64192 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

4 17 C.F.R. 200.30-3(a)912).

public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 552, will be

available for inspection and copying at

the Commission’s Public Reference

Section, 450 Fifth Street NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of such

filing also will be available for

inspection and copying at the principal

office of the American Stock Exchange.

All submissions should refer to File No.

SR-Amex-95-46 and should be

submitted by January 4, 1996.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.4

[FR Doc. 95–30492 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[File No. 500–1]

In the Matter of Environmental

Chemicals Group, Inc.; Order

Suspending Trading

December 12, 1995.

It appears to the Securities and

Exchange Commission that questions

have been raised about the adequacy

and accuracy of publicly-disseminated

information about Environmental

Chemicals Group, Inc. concerning,

among other things, its product lines,

business prospects and relationships,

and the assets recorded on its financial

statements.

The Commission is of the opinion that

the public interest and the protection of

investors require a suspension of trading

in the securities of Environmental

Chemicals Group, Inc.

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to

Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange

Act of 1934, that trading in the

securities of Environmental Chemicals

Group, Inc. is suspended for the period

commencing 9:00 a.m. (EST) on

December 12, 1995 and terminating on

11:59 p.m. (EST) on December 26, 1995.

By the Commission.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30563 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster Loan Area #2811;

Amendment #2]

U.S. Territory of the Virgin Islands;

Declaration of Disaster Loan Area

The above numbered Declaration is

hereby amended, effective November

14, 1995 to extend the termination date

for filing applications for physical

damage until December 15, 1995. The

termination date for economic injury

remains the same, June 17, 1995, at the

previously designated location.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 59002 and 59008)

Dated: December 7, 1995.

Bernard Kulik,

Associate Administrator for Disaster

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–30448 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

[Declaration of Disaster Loan Area #2813;

Amendment #2]

Florida; Declaration of Disaster Loan

Area

The above numbered Declaration is

hereby amended on November 14 and

November 28, 1995, respectively, to

close the incident period for Lee and

Collier Counties effective October 31,

1995; and to extend the deadline for

filing applications for physical damage

until December 26, 1995. All other

information remains the same; i.e., the

termination date for filing applications

for economic injury, the deadline is July

5, 1996.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 59002 and 59008)

Dated: December 7, 1995.

Bernard Kulik,

Associate Administrator for Disaster

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–30447 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 2303]

Shipping Coordinating Committee,

Subcommittee on Safety of Life at Sea,

Working Group on

Radiocommunications and Search and

Rescue; Notice of Meetings

The Working Group on

Radiocommunications and Search and

Rescue of the Subcommittee on Safety

of Life at Sea will conduct open

meetings at 9:30 am on Thursday,

January 18, and Wednesday, February

14, 1996. These meetings will be held in

the Department of Transportation

Headquarters Building, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, DC 20950. The

purpose of these meetings is to discuss

the papers received and the draft U.S.

positions in preparation for the 1st

Session of the International Maritime

Organization (IMO) Subcommittee on

Radiocommunications and Search and

Rescue which is scheduled for February

19, 1996, at the IMO headquarters in

London, England.

Among other things, the items of

particular interest are:

—The implementation of the Global

Maritime Distress and Safety Systems

(GMDSS).’

—Maritime Search and Rescue matters.

Further information, including

meeting agendas, minutes, and input

papers, can be obtained from the Coast

Guard Navigation Information Center

computer bulletin board, accessible by

modem by dialing: (703) 313–5910. The

computer is also accessible through

Internet by entering: ‘‘http://

www.navcen.uscg.mil.’’

Members of the public may attend

these meetings up to the seating

capacity of the rooms. Interested

persons may seek information,

including meeting room numbers, by

writing: Mr. Ronald J. Grandmaison,

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,

Commandant (G–TTM), Room 6306,

2100 Second Street SW., Washington,

DC 20593–0001, by calling: (202) 267–

1389, or by sending Internet electronic

mail to:

cgcomms/g-t@cgsmtp.comdt.uscg.mil.

Dated: December 6, 1995.

Charles A. Mast,

Chairman, Shipping Coordinating Committee.

[FR Doc. 95–30473 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–07–M

STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE

Grant Guideline

AGENCY: State Justice Institute.

ACTION: Final Grant Guideline.

SUMMARY: This Guideline sets forth the

administrative, programmatic, and

financial requirements attendant to

Fiscal Year 1996 State Justice Institute

grants, cooperative agreements, and

contracts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David I. Tevelin, Executive Director, or

Richard Van Duizend, Deputy Director,

State Justice Institute, 1650 King St.

(Suite 600), Alexandria, VA 22314, (703)

684–6100.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the State Justice Institute Act of 1984,

42 U.S.C. 10701, et seq., as amended,

the Institute is authorized to award

grants, cooperative agreements, and

contracts to State and local courts,

nonprofit organizations, and others for

the purpose of improving the

administration of justice in the State

courts of the United States.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64193

Changes in the Final Guideline

On August 29, 1995, the Institute

published its proposed FY 1996 Grant

Guideline in the Federal Register for

public comment. 60 FR 44936. At the

time the proposed Guideline was

published, SJI’s FY 1996 appropriation

was uncertain; the Guideline

accordingly cautioned that the proposed

grant program was contingent on the

availability of FY 1996 appropriations at

about the same $13.55 million level that

SJI received from Congress each year

from FY 1992 to 1995.

On November 29, 1995, the House

and Senate conference committee

responsible for determining SJI’s

appropriation set the Institute’s FY 1996

funding level at $5 million. If this

amount is approved by Congress and the

President, the Institute anticipates the

availability of $6–9 million in grants in

FY 1996 (after adding grant funds

expected to be available from prior years

and reserving funds for the

administration of the program). This

Guideline is contingent on the

availability of $5 million in FY 1996

appropriations.

As a result of the anticipated

reduction in SJI’s appropriation, the

Board of Directors has made several

significant changes in the final Grant

Guideline. They include:

Eliminating the Concept Paper

Requirement. In order to facilitate the

review and disposition of FY 1996

funding requests, the Board has

eliminated the concept paper

requirement for new proposals this

fiscal year. All applicants will be

required to submit formal applications

for project grants no later than February

14, 1996. See section VII. for application

requirements.

Reducing the Number of Special

Interest Categories. The number of

Special Interest, i.e., high priority,

funding categories has been reduced

from 13 in the proposed Guideline to 7

in the final Guideline. The seven

categories are: Improving Public

Confidence in the Courts; Education and

Training for Judges and Other Key Court

Personnel; Children and Families in

Court; Application of Technology;

Improving the Courts’ Response to

Gender-Related Crimes of Violence; the

Relationship Between State and Federal

Courts; and Conference Implementation

Projects. See section II.B.2.

Within the constraints of the limited

funding expected to be available in FY

1996, the Board of Directors also

remains interested in proposals seeking

to implement projects under the six

Special Interest categories that were

dropped from last year’s Guideline:

Dispute Resolution and the Courts;

Planning and Managing the Future of

the Courts; Resolution of Current

Evidentiary Issues; Substance Abuse;

Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the

Courts; and Assessing the Impact of

Health Care-Related Issues on the State

Courts, as well as a new category

included in the Proposed Guideline,

Proving the Security of Courthouses,

Judges, Jurors, and Witnesses.

Changing the Types and Amounts of

Grants Available. The final Grant

Guideline eliminates package grants and

reduces the amounts allocated to several

other grant programs. As discussed

more fully below, the amount allocated

for Technical Assistance grants has been

reduced from $600,000 in the proposed

Guideline to $400,000 in the final

Guideline; the amount allocated for

Curriculum Adaptation grants has been

reduced from $350,000 to $175,000; and

the amount allocated for the

Scholarship Program has been reduced

from $250,000 to $175,000. In addition,

the maximum amount contemplated for

any single project grant has been

reduced from $300,000 to $200,000, and

the maximum duration of a project grant

has been reduced from 24 months to 15

months.

