals were receiving

helpful services. Several participants noted that the

loss of the adversarial approach in many of the problem-solving courts was also problematic for traditional court personnel. The participants agreed that they

were not interested in simply promoting a contentious

adversarial process that would slow the court system

down, but they noted the importance of maintaining an

approach that allowed different positions to be considered to assure that the full situation of the defendant

was understood, and appropriate measures were

applied. They wanted to be sure that the adversarial

process would not be lightly put aside in problem-solving techniques, and that courts should always keep an

eye on the fairness of the approach being used to

assure that all individuals are being treated equally in

the justice system.

The participants of this meeting agreed that there was

clear evidence that judicially-supervised drug offenders have lower recidivism and better outcomes in many

problem-solving courts, and it would be helpful to

encourage continued use of the techniques that have

been developed for these cases. However, they also

wanted to be sure courts carefully consider the purpose

and need for such programs and examine the fairness

and appropriate role of the court in such efforts.

SJI staff has been advised by our Partner that the report

from this meeting will be published soon. SJI will put

a notice in the E-SJI News once the report is released.

Scholarship Reimbursement

continued from previous page

lodging receipt. These should be submitted within 90

days after the end of the course. Recipients should

keep in mind that scholarships are limited for payment

of: tuition, transportation, and reasonable loding

expenses not to exceed $150 per night, including

taxes. Costs to pay for items such as meals, materials,

transportation to and from airports, or local transportation at the program site, must be paid from other

sources or borne by the scholarship recipient.

Scholarship applicants are encouraged to check other

sources of financial assistance and to combine aid

from various sources whenever possible. 
Page 3 E-SJI News - Vol. 18, No. 3

SJI News is published by the State Justice Institute

1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314 

(703) 684-6100 Fax: (703) 684-7618 Web site address: http://www.statejustice.org

Editors

Janice Munsterman

Jonathan Mattiello

Design/Layout

Candice Jackson

Board of Directors

Chairman

Robert A. Miller

Chief Justice (Ret.)

Supreme Court of South Dakota

Pierre, SD

Vice Chairman

Joseph F. Baca

Chief Justice (Ret.)

New Mexico Supreme Court

Santa Fe, NM

Secretary

Sandra A. O’Connor

States Attorney of Baltimore County (Ret.)

Towson, MD

Executive Committee Member

Keith McNamara, Esq.

McNamara & McNamara

Columbus, OH

Terrence B. Adamson, Esq.

Executive Vice-President

The National Geographic Society

Robert N. Baldwin

Executive Vice President and 

General Counsel

National Center for State Courts

Carlos R. Garza, Esq.

Administrative Judge (Ret.)

Round Rock, TX

Sophia H. Hall

Administrative Presiding Judge

Circuit Court of Cook County

Chicago, IL

Tommy Jewell

Presiding Children’s Court Judge (Ret.)

Second Judicial District Court

Albuquerque, NM

Arthur A. McGiverin

Chief Justice (Ret.)

Supreme Court of Iowa

Des Moines, IA

Janice Munsterman

Executive Director

Jonathan Mattiello

Deputy Director

Van Debrick

Finance Director

The State Justice Institute is a private, nonprofit corporation established by Congress

in 1984 to provide support for projects to

improve the quality of justice in State

courts. SJI is governed by a Board of

Directors appointed by the President and

confirmed by the Senate.

CONTACT THE STAFF

Are you on the E-SJI News e-list? Would you like to be? If so, please send your name and email

address to cjackson@statejustice.org to start receiving the E-SJI Newsletter. 

Janice Munsterman, Executive Director

jmunsterman@statejustice.org, Ext. 202

Jonathan Mattiello, Deputy Director

jmattiello@statejustice.org, Ext. 210

Van Debrick, Finance Director

vdebrick@statejustice.org, Ext. 203

LaVerne Durham, Program Manager

ldurham@statejustice.org, Ext. 204

Candice Jackson, Office Manager

cjackson@statejustice.org, Ext. 200

Ryan Williams, Finance Manager

rwilliams@statejustice.org, Ext. 206

ANNOUNCEMENTS

The December 5, 2007, Federal Register provides the SJI Final Grant

Guideline for FY 2008. A PDF copy is available on the SJI Website:

www.statejustice.org. 

As a reminder, beginning in FY 2008, Scholarship applications are no longer

tied to educational programs within a specific quarter. Applicants may apply

at any time for any program during the fiscal year. Scholarships will be considered on a first-come, first-served basis, rather than the previous method of

applying for scholarships during the preceding calendar quarter for educational programs beginning in specific quarters. Applications are reviewed on a

quarterly basis. 

Next Application Deadline: Applications for all grants and scholarships must

be received by SJI on February 1, 2008, to be considered for the second quarter of FY 2008. Please be advised this is NOT a mail date, but the date the

application must physically be received by SJI. The Board will meet to make

grant decisions in April 2008, so projects are cautioned not to have start dates

before May 1, 2008.