11951 Freedom Drive, Suite 1020

Reston, VA 20190

jonathan.mattiello@sji.gov 

571.313.8843

SJI.gov

FISCAL YEAR 2020

BUDGET REQUEST

MARCH 2019
1

Table of Contents

 Page No.

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

II. Appropriations Language and 

 Analysis of Appropriations Language ..........................................................5

III. SJI Grant Programs.......................................................................................6

IV. Conclusion.....................................................................................................18

V. Exhibits .........................................................................................................20

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. 

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

Areas. In FY 2019, the Priority Investment Areas are the following listed below in no specific 

order:

 Opioids and the State Courts Response – SJI is supporting a comprehensive strategy 

for responding to the challenges facing state courts in addressing the national opioid 

crisis. The Conference of Chief Justices/ Conference of State Courts Administrators 

(CCJ/COSCA) National Judicial Opioid Task Force is documenting current responses 

and developing effective solutions; identifying and addressing the impact on children, 

with specific emphasis on foster care/orphans, and child placement across state borders; 

establishing mechanisms for engaging justice system partners; providing immediate tools 

for use in the state courts, including treatment alternatives and assistance to establish 

local interdisciplinary treatment/care teams; and promoting information-sharing and 

collaboration at both the state and federal level, with a focus on strengthening 

Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs).

 Human Trafficking Issues in the State Courts – through the Human Trafficking and 

the State Courts Collaborative, SJI is addressing 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.

 Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Elder Issues – SJI is assisting the courts in 

improving their oversight responsibilities through visitor programs, electronic reporting, 

and training. SJI supported the development of an electronic conservatorship monitoring 

program, which is currently being adapted by other states. SJI recently provided support 

to develop a parallel guardianship monitoring program, with goal of adaption in other 

states. 

 Juvenile Justice Reform – SJI is supporting innovative projects that have no other 

existing or potential funding sources (federal, state, or private) that will advance best 

practices in handling dependency and delinquency cases, including cases involving

special populations such as military families. These projects 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.
4

 Reengineering to Improve Court Operations – SJI continues to assist state courts with 

the process of reengineering, regionalization or centralization of services, and structural 

changes while providing access to justice. This includes the innovative use of remote 

technology to improve the business operations of the courts, and provide for the 

transaction of court hearings without an appearance in a physical courtroom.

 Fines, Fees, and Bail Practices – SJI is assisting 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; and transparency, governance, and structural reforms that promote 

access to justice, accountability, and oversight. Projects that address this Priority 

Investment Area are informing the work of the Conference of Chief Justices/Conference 

of State Court Administrators (CCJ/COSCA) National Task Force on Fines, Fees, and 

Bail Practices.

 Civil Justice in the 21st Century – Americans deserve a civil legal process that fairly 

and promptly resolves disputes for everyone. Runaway costs, delays, and complexity are 

denying people and businesses the justice they seek. SJI is promoting court-based 

solutions to address increases in self-represented litigants, including domestic relations 

cases which are overwhelming court dockets. Specific focus is on making courts more 

user-friendly to individuals and businesses, and implementing the recommendations of 

the Civil Justice Initiative. 

 Self-Represented Litigation – SJI is promoting 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 is improving 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.

For FY 2020, SJI requests $6,555,000 to enhance its efforts to improve the quality of justice in 

the state courts. The request is $1,434,000 above the amount included in the Further Additional 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-5). The request is also $584,000 above the

amount included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6).
5

II. Appropriations Language and Analysis of Appropriations Language

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.), $6,555,000, of which $500,000 shall remain 

available until September 30, 2021: 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.

Analysis of Appropriations Language

 

• A full-year 2019 appropriation for SJI was not enacted at the time the budget was 

prepared; therefore, the budget request assumes SJI is operating under the Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2019 (Division C of P.L. 115–245, as amended). The amounts 

included for 2019 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution

• No changes to the appropriations language are proposed for FY 2019.
6

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. 

 Partner Grants – allow SJI and federal, state, or local agencies or foundations, trusts, or 

other private entities to combine financial resources in pursuit of common interests.