The types of grants available in FY

1996 and the funding cycles for each

program are discussed more fully below:

Project Grants. These grants are

awarded to support education, research,

evaluation, demonstration, and

technical assistance projects to improve

the administration of justice in the State

courts. With limited exceptions (see

sections II.B.2.b.ii. and II.C.), project

grants are intended to support

innovative projects of lasting national

significance. As noted above, FY 1996

project grants may be made in amounts

up to $200,000, but grants in excess of

$150,000 will be awarded only to

support projects likely to have a

significant national impact.

The FY 1996 mailing deadline for

project grant applications is February

14, 1996. Papers must be postmarked or

bear other evidence of submission by

that date. All applications will be

considered at the Board’s June 1996

meeting.

Technical Assistance Grants. Under

this program, a State or local court may

receive a grant of up to $30,000 to

engage outside experts to provide

technical assistance to diagnose,

develop, and implement a response to a

jurisdiction’s problems. The Guideline

allocates up to $400,000 in FY 1996

funds to support technical assistance

grants. See section II.C. The deadlines

for submitting letters of application for

Technical Assistance grants are

December 22, 1995; March 29, 1996;

June 17, 1996; and, subject to the

availability of sufficient appropriations

in FY 1997, September 30, 1996.

Curriculum Adaptation Grants. A

grant of up to $20,000 may be awarded

to a State or local court to replicate or

modify a model training program

developed with SJI funds. The

Guideline allocates up to $175,000 for

these grants in FY 1996. See section

II.B.2.b.ii.

Letters requesting Curriculum

Adaptation grants may be submitted at

any time during the fiscal year.

However, in order to permit the Institute

sufficient time to evaluate these

proposals, letters must be submitted no

later than 90 days before the projected

date of the training program. See section

II.B.2.b.ii.(c).

Scholarships. The Guideline allocates

up to $175,000 of FY 1996 funds for

scholarships to enable judges and court

managers to attend out-of-State

education and training programs. See

section II.B.2.b.iii.

The Guideline establishes three

deadlines for scholarship requests:

February 1, 1996 for programs beginning

between April 13 and July 12, 1996;

April 15, 1996 for programs beginning

between July 13 and September 30,

1996; and, subject to the availability of

FY 1997 appropriations, July 15, 1996

for programs beginning between October

1 and December 31, 1996.

Renewal Grants. There are two types

of renewal grants available from SJI:

Continuation grants (see section IX.A.)

and On-going support grants (see

section IX.B.). Continuation grants are

intended to support limited duration

projects that involve the same type of

activities as the original project. Ongoing support grants may be awarded

for up to a three-year period to support

national-scope projects that provide the

State courts with critically needed

services, programs, or products.

The Guideline establishes a target for

renewal grants of no more than $2

million in FY 1996. Grantees should

accordingly be aware that the award of

a grant to support a project does not

constitute a commitment to provide

either continuation funding or on-going

support.

An applicant for a continuation or ongoing support grant must submit a letter

notifying the Institute of its intent to

seek such funding, no later than 120

days before the end of the current grant

period. The Institute will then notify the

applicant of the deadline for its renewal

grant application. See section IX.
64194 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

Recommendations to Grant Writers

Over the past 9 years, Institute staff

have reviewed approximately 3,000

concept papers and 1,400 applications.

On the basis of those reviews, inquiries

from applicants, and the views of the

Board, the Institute offers the following

recommendations to help potential

applicants present workable,

understandable proposals that can meet

the funding criteria set forth in this

Guideline.

The Institute suggests that applicants

make certain that they address the

questions and issues set forth below

when preparing an application.

Applications should, however, be

presented in the formats specified in

section VII. of the guideline.

1. What is the subject or problem you

wish to address? Describe the subject or

problem and how it affects the courts

and the public. Discuss how your

approach will improve the situation or

advance the state of the art or

knowledge, and explain why it is the

most appropriate to take. When

statistics or research findings are cited

to support a statement or position, the

source of the citation should be

referenced in a footnote or a reference

list.

2. What do you want to do? Explain

the goal(s) of the project in simple,

straightforward terms. The goals should

describe the intended consequences or

expected overall effect of the proposed

project (e.g., to enable judges to

sentence drug-abusing offenders more

effectively, or to dispose of civil cases

within 24 months), rather than the tasks

or activities to be conducted (e.g., hold

3 training sessions, or install a new

computer system).

To the greatest extent possible, an

applicant should avoid a specialized

vocabulary that is not readily

understood by the general public.

Technical jargon does not enhance a

paper.

3. How will you do it? Describe the

methodology carefully so that what you

propose to do and how you would do

it are clear. All proposed tasks should

be set forth so that a reviewer can see

a logical progression of tasks and relate

those tasks directly to the

accomplishment of the project’s goal(s).

When in doubt about whether to

provide a more detailed explanation or

to assume a particular level of

knowledge or expertise on the part of

the reviewers, provide the additional

information. A description of project

tasks also will help identify necessary

budget items. All staff positions and

project costs should relate directly to

the tasks described. The Institute

encourages applicants to attach letters of

cooperation and support from the courts

and related agencies that will be

involved in or directly affected by the

proposed project.

4. How will you know it works?

Include an evaluation component that

will determine whether the proposed

training, procedure, service, or

technology accomplished the objectives

it was designed to meet. Applications

should present the criteria that will be

used to evaluate the project’s

effectiveness, identify program elements

which will require further modification

and describe how the evaluation will be

conducted, when it will occur during

the project period, who will conduct it,

and what specific measures will be

used. In most instances, the evaluation

should be conducted by persons not

connected with the implementation of

the procedure, training, service, or

technique, or the administration of the

project.

The Institute has also prepared a more

thorough list of recommendations to

grant writers regarding the development

of project evaluation plans. Those

recommendations are available from the

Institute upon request.

5. How will others find out about it?

Include a plan to disseminate the results

of the training, research, or

demonstration beyond the jurisdictions

and individuals directly affected by the

project. The plan should identify the

specific methods which will be used to

inform the field about the project, such

as the publication of law review or

journal articles, or the distribution of

key materials. A statement that a report

or research findings ‘‘will be made

available to’’ the field is not sufficient.

The specific means of distribution or

dissemination as well as the types of

recipients should be identified.

Reproduction and dissemination costs

are allowable budget items.

6. What are the specific costs

involved? The budget should be

presented clearly. Major budget

categories such as personnel, benefits,

travel, supplies, equipment, and

indirect costs should be identified

separately. The components of ‘‘Other’’

or ‘‘Miscellaneous’’ items should be

specified in the application budget

narrative, and should not include setasides for undefined contingencies.

7. What, if any, match is being

offered? Courts and other units of State

and local government (not including

publicly-supported institutions of

higher education) are required by the

State Justice Institute Act to contribute

a match (cash, non-cash, or both) of not

less than 50 percent of the grants funds

requested from the Institute. All other

applicants also are encouraged to

provide a matching contribution to

assist in meeting the costs of a project.

The match requirement works as

follows: If, for example, the total cost of

a project is anticipated to be $150,000,

a State or local court or executive

branch agency may request up to

$100,000 from the Institute to

implement the project. The remaining

$50,000 (50% of the $100,000 requested

from SJI) must be provided as match.

Cash match includes funds directly

contributed to the project by the

applicant, or by other public or private

sources. It does not include income

generated from tuition fees or the sale of

project products. Non-cash match refers

to in-kind contributions by the

applicant, or other public or private

sources. This includes, for example, the

monetary value of time contributed by

existing personnel or members of an

advisory committee (but not the time

spent by participants in an educational

program attending program sessions).

When match is offered, the nature of the

match (cash or in-kind) should be

explained and, at the application stage,

the tasks and line items for which costs

will be covered wholly or in part by

match should be specified.

8. Which of the two budget forms

should be used? Section VII.A.3. of the

SJI Grant Guideline encourages use of

the spreadsheet format of Form C1 if the

funding request exceeds $100,000. Form

C1 also works well for projects with

discrete tasks, regardless of the dollar

value of the project. Form C, the tabular

format, is preferred for projects lacking

a number of discrete tasks, or for

projects requiring less than $100,000 of

Institute funding. Generally, use the

form that best lends itself to

representing most accurately the budget

estimates for the project.

9. How much detail should be

included in the budget narrative? The

budget narrative of an application

should provide the basis for computing

all project-related costs, as indicated in

section VII.D. of the SJI Grant Guideline.

To avoid common shortcomings of

application budget narratives, include

the following information:

• Personnel estimates that accurately

provide the amount of time to be spent

by personnel involved with the project

and the total associated costs, including

current salaries for the designated

personnel (e.g., Project Director, 50% for

one year, annual salary of

$50,000=$25,000). If salary costs are

computed using an hourly or daily rate,

the annual salary and number of hours

or days in a work-year should be shown.

• Estimates for supplies and expenses

supported by a complete description of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64195

the supplies to be used, nature and

extent of printing to be done,

anticipated telephone charges, and other

common expenditures, with the basis

for computing the estimates included

(e.g., 100 reports × 75 pages each × .05/

page = $375.00). Supply and expense

estimates offered simply as ‘‘based on

experience’’ are not sufficient.

In order to expedite Institute review

of the budget, make a final comparison

of the amounts listed in the budget

narrative with those listed on the budget

form. In the rush to complete all parts

of the application on time, there may be

many last-minute changes;

unfortunately, when there are

discrepancies between the budget

narrative and the budget form or the

amount listed on the application cover

sheet, it is not possible for the Institute

to verify the amount of the request. A

final check of the numbers on the form

against those in the narrative will

preclude such confusion. The Institute

will provide an illustrative budget and

budget form upon request.

10. What travel regulations apply to

the budget estimates? Transportation

costs and per diem rates must comply

with the policies of the applicant

organization, and a copy of the

applicant’s travel policy should be

submitted as an appendix to the

application. If the applicant does not

have a travel policy established in

writing, then travel rates must be

consistent with those established by the

Institute or the Federal Government (a

copy of the Institute’s travel policy is

available upon request). The budget

narrative should state which regulations

are in force for the project and should

include the estimated fare, the number

of persons traveling, the number of trips

to be taken, and the length of stay. The

estimated costs of travel, lodging,

ground transportation, and other

subsistence should be listed separately.

When combined, the subtotals for these

categories should equal the months after

the project start date to submit the

indirect cost proposal to the Institute for

approval. An indirect cost rate

worksheet on computer diskette is

available from the Institute upon

request.

11. May grant funds be used to

purchase equipment? Generally, grant

funds may be used to purchase only the

equipment that is necessary to

demonstrate a new technological

application in a court, or that is

otherwise essential to accomplishing the

objectives of the project. Equipment

purchases to support basic court

operations ordinarily will not be

approved. The budget narrative must

list the equipment to be purchased and

explain why the equipment is necessary

to the success of the project. Written

prior approval of the Institute is

required when the amount of computer

hardware to be purchased or leased

exceeds $10,000, or the software to be

purchased exceeds $3,000.

12. To what extent may indirect costs

be included in the budget estimates? It

is the policy of the Institute that all

costs should be budgeted directly;

however, if an applicant has an indirect

cost rate that has been approved by a

Federal agency within the last two

years, an indirect cost recovery estimate

may be included in the budget. A copy

of the approved rate agreement should

be submitted as an appendix to the

application.

If an applicant does not have an

approved rate agreement, an indirect

cost rate proposal should be prepared in

accordance with Section XI.H.4 of the

Grant Guideline, based on the

applicant’s audited financial statements

for the prior fiscal year. (Applicants

lacking an audit should budget all

project costs directly.) If an indirect cost

rate proposal is to be submitted, the

budget should reflect estimates based on

that proposal. Obviously, this requires

that the proposal be completed at the

time of application so that the

appropriate estimates may be included;

however, grantees have until three

months after the project start date to

submit the indirect cost proposal to the

Institute for approval. An indirect cost

rate worksheet on computer diskette is

available from the Institute upon

request.

13. Does the budget truly reflect all

costs required to complete the project?

After preparing the program narrative

portion of the application, applicants

may find it helpful to list all the major

tasks or activities required by the

proposed project, including the

preparation of products, and note the

individual expenses, including

personnel time, related to each. This

will help to ensure that, for all tasks

described in the application (e.g.,

development of a videotape, research

site visits, distribution of a final report),

the related costs appear in the budget

and are explained correctly in the

budget narrative.

Recommendations to Grantees

The Institutes staff works with

grantees to help assure the smooth

operation of the project and compliance

with the SJI Guidelines. On the basis of

monitoring more than 1000 grants, the

Institute staff offers the following

suggestions to aid grantees in meeting

the administrative and substantive

requirements of their grants.

1. After the grant has been awarded,

when are the first quarterly reports due?

Quarterly Progress Reports and

Financial Status Reports must be

submitted within 30 days after the end

of every calendar quarter—i.e. no later

than January 30, April 30, July 30, and

October 30—regardless of the project’s

start date. The reporting periods covered

by each quarterly report end 30 days

before the respective deadline for the

report. When an award period begins

December 1, for example, the first

Quarterly Progress Report describing

project activities between December 1

and December 31 will be due on January

30. A Financial Status Report should be

submitted even if funds have not been

obligated or expended.

By documenting what has happened

over the past three months, Quarterly

Progress Reports provide an opportunity

for project staff and Institute staff to

resolve any questions before they

become problems, and make any

necessary changes in the project time

schedule, budget allocations, etc. Thus,

the Quarterly Project Report should

describe project activities, their

relationship to the approved timeline,

and any problems encountered and how

they were resolved, and outline the

tasks scheduled for the coming quarter.

It is helpful to attach copies of relevant

memos, draft products, or other

requested information. An original and

one copy of a Quarterly Progress Report

and attachments should be submitted to

the Institute.

Additional Quarterly Progress Report

on Financial Status Report forms may be

obtained from the grantee’s Program

Manager at SJI, or photocopies may be

made from the supply received with the

award.

2. Do reporting requirements differ for

renewal grants or package grants?

Recipients of a continuation, on-going

support, or package grant are required to

submit quarterly progress and financial

status reports on the same schedule and

with the same information as recipients

of a grant for a single new project.

A continuation grant and each yearly

grant under an on-going support award

should be considered as a separate

phase of the project. The reports should

be numbered on a grant rather than

project basis. Thus, the first quarterly

report filed under a continuation grant

or a yearly increment of an on-going

support award should be designated as

number one, the second as number two,

and so on, through the final progress

and financial status reports due within

90 days after the end of the grant period.

3. What information about project

activities should be communicated to

SJI? In general, grantees should provide
64196 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

prior notice of critical project events

such as advisory board meetings or

training sessions so that the Institute

Program Manager can attend if possible.