 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; and 2) SJI has increased its visibility with the 

state courts through outreach, which combined with very limited federal funds for the state 

courts in general, has led to demand.

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 

larger grant programs to address national court issues, such as opioids and human trafficking.
7

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.

The Opioid Crisis and State Courts Response

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

system. 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. 

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), submitted to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) a plan of action, which includes activities that SJI has committed to supporting, 

and a request for additional 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 have been invited to share existing strategies and identify 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 SIG funding was provided to create the National Judicial Opioid Task Force (NJOTF). 

The NJOTF is pursuing short and long-term objectives that: 1) highlight the landscape of current 

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

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

crisis. The NJOTF consists of three workgroups: Children and Families; Civil and Criminal 

Justice; and Collaboration and Education. NJOTF activities to date include:

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

 Finalized Five NJOTF Principles.

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

opioid epidemic.
8

 Began collecting, disseminating, and evaluating court-based interventions related to the 

opioid epidemic.

 Began coordination 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 FY 2020, the NJOTF will continue: 

 Updating the national database of court-based opioid responses.

 Creating tools for use in trial courts, including the development of targeted risk 

assessment tools to enable judges and court personnel to more quickly identify opioid 

abuse individuals subject to court jurisdiction to allow rapid intervention.

 Developing education materials for state courts judges on the use and treatment of 

opioids.

 Providing technical assistance to local courts in establishing an opioid treatment track 

(opioid court) including data collection, staff training, and identification of treatment 

alternatives.

 Developing tools and recommend programs that aid in the establishment of local 

interdisciplinary treatment/care teams to assist both drug courts and other state courts.

 Developing and implementing an updated shareable directory of opioid treatment 

options, including contact information, population served, treatment modality utilized, 

and insurance/payments accepted. 

 In conjunction with DHS Services/Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration, and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, identifying 

protocols and best practices for managing Medication-Assisted Treatment programs.
9

Children in Crisis

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

courts, and child welfare system, is also being 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 2015, the 

percentage of removals nationally due to parental substance abuse increased 13 percent to 32.2 

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

• Ohio: The number of children served in foster care increased by 6.1 percent 

between FY 2012 and 2015. Costs of foster care increased by $29.3 million (8.3 

percent). Foster care cases where drug use of the parent was indicated as a factor 

in removal increased from 18.2 percent to 21.8 percent. 

• Kentucky: The number of children served in foster care increased by 5.7 percent

between FY 2012 and 2015. Costs of foster care increased by $11.9 million (18.8

percent). Foster care cases where drug use of the parent was indicated a factor 

remained steady at approximately 25.9 percent between FY 2012 and 2015. 

 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.

The FY 2019 President’s Budget included additional resources to assist state courts in addressing

children who have experienced trauma due to parental opioid abuse and exposure to opioids. In 

addition to trauma related to removal from homes, children placed under court supervision suffer 

from malnutrition, failure to thrive, mobility/walking, and speech issues. However, more work 

will be needed in FY 2020 to continue:

 Implementing state court-based pilot programs that focus on reducing trauma and promoting 

safe and timely placement of children, including the use of trauma assessment instruments 

for young children (particularly below the age of 5), and trauma services to help provide 

support to children as they navigate the court and foster care systems.

 1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (2015). 

Http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/child-maltreatment-2014-data-tables. 

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.
10

 Partnering with key stakeholders overseeing the Interstate Compact on Placement of 

Children to explore mechanisms for the more rapid placement of children with relatives (or 

other safe alternatives) across state lines to reduce child trauma and foster care costs.

 Educating judges, court staff, foster parents, and others on identification and early 

intervention strategies in cases that involve very young children of parents with opioid abuse 

disorder. 

 Promoting evidence-based prevention, identification, and treatment for children and their 

parents related to Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome and Substance-Exposed Infants.

 Identifying best practices, pilot, and evaluate outcomes for early intervention court strategies 

to assist parents with substance abuse issues who are at risk of losing their children.