If methodological, schedule, staff,

budget allocations, or other significant

changes become necessary, the grantee

should contact the Program Manager

prior to implementing any of these

changes, so that possible questions may

be addressed in advance. Questions

concerning the financial requirements

section of the Guideline, quarterly

financial reporting or payment requests,

should be addressed to the Grants

Financial Manager listed in the award

letter.

It is helpful to include the grant

number assigned to the award on all

correspondence to the Institute.

4. Why is it important to address the

special conditions that are attached to

the award document? In some instances,

a list of special conditions is attached to

the award document. The special

conditions are imposed to establish a

schedule for reporting certain key

information, to assure that the Institute

has an opportunity to offer suggestions

at critical stages of the project, and to

provide reminders of some, but not all

of the requirements contained in the

Grant Guidelines. Accordingly, it is

important for grantees to check the

special conditions carefully and discuss

with their Program Manager any

questions or problems they may have

with the conditions. Most concerns

about timing, response time, and the

level of detail required can be resolved

in advance through a telephone

conversation. The Institute’s primary

concern is to work with grantees to

assure that their projects accomplish

their objectives, not to enforce rigid

bureaucratic requirements. However, if

a grantee fails to comply with a special

condition or with other grant

requirements, the Institute may, after

proper notice, suspend payment of grant

funds or terminate the grant.

Sections X., XI., and XII. of the Grant

Guideline contain the Institute’s

administrative and financial

requirements. Institute Finance and

Management Division staff are always

available to answer questions and

provide assistance regarding these

provisions.

5. What is a Grant Adjustment? A

Grant Adjustment is the Institute’s form

for acknowledging the satisfaction of

special conditions, or approving

changes in grant activities, schedule,

staffing, sites, or budget allocations

requested by the project director. It also

may be used to correct errors in grant

documents, add small amounts to a

grant award, or deobligate funds from

the grant.

6. What schedule should be followed

in submitting requests for

reimbursements or advance payments?

Requests for reimbursements or advance

payments may be made at any time after

the project start date and before the end

of the 90-day close-out period. However,

the Institute follows the U.S. Treasury’s

policy limiting advances to the

minimum amount required to meet

immediate cash needs. Given normal

processing time, grantees should not

seek to draw down funds for periods

greater than 30 days from the date of the

request.

7 Do procedures for submitting

requests for reimbursement or advance

payment differ for renewal grants? The

basic procedures are the same for any

grant. A continuation grant or the yearly

grant under an on-going support award

should be considered as a separate

phase of the project. Payment requests

should be numbered on a grant rather

than a project basis. Thus, the first

request for funds from a continuation

grant or a yearly increment under an ongoing support award should be

designated as number one, the second as

number two, and so on through the final

payment request for that grant.

8. If things change during the grant

period, can funds be reallocated from

one budget category to another? The

Institute recognizes that some flexibility

is requires in implementing a project

design and budget. Thus, grantees may

shift funds among direct cost budget

categories. When any one reallocation or

the cumulative total of reallocations are

expected to exceed five percent of the

approved project budget, a grantee must

specify the proposed changes, explain

the reasons for the changes, and request

Institute approval.

The same standard applies to renewal

grants. In addition, prior written

Institute approval is required to shift

leftover funds from the original award to

cover activities to be conducted under

the renewal award, or to use renewal

grant monies to cover costs incurred

during the original grant period.

9. What is the 90-day close-out

period? Following the last day of the

grant, a 90-day period is provided to

allow for all grant-related bills to be

received and posted, and grant funds

drawn down to cover these expenses.

No obligations of grant funds may be

incurred during this period. The last

day on which an expenditure of grant

funds can be obligated is the end date

of the grant period. Similarly, the 90-

day period is not intended as an

opportunity to finish and disseminate

grant products. This should occur before

the end of the grant period.

Starting the day after the end of the

award period, and during the following

90 days, all monies that have been

obligated should be expended. All

payment requests must be received by

the end of the 90-day ‘‘close-outperiod.’’ Any unexpended monies held

by the grantee that remain after the 90-

day follow-up period must be returned

to the Institute. Any funds remaining in

the grant that have not been drawn

down by the grantee will be deobligated.

10. Are funds granted by SJI ‘‘Federal

funds? The State Justice Institute Act

provides that, except for purposes

unrelated to this question, ‘‘the Institute

shall not be considered a department,

agency, or instrumentality of the Federal

Government.’’ 42 U.S.C. § 1070(c)(1).

Because SJI receives appropriations

from Congress, some grantees auditors

have reported SJI funds as ‘‘Other

Federal Assistance.’’ This classification

is acceptable to SJI but is not required.

11. If SJI is not a Federal Agency, do

OMB circulars apply with respect to

audits? Except to the extent that they are

inconsistent with the express provisions

of the SJI Grant Guideline, Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

Circulars A–110, A–21, A–87, A–88, A–

102, A–122, A–128 and A–133 are

incorporated into the Grant Guideline

by reference. Because the Institute’s

enabling legislation specifically requires

the Institute to ‘‘conduct, or require

each recipient to provide for, an annual

fiscal audit’’ [see 42 U.S.C. 10711(c)(1)],

the Grant Guideline sets forth options

for grantees to comply with this

statutory requirement. (See Section

XI.J.)

Prior to FY 1994, the Institute did not

require grantees to comply with the

audit-related provisions of OMB

circulars A–110, A–128, or A–133, but

did require that grantees, lacking an

audit report prepared for a Federal

agency, conduct an independent audit

in compliance with generally accepted

auditing standards established by the

American Institute of Certified Public

Accountants.

The current Guideline makes it clear

that SJI will accept audits conducted in

accordance with the Single Audit Act of

1984 and OMB Circulars A–128, or A–

133, in satisfaction of the annual fiscal

audit requirement. Grantees who are

required to undertake these audits in

conjunction with Federal grants may

include SJI funds as part of the audit

even if the receipt of SJI funds would

not require such audits. This approach

gives grantees an option to fold SJI

funds into the governmental audit rather
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64197

than to undertake a separate audit to

satisfy SJI’s Guidelines requirements.

In sum, educational and nonprofit

organizations that receive payments

from the Institute that are sufficient to

meet the applicability thresholds of

OMB Circular A–133 must have their

annual audit conducted in accordance

with Government Auditing Standards

issued by the Comptroller General of the

United States rather than with generally

accepted auditing standards. Grantees in

this category that receive amounts

below the minimum threshold

referenced in Circular A–133 must also

submit an annual audit to SJI, but they

would have the option to conduct an

audit of the entire grantee organization

in accordance with generally accepted

auditing standards; include SJI funds in

an audit of Federal funds conducted in

accordance with the Single Audit Act of

1984 and OMB Circulars A–128 or A–

133; or conduct an audit of only the SJI

funds in accordance with generally

accepted auditing standards. (See

Guideline Section XI.J.) A copy of the

above-noted circulars may be obtained

by calling OMB at (202) 395–7250.

12. Does SJI have a CFDA number?

Auditors often request that a grantee

provide the Institute’s Catalog of Federal

Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for

guidance in conducting an audit in

accordance with Government

Accounting Standards. Because SJI is

not a Federal agency, it has not been

issued such a number, and there are no

additional compliance tests to satisfy

under the Institute’s audit requirements

beyond those of a standard

governmental audit.

Moreover, because SJI is not a Federal

agency, SJI funds should not be

aggregated with Federal funds to

determine if the applicability threshold

of Circular A–133 has been reached. For

example, if in fiscal year 1996 grantee

‘‘X’’ received $10,000 in Federal funds

from a Department of Justice (DOJ) grant

program and $20,000 in grant funds

from SJI, the minimum A–133 threshold

would not be met. The same distinction

would preclude an auditor from

considering the additional SJI funds in

determining what Federal requirements

apply to the DOJ funds.

Grantees that are required to satisfy

either the Single Audit Act, OMB

Circulars A–128, or A–133 and who

include SJI grant funds in those audits,

need to remember that because of its

status as a private non-profit

corporation, SJI is not on routing lists of

cognizant Federal agencies. Therefore,

the grantee needs to submit a copy of

the audit report prepared for such a

cognizant Federal agency directly to SJI.

The Institute’s audit requirements may

be found in Section XI.J. of the Grant

Guideline.

* * * * *

The following Grant Guideline is

adopted by the State Justice Institute for

FY 1996:

State Justice Institute Grant Guideline

Table of Contents

Summary

I. Background

II. Scope of the program

III. Definitions

IV. Eligibility for award

V. Types of projects and grants; size of

awards

VI. Suspension of concept paper submission

requirement

VII. Application requirements for new

projects

VIII. Application review procedures

IX. Renewal funding procedures and

requirements

X. Compliance requirements

XI. Financial requirements

XII. Grant adjustments

Appendix I List of State contacts regarding

administration of institute grants to State

and local Courts

Appendix II SJI libraries: Designated sites

and contacts

Appendix III Illustrative list of model

curricula

Appendix IV Judicial education scholarship

application forms (Forms S1 and S2)

Appendix V Curriculum adaptation and

technical assistance grant budget form

(Form E)

Appendix VI Certificate of State approval

form (Form B)

Appendix VII Application package (Forms

A, C, C–1, D and Disclosure of Lobbying

Activities)

Summary

This Guideline sets forth the

programmatic, financial, and

administrative requirements of grants,

cooperative agreements, and contracts

awarded by the State Justice Institute.

The Institute, a private, nonprofit

corporation established by an Act of

Congress, is authorized to award grants,

cooperative agreements and contracts to

improve the administration and quality

of justice in the State courts.

Grants may be awarded to State and

local courts and their agencies; national

nonprofit organizations controlled by,

operating in conjunction with, and

serving the judicial branch of State

governments; and national nonprofit

organizations for the education and

training of judges and support personnel

of the judicial branch of State

governments. The Institute may also

award grants to other nonprofit

organizations with expertise in judicial

administration; institutions of higher

education; individuals, partnerships,

firms, or corporations, and private

agencies with expertise in judicial

administration if the objectives of the

funded program can be better served by

such an entity. Funds may be awarded,

as well to Federal, State or local

agencies and institutions other than

courts for services that cannot be

provided adequately through

nongovernmental arrangements. In

addition, the Institute may provide

financial assistance in the form of

interagency agreements with other

grantors.

The Institute will consider

applications for funding support that

address any of the areas specified in its

enabling legislation, as amended.

However, the Board of Directors of the

Institute has designated certain program

categories as being of special interest.

The Institute has established one

round of competition for FY 1996 funds.

The application submission deadline is

February 14, 1996, (See section II.B.2.g)

It is anticipated that approximately $6–

9 million will be available for award.

This Guideline applies to all concept

papers and applications submitted, as

well as grants awarded in FY 1996.

The awards made by the State Justice

Institute are governed by the

requirements of this Guideline and the

authority conferred by Pub. L. 98–620,

Title II, 42 U.S.C. 10701, et seq., as

amended.

I. Background

The Institute was established by Pub.

L. 98–620 to improve the administration

of justice in the State courts in the

United States. Incorporated in the State

of Virginia as a private, nonprofit

corporation, the Institute is charged, by

statute, with the responsibility to:

A. Direct a national program of

financial assistance designed to assure

that each citizen of the United States is

provided ready access to a fair and

effective system of justice;

B. Foster coordination and

cooperation with the Federal judiciary;

C. Promote recognition of the

importance of the separation of powers

doctrine to an independent judiciary;

and

D. Encourage education for judges and

support personnel of State court systems

through national and State

organizations, including universities.

To accomplish these broad objectives,

the Institute is authorized to provide

funds to State courts, national

organizations which support and are

supported by State courts, national

judicial education organizations, and

other organizations that can assist in

improving the quality of justice in the

State courts.
64198 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

The Institute is supervised by an 11-

member Board of Directors appointed by

the President, by and with the consent

of the Senate. The Board is statutorily

composed of six judges, a State court

administrator, and four members of the

public, no more than two of whom can

be of the same political party.

Through the award of grants,

contracts, and cooperative agreements,

the Institute is authorized to perform the

following activities:

A. Support research, demonstrations,

special projects, technical assistance,

and training to improve the

administration of justice in the State

courts;

B. Provide for the preparation,

publication and dissemination of

information regarding State judicial

systems;

C. Participate in joint projects with

Federal agencies and other private

grantors;

D. Evaluate or provide for the

evaluation of programs and projects

funded by the Institute to determine

their impact upon the quality of

criminal, civil, and juvenile justice and

the extent to which they have

contributed to improving the quality of

justice in the State courts;

E. Encourage and assist in furthering

judicial education;

F. Encourage, assist, and serve in a

consulting capacity to State and local

justice system agencies in the

development, maintenance, and

coordination of criminal, civil, and

juvenile justice programs and services;

and

G. Be responsible for the certification

of national programs that are intended

to aid and improve State judicial

systems.

II. Scope of the Program

During FY 1996, the Institute will

consider applications for funding

support that address any of the areas

specified in its enabling legislation. The

Board, however, has designated certain

program categories as being of ‘‘special

interest.’’ See section II.B.

A. Authorized Program Areas

The Institute is authorized to fund

projects addressing one or more of the

following program areas listed in the

State Justice Institute Act, the Battered

Women’s Testimony Act of 1992, the

Judicial Training and Research for Child

Custody Litigation Act of 1992, and the

International Parental Kidnapping

Crime Act of 1993.

1. Assistance to State and local court

systems in establishing appropriate

procedures for the selection and

removal of judges and other court

personnel and in determining

appropriate levels of compensation;

2. Education and training programs

for judges and other court personnel for

the performance of their general duties

and for specialized functions, and

national and regional conferences and

seminars for the dissemination of

information on new developments and

innovative techniques;

3. Research on alternative means for

using judicial and nonjudicial personnel

in court decisionmaking activities,

implementation of demonstration

programs to test such innovative

approaches and evaluations of their

effectiveness;

4. Studies of the appropriateness and

efficacy of court organizations and

financing structures in particular States,

and support to States to implement

plans for improved court organization

and financing;

5. Support for State court planning

and budgeting staffs and the provision

of technical assistance in resource

allocation and service forecasting

techniques;

6. Studies of the adequacy of court

management systems in State and local

courts, and implementation and

evaluation of innovative responses to

records management, data processing,

court personnel management, reporting

and transcription of court proceedings,

and juror utilization and management;

7. Collection and compilation of

statistical data and other information on

the work of the courts and on the work

of other agencies which relate to and

affect the work of courts;

8. Studies of the causes of trial and

appellate court delay in resolving cases,

and establishing and evaluating

experimental programs for reducing

case processing time;

9. Development and testing of

methods for measuring the performance

of judges and courts and experiments in

the use of such measures to improve the

functioning of judges and the courts;

10. Studies of court rules and

procedures, discovery devices, and

evidentiary standards to identify

problems with the operation of such

rules, procedures, devices, and

standards; and the development of

alternative approaches to better

reconcile the requirements of due

process with the need for swift and

certain justice, and testing of the utility

of those alternative approaches;

11. Studies of the outcomes of cases

in selected areas to identify instances in

which the substance of justice meted

out by the courts diverges from public

expectations of fairness, consistency, or

equity; and the development, testing

and evaluation of alternative approaches

to resolving cases in such problem

areas;