Examine existing and possible future court programs to enhance the recovery efforts of 

parents, while enabling their children to be safely maintained with them in the home.

 Partnering with the state Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) and child welfare 

agencies to identify the ways that PDMP data could be used to improve services to families 

and children, and pilot data sharing projects to further this effort.

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.
11

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

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

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

human trafficking;

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

human trafficking case processing in the state courts;

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

better serve the interests of the state courts; 

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

for judges and court personnel;

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

prostitution/trafficking court;

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

 Best practice guidelines;

 Model planning and technical assistance process and supporting materials;

 Training on human trafficking via 12 courses for judges;

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

technical assistance approaches; and

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

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

work together to accomplish these goals. CPPS has already developed expertise in delivering 

statewide technical assistance. NJC has previously 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 will also establish what may become 

a permanent network of courts and court associations and organizations committed to this issue.

The HT Collaborative has a website (htcourts.org) that serves as a portal for all the technical 

assistance work, education/training, and resources associated with this project. Each member of 

the HT Collaborative provides updates on their activities using the website, resulting in a 

centralized location for all the information available on this critical 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.
12

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.

Beginning in FY 2017, SJI is 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.

The NCSC, NCSL, NCJFCJ, CCLP, NJDC, and RFK-NRC will serve as the Expert Working 

Group for the project. The Expert Working Group will:

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

 propose projects to be funded by the initiative;

 provide expertise to identify subject matter experts; and

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

continue to implement their action plans.
13

The Expert Working Group will also promote 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 (SJI-14-N-242). The goal of summit was to create a forum for collaborative 

relationships between the state courts and military bases to better assist military families. Postsummit, 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 in FY 2018, the NCJFC launched a Military Families in Juvenile and Family 

Courts Initiative (SJI-18-P-013). The initiative is: formulating uniform standards for information 

and resource sharing, with a major emphasis on the development of templates for MOUs 

between state courts and military posts; identifying and recruiting juvenile and family courts in 

jurisdictions with significant military presence to serve as pilot sites; creating an online National 

Resource Center on Military Families in the Juvenile and Family Courts, which will include 

documents for state courts/military installations, such as template MOUs, bench cards, resource 

guidelines, and links to services; and developing a training curriculum for judges, military 

command, and key stakeholders on the unique issues of military families.

Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Elder Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

under a conservatorship.

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

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

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

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

guardianship process; and, 3) Enhance guardianship/conservatorship court processes and 
14

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 immigration issues, 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 

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. 
15

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.

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. 
16

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 

(SJI-17-N-127); the Missouri Judiciary to develop a comprehensive circuit court realignment 

plan, as required by recent state law (SJI-18-N-015); the Arkansas Supreme Court to implement 

statewide juvenile justice reforms (SJI-16-T-N-273); the Minnesota Judicial Branch to expand an

electronic conservatorship system by adding guardianship filing to improve compliance and 

effectively monitor the safety of wards (SJI-17-N-030); the New Mexico Administrative Office 

of the Courts to improve access to justice for native peoples in state courts (SJI-14-N-153); and 

the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts to support a statewide commission on 

judicial reform (SJI-15-N-178). 

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 18th Judicial District of Kansas to transition from a centralized to individual court

calendaring system (SJI-17-T-134); the Texas Municipal Courts Education Center for court 

customer service delivery enhancement across Texas (SJI-17-T-018); the Wyoming Supreme 

Court for a court security review, which ultimately leveraged significant resources for further 

security enhancements (SJI-16-T-144); and the 37th Judicial District of Alabama for (SJI-18-T027) 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; 

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 
17

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 (SJI-17-E-206); the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts 

for an online Kentucky Pretrial Service Education Program (SJI-15-E-229); the Texas Office of 

Court Administration for a Guardianship Online Training Course (SJI-17-E-138); the Tennessee 

Administrative Office of the Courts for a business courts curriculum (SJI-18-E-019); the 

American Judges Association for domestic violence educational programming (SJI-17-E-227); 

the St. Louis County, Missouri, Circuit Court for a Minimum Standards for Municipal Courts 

training program (SJI-17-E-029); the National Association of Women Judges for judicial 

education on elder issues and the courts (SJI-17-E-028); and the National Judicial College for a 

state court faculty development training curriculum (SJI-17-E-137).