12. Support for programs to increase

court responsiveness to the needs of

citizens through citizen education,

improvement of court treatment of

witnesses, victims, and jurors, and

development of procedures for

obtaining and using measures of public

satisfaction with court processes to

improve court performance;

13. Testing and evaluating

experimental approaches to provide

increased citizen access to justice,

including processes which reduce the

cost of litigating common grievances

and alternative techniques and

mechanisms for resolving disputes

between citizens;

14. Collection and analysis of

information regarding the admissibility

and quality of expert testimony on the

experiences of battered women offered

as part of the defense in criminal cases

under State law, as well as sources of

and methods to obtain funds to pay

costs incurred to provide such

testimony, particularly in cases

involving indigent women defendants;

15. Development of training materials

to assist battered women, operators of

domestic violence shelters, battered

women’s advocates, and attorneys to use

expert testimony on the experiences of

battered women in appropriate cases,

and individuals with expertise in the

experience of battered women to

develop skills appropriate to providing

such testimony;

16. Research regarding State judicial

decisions relating to child custody

litigation involving domestic violence;

17. Development of training curricula

to assist State courts to develop an

understanding of, and appropriate

responses to child custody litigation

involving domestic violence;

18. Dissemination of information and

training materials and provision of

technical assistance regarding the issues

listed in paragraphs 14-17 above;

19. Development of national, regional,

and in-State training and educational

programs dealing with criminal and

civil aspects of interstate and

international parental child abduction;

20. Other programs, consistent with

the purposes of the State Justice

Institute Act, as may be deemed

appropriate by the Institute, including

projects dealing with the relationship

between Federal and State court systems

in areas where there is concurrent StateFederal jurisdiction and where Federal

courts, directly or indirectly, review

State court proceedings.

Funds will not be made available for

the ordinary, routine operation of court
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64199

systems or programs in any of these

areas.

B. Special Interest Program Categories

1. General Description

The Institute is interested in funding

both innovative programs and programs

of proven merit that can be replicated in

other jurisdictions. Although

applications in any of the statutory

program areas are eligible for funding in

FY 1996, the Institute is especially

interested in funding those projects that:

a. Formulate new procedures and

techniques, or creatively enhance

existing arrangements to improve the

courts;

b. Address aspects of the State

judicial systems that are in special need

of serious attention;

c. Have national significance in terms

of their impact or replicability in that

they develop products, services, and

techniques that may be used in other

States; and

d. Create and disseminate products

that effectively transfer the information

and ideas developed to relevant

audiences in State and local judicial

systems or provide technical assistance

to facilitate the adaptation of effective

programs and procedures in other State

and local jurisdictions.

A project will be identified as a

‘‘Special Interest’’ project if it meets the

four criteria set forth above and (1) it

falls within the scope of the ‘‘special

interest’’ program areas designated

below, or (2) information coming to the

attention of the Institute from the State

courts, their affiliated organizations, the

research literature, or other sources

demonstrates that the project responds

to another special need or interest of the

State courts.

Applications which address a

‘‘Special Interest’’ category will be

accorded a preference in the rating

process. (See the selection criteria listed

in section VIII.B., ‘‘Application Review

Procedures.’’)

2. Specific Categories

The Board has designated the areas

set forth below as ‘‘Special Interest’’

program categories. The order of listing

does not imply any ordering of priorities

among the categories.

a. Improving Public Confidence in the

Courts. This category includes research,

demonstration, evaluation and

education projects designed to improve

the responsiveness of courts to public

concerns regarding the fairness,

accessibility, timeliness, and

comprehensibility of the court process,

and to test innovative methods for

increasing the public’s confidence in the

State courts.

i. The Institute is particularly

interested in supporting innovative

projects that examine, develop, and test

methods that trial or appellate courts

may use to:

• Improve service to individual

litigants and trial participants, including

innovative methods for handling cases

involving unrepresented litigants fairly

and effectively;

• Test methods for more clearly and

effectively communicating decisions

and the reasons for them to litigants and

the public;

• Address court-community problems

resulting from the influx of legal and

illegal immigrants, including projects to

define the impact of immigration on

State courts; design and assess

procedures for use in custody,

visitation, and other domestic relations

cases when key family members or

property are outside the United States;

facilitate communication with Federal

authorities when illegal aliens are

involved in State court proceedings; and

develop protocols to facilitate service of

process, the enforcement of orders of

judgment, and the disposition of

criminal and juvenile cases when a nonU.S. citizen or corporation is involved;

and

• Increase public understanding of

jury decisions and the juror selection

and service process; foster positive

attitudes toward jury service; and

enhance the attractiveness of juror

service through, e.g., incentives to

participate, modifications of terms of

service, and/or juror orientation and

education programs.

Institute funds may not be used to

directly or indirectly support legal

representation of individuals in specific

cases. In addition, it is unlikely that the

Institute will continue to support

development or testing of additional

automated kiosks such as those being

used by the courts in Arizona,

California, Florida and New York.

ii. The Institute also is interested in

supporting projects designed to improve

the quality of justice including those

testing methods for improving court

operations based on the research

examining ‘‘procedural’’ and

‘‘distributive’’ justice, and those

assessing the impact of live television

coverage of trials on court proceedings,

public understanding, and fairness to

litigants.

In addition, the Institute is interest in

supporting projects to follow up on the

issues, recommendations, and action

plans resulting from the National Town

Hall Meeting on Improving Public

Confidence in the Courts. (See section

II.B.2.g., Conference Implementation

Projects.)

Previous SJI-supported projects that

address these issues include: evaluation

of an experimental community court in

New York City; development of a

manual for management of court

interpretation services and materials for

training and assisting court interpreters;

development of interpreter certification

tests in Russian and Hmong;

development of touchscreen computer

systems, videotapes, and written

materials to assist pro se litigants; a

demonstration of the use of volunteers

to monitor guardianship; studies of

effective and efficient methods for

providing legal representation to

indigent parties in criminal and family

cases and the applicability of various

dispute resolution procedures to

different cultural groups; guidelines for

court-annexed day care systems; and

development of a manual for

implementing innovations in jury

selection, use, and management;

technical assistance and training to

facilitate implementation of the

Standards on Jury Management;

development of a guide for making

juries accessible to persons with

disabilities.

b. Education and Training for Judges

and Other Key Court Personnel. The

Institute continues to be interested in

supporting an array of projects to

strengthen and broaden the availability

of court education programs at the State,

regional, and national levels.

Accordingly, this category is divided

into three subsections: (i) Development

of Innovative Educational Programs; (ii)

Curriculum Adaptation Projects; and

(iii) Scholarships. All Institutesupported education and training

programs should be accessible to

persons with disabilities in accordance

with the Americans with Disabilities

Act.

i. Development of Innovative

Educational Programs. This category

includes support for the development

and testing of educational programs for

judges or court personnel that address

key substantive and administrative

issues of concern to the nation’s courts,

or assist local courts or State court

systems to develop or enhance their

capacity to deliver quality continuing

education. Programs may be designed

for presentation at the local, State,

regional, or national level. Ordinarily,

court education programs should be

based on some form of assessment of the

needs of the target audience; include

clearly stated learning objectives that

delineate the new knowledge or skills

that participants will acquire;

incorporate adult education principles

and varying teaching/learning methods;
64200 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

and result in the development of a

curriculum as defined in section III.K

The Institute is particularly interested

in the development of education

programs that:

• Offer or comprise a portion of a

comprehensive course of study that

includes seminars or materials for

judges or court personnel at various

stages of their careers;

• Include self-directed learning

packages such as those using interactive

computer-programs, videos, or other

visual media supported by written

materials or manuals, or distancelearning approaches that could help

local courts in creating organizationwide continuing learning opportunities

and assist those who do not have ready

access to classroom-centered programs;

• Are interdisciplinary or involve

collaboration between the judicial and

other branches of government or

between courts within a metropolitan

area or multi-State region;

• Develop judicial leadership

abilities, improve teamwork within a

court, and enhance service to the public

by a court;

• Familiarize faculty with the

effective use of technology in presenting

information; or

• Incorporate the findings from SJIsupported demonstration, evaluation, or

research projects.

ii. Curriculum Adaptation Projects

(a) Description of the Program. The

Board is reserving up to $175,000 to

provide support for adaptation and

implementation of model curricula and/

or model training programs previously

developed with SJI support. The exact

amount to be awarded for curriculum

adaptation grants will depend on the

number and quality of the applications

submitted in this category and other

categories of the Guideline.

The goal of the Curriculum

Adaptation Program is to provide State

and local courts with sufficient support

to prepare and test a model curriculum,

course module, national or regional

conference program, or other model

education program developed with SJI

funds by any other State or national

organization which has been modified

to meet a State’s or local jurisdiction’s

educational needs. Generally, it is

anticipated that the adapted curriculum

would become part of the grantee’s

ongoing educational offerings, and that

local instructors would receive the

training needed to enable them to make

future presentations of the curriculum.

An illustrative list of the curricula that

may be appropriate for the adaptation is

contained in Appendix III.

Only State or local courts may apply

for Curriculum Adaptation funding.

Grants to support adaptation of

educational programs previously

developed with SJI funds are limited to

no more than $20,000 each. As with

other awards to State of local courts,

cash or in-kind match must be provided

equal to at least 50% of the grant

amount requested.

(b) Review Criteria. Curriculum

Adaptation grants will be awarded on

the basis of criteria including: the goals

and objectives of the proposed project;

the need for outside funding to support

the program; the likelihood of effective

implementation; the appropriateness of

the educational approach in achieving

the project’s educational objectives; the

likelihood of effective implementation

and integration into the State’s or local

jurisdiction’s ongoing educational

programming; and expressions of

interest by the judges and/or court

personnel who would be directly

involved in or affected by the project. In

making implementation awards. the

Institute will also consider factors such

as the reasonableness of the amount

requested, compliance with the

statutory match requirements, diversity

of subject matter, geographic diversity,

the level of appropriations available in

the current year, and the amount

expected to be available in succeeding

fiscal years.

(c) Application Procedures. In lieu of

formal applications, applicants for

Curriculum Adaptation grants may

submit, at any time, a detailed letter,

and three photocopies. Although there

is no prescribed form for the letter nor

a minimum or maximum page limit,

letters of application should include the

following information to assure that

each of the criteria for evaluating

applications is addressed:

• Project Description. What are the

project’s goals and learning objectives?

What is the title of the model

curriculum to be tried? Who developed

it? What program components would be

implemented, and what benefits would

be derived from this test? Why is this

education program needed at the

present time? Who will be responsible

for adapting the model curriculum, and

what types of modifications, if any, in

length, format, and content are

anticipated? Who will the participants

be, how will they be recruited, and from

where will they come (e.g., from across

the State, from a single local

jurisdiction, from a multi-State region)?

How many participants are anticipated?

• Need for Funding. Why cannot State

or local resources fully support the

modification and presentation of the

model curriculum? What is the potential

for replicating or integrating the

program in the future using State or

local funds, once it has been

successfully adapted and tested?

• Likelihood of Implementation. What

is the proposed timeline for modifying

and presenting the program? Who

would serve as faculty and how were

they selected? How will the

presentation of the program be

evaluated and by whom? (Ordinarily, an

outside evaluation is not necessary;

however, the results of any participant

evaluation should be included in the

final report.) What measures will be

taken to facilitate subsequent

presentations of the adapted program?

• Expressions of Interest By Judges

and/or Court Personnel. Does the

proposed program have the support of

the court system leadership, and of

judges, court managers, and judicial

education personnel who are expected

to attend? (This may be demonstrated by

attaching letters of support.)

• Budget and Matching State

Contribution. Applicants should attach

a copy of budget Form E (see Appendix

V) and a budget narrative (see Section

VII.B) that describes the basis for the

computation of all project-related costs

and the source of the match offered.

• Local courts should attach a

concurrence signed by the Chief Justice

of the State or his or her designee. (See

Form B, Appendix VI.)

Letters of application may be

submitted at any time. However,

applicants should allow at least 90 days

between the date of submission and the

date of the proposed program to allow

sufficient time for needed planning. The

Board of Directors has delegated its

authority to approve Curriculum

Adaptation grants to its Judicial

Education Committee. The committee

anticipates acting upon applications

within 45 days after receipt. Formal

grant awards will be made only after

committee approval and negotiation of

the final terms of the grant.

(d) Grantee Responsibilities. A

recipient of a Curriculum Adaptation

grant must:

(1) Comply with the same quarterly

reporting requirements as other Institute

grantees (see Section X.L., infra);

(2) Include in each grant product a

prominent acknowledgment that

support was received from the Institute,

along with the ‘‘SJI’’ logo, and a

disclaimer paragraph based on the

example provided in section X.Q. of the

Guideline; and

(3) Submit two copies of the manuals,

handbooks, or conference packets

developed under the grant at the

conclusion of the grant period, along

with a final report that includes

evaluation results and explains how it
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64201

intends to replicate the program in the

future.

Applicants seeking other types of

funding for developing and testing

educational programs must comply with

the requirements applications set forth

in Section VII or the requirements for

renewal applications set forth in Section

IX.

iii. Scholarships for Judges and Court

Personnel. The Institute is reserving up

to $175,000 to support a scholarship

program for State court judges and court

managers.

(a) Program Description/Scholarship

Amounts. The purposes of the Institute

scholarship program are to: enhance the

knowledge, skills, and abilities of judges

and court managers; enable State court

judges and court managers to attend outof-State educational programs

sponsored by national and State

providers that they could not otherwise

attend because of limited State, local

and personal budgets; and provide

States, judicial educators, and the

Institute with evaluation information on

a range of judicial and court-related

education programs.

Scholarships will be granted to

individuals only for the purpose of

attending an out-of-State educational

program within the United States. The

annual or midyear meeting of a State or

national organization of which the

applicant is a member does not qualify

as an out-of-State educational program

for scholarship purposes, even though it

may include workshops or other

training sessions.

A scholarship may cover the cost of

tuition and travel up to a maximum

total of $1,500 per scholarship.

Transportation expenses include roundtrip coach airfare or train fare.

Recipients who drive to the site of the

program may receive $.30/mile up to the

amount of the advanced purchase

round-trip airfare between their home

and the program site. Funds to pay

tuition and transportation expenses in

excess of $1,500, and other costs of

attending the program such as lodging,

meals, materials, and local

transportation (including rental cars) at

the site of the education program, must

be obtained from other sources or be

borne by the scholarship recipient.

Scholarship recipients are encouraged

to check with their tax advisor to

determine whether the scholarship

constitutes taxable income under

Federal and State law.

(b) Eligibility Requirements. Because

of the limited amount of funds

available, scholarships can be awarded

only to full-time judges of State or local

trial and appellate courts; to full-time

professional, State or local court

personnel with management

responsibilities; and to supervisory and

management probation personnel in

judicial branch probation offices. Senior

judges, part-time judges, quasi-judicial

hearing officers, State administrative

law judges, staff attorneys, law clerks,

line staff, law enforcement officers, and

other executive branch personnel will

not be eligible to receive a scholarship.