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 $16.6 million in cash 

match. 4 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 

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

 4 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. 
18

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.

5

 

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

these difficult financial times. 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. 

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

the Court Statistics Project.
19

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 2020, 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 2020 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 5,121

20

(17)

9

(11)

13

Total Adjustments to Base 0 0 14

FY 2020 Current Services 2 2 5,135

0

0

1,420

0

0

0

0 0 1,420

2 2 $6,555

FY 2020 Request

Adjustments to Base

Personnel Compensation

Amount

Project Grants

Rent, Communications & Utilities

Printing & Reproduction

Program Changes

Strategic Initiatives Grants

Technical Assistance Grants

 Perm. Pos. FTE

Other Services

Total, Program Changes

Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grants

A: Summary of Requirements

FY 2019 Annualized CR

Summary of Requirements

Travel & Transportation of Persons

State Justice Institute

Salaries and Expenses

(Dollars in Thousands)

Partner Grants

FY 2020 Total Request

Education Support Program

20
21

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

2 2 783 0 0 14 2 2 797 0 0 0 2 2 797

854 854 0 854

500 500 0 500

1,510 1,510 1,420 2,930

925 925 0 925

374 374 0 374

175 175 0 175

4,338 0 4,338 1,420 5,758

2 2 $5,121 0 0 $14 2 2 $5,135 0 0 $1,420 2 2 $6,555

Education Support Program

Partner Grants

General Administration

Grants

 FY 2019 Annualized CR FY 2020 Current Services 

Strategic Initiatives Grants

Grand Total

Subtotal, Grants

(Dollars in Thousands)

Summary of Requirements

State Justice Institute

 FY 2020 Request 

Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grants

Estimates by Budget Activity

 FY 2020 Adjustments to Base 

Technical Assistance Grants

Project Grants

 FY 2020 Increases 

Salaries and Expenses
22

Other Services: For FY 2020, this request includes a decrease of -$5,000 for Financial Statement Consultants (Audit).

Other Services: For FY 2020, this request includes an increase of $15,881 for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and General Services Administration (GSA) 

accounting/payroll support, and $2,025 for liability insurance.

State Justice Institute

Increases

Printing: For FY 2020, this request includes a decrease of -$10,500 for reduced printing costs in the Federal Register.

B. Justification for Base Adjustments

Personnel Compensation: For FY 2020, this request includes an increase of $20,400 in salaries and benefits.

Rent, Communications, & Utilities: The request includes an increase of $8,535 for rent and other costs in FY 2020.

Justification for Base Adjustments

Decreases

Rent, Communications, & Utilities: The request includes a decrease of -$500 for delivery costs.

Travel & Transportation of Persons: For FY 2020, this request includes a decrease of -$16,500 for travel.
23

FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount

2 214 2 230 0 16

2 214 2 230 0 16

76 80 4

84 68 (16)

174 181 7

11 11 0

21 11 (10)

197 210 13

2 2 0

2 1 (1)

2 2 0

2 783 2 796 0 13

4,338 5,759 1,421

 Total Obligations 2 $5,121 2 $6,555 0 $1,434

Subtotal, General Administration

 Subtotal, Grant Funding

12.0 Personnel benefits

21.0 Travel and transportation of persons

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

24.0 Printing and reproduction

31.0 Equipment

28.1 Taxes & Fees

23.1 Rent

25.0 Other services

26.0 Supplies, & Materials

Other Object Classes:

Salaries and Expenses

Object Classes

(Dollars in Thousands)

Increase/Decrease

11.1 Salaries

FY 2020 Request

Total 

C: Summary of Requirements by Object Class

Summary of Requirements by Object Class

State Justice Institute

FY 2019 Annualized CR