(c) Application Procedures. Judges

and court managers interested in

receiving a scholarship must submit the

Institute’s Judicial Education

Scholarship Application Form (Form

S1, see Appendix IV). Applications

must be submitted by:

February 1, 1996, for programs

beginning between April 13 and July 12,

1996; and

April 15, 1996, for programs

beginning between July 13 and

September 30, 1996; and, July 15, 1996,

for programs beginning between October

1, and December 31, 1996.

No exceptions or extensions will be

granted.

(d) Concurrence Requirement. All

scholarship applicants must obtain the

written concurrence of the Chief Justice

of his or her State’s Supreme Court (or

the Chief Justice’s designee) on the

Institute’s Judicial Education

Scholarship Concurrence form (Form

S2, see Appendix IV). Court managers,

other than elected clerks of court, also

should submit a letter of support from

their supervisor. The Concurrence form

(Form S2) may accompany the

applications or be sent separately.

However, the original signed

Concurrence form must be received by

the Institute within two weeks after the

appropriate application mailing

deadline (i.e. by February 15, or April

30, or July 30, 1996). No application

will be reviewed if a signed

Concurrence has not been received by

the required date.

(e) Review Procedures/Selection

Criteria. The Board of Directors has

delegated the authority to approve or

deny scholarships to its Judicial

Education Committee. The Institute

intends to notify each applicant whose

scholarship has been approved within

60 days after the relevant application

deadline. The Committee will reserve

sufficient funds each quarter to assure

the availability of scholarships

throughout the year.

The factors that the Institute will

consider in selecting scholarship

recipients are:

• The applicant’s need for training in

the particular course subject and how

the applicant would apply the

information/skills gained;

• The benefits to the applicant’s court

or the State’s court system that would be

derived from the applicant’s

participation in the specific educational

program, including a description of

current legal, procedural,

administrative, or other problems

affecting the State’s courts, related to

topics to be addressed at the educational

program (in addition to submission of a

signed Form S2);

• The absence of educational

programs in the applicant’s State

addressing the particular topic;

• How the applicant will disseminate

the knowledge gained (e.g., by

developing/teaching a course or

providing inservice training for judges

or court personnel at the State or local

level);

• The length of time that the

applicant intends to serve as a judge or

court manager, assuming reelection or

reappointment, where applicable;

• The likelihood that the applicant

would be able to attend the program

without a scholarship;

• The unavailability of State or local

funds to cover the costs of attending the

program;

• The quality of the educational

program to be attended as demonstrated

by the sponsoring organization’s

experience in judicial education,

evaluations by participants or other

professionals in the field, or prior SJI

support for this or other programs

sponsored by the organization;

• Geographic balance;

• The balance of scholarships among

types of applicants and courts;

• The balance of scholarships among

educational programs; and

• The level of appropriations

available to the Institute in the current

year and the amount expected to be

available in succeeding fiscal years.

(f) Responsibilities of Scholarship

Recipients. In order to receive the funds

authorized by a scholarship award,

recipients must submit a Scholarship

Payment Voucher (Form S3) together

with a tuition statement from the

program sponsor, and a transportation

fare receipt (or statement of the driving

mileage to and from the recipient’s

home to the site of the educational

program). Recipients also must submit

to the Institute a certificate of

attendance at the program and an

evaluation of the educational program

they attended. A copy of the evaluation

also must be sent to the Chief Justice of

their State.

A State or a local jurisdiction may

impose additional requirements on

scholarship recipients that are

consistent with SJI’s criteria and

requirements, e.g., a requirement to
64202 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

serve as faculty on the subject at a Stateor locally-sponsored judicial education

program.

c. Children and Families in Court.

This category includes education,

evaluation, technical assistance, and

research projects to identify and inform

judges of innovative, appropriate, and

effective approaches for handling cases

involving children and families. The

Institute is particularly interested in

projects to:

i. Assist the courts in addressing the

special needs of children in cases

involving family violence including the

development and testing of innovative

protocols, procedures, educational

programs, and other measures for

improving the capacity of courts to:

• Adjudicate child custody cases in

which family violence may be involved;

• Determine and address the service

needs of children exposed to family

violence including the short- and longterm effects on children of exposure to

family violence and the methods for

mitigating those effects when issuing

protection, custody, visitation, or other

orders;

• Adjudicate and monitor child abuse

and neglect litigation and reconcile the

need to protect the child with the

requirement to make reasonable efforts

to maintain or reunite the family.

ii. Enhance the fairness and

effectiveness of the process used to file,

hear, and dispose of cases involving

family violence, including projects to:

• Determine when it may be

appropriate to refer a case involving

family violence for mediation, and what

procedures and safeguards should be

employed;

• Assess the impact of family

violence coordinating councils in

improving the procedures and practices

used by and the services available to

courts in family violence cases, in order

to identify techniques and procedures

for improving their operation and

effectiveness;

• Evaluate the effectiveness of the

innovative programs, procedures, and

strategies used by courts to improve

their responsiveness to the needs of

victims of family violence, and the fair

and effective adjudication and

disposition of cases involving family

violence.

iii. Improve the effectiveness and

operating efficiency of juvenile and

family courts, including projects to:

• Develop information for judges and

court staff on, and appropriate special

procedures for determining release,

protecting witnesses, adjudicating, and

developing dispositions in cases

involving gang members;

• Assess the rule and effectiveness of

courts with jurisdiction over juveniles

and families in light of the upcoming

100th anniversary of the establishment

of the first juvenile court, and identify

the changes that may be needed as these

courts enter the 21st century;

• Define the rules, enhance the

training, and assure the effective use of

guardians ad litem;

• Develop and test educational

materials and curricula to assist judges

in determining the best interest of a

child when an adoption is contested;

• Improve the capacity of courts,

regardless of structure, to expeditiously

coordinate multiple cases involving

members of the same family, and obtain

and appropriately use social and

psychological information gathered in

one case involving a family member in

a case involving another family member;

and

• Improve the handling of the

criminal and civil aspects of interstate

and international parental child

abductions.

In previous funding cycles, the

Institute supported a national and a

State symposium on courts, children,

and the family; the development of

protocols and a benchbook on the

questioning of child witnesses; the

preparation of educational materials on

making reasonable efforts to preserve

families, adjudicating allegations of

child sexual abuse when custody is in

dispute, child victimization, handling

child abuse and neglect cases when

parental substance abuse is involved,

and on children as the silent victims of

spousal abuse; and examinations of

supervised visitation programs, effective

court responses when domestic violence

and custody disputes coincide, and

foster care review procedures.

The Institute has also supported a

national and several State conferences

on family violence and the courts, as

well as projects supporting the action

plans developed at those conferences;

preparation of descriptions of

innovative court practices in family

violence cases; evaluations of the use of

court-order treatment for domestic

violence offenders, alternatives to

adjudication in child abuse and neglect

cases, and the use of a court-enforced

treatment program for batterers who are

also substance abusers; the exploration

of the policy issues related to the

mediation of domestic relations cases

involving allegations of family violence;

the preparation of educational materials

for judges on family violence issues; and

the testing of videotapes and other

educational programs for the parties in

divorce actions and their children.

Finally, the Institute has supported a

national symposium on enhancing

coordination of cases involving the

same family that are being heard in

different courts; examinations to

document the nature and extent of the

coordination problem and

demonstrations of innovative

approaches for improving intra-court

coordination; technical assistance to

States considering establishment of a

family court; development of a Statebased training program for guardians ad

litem; examination of the authority of

the juvenile court to enforce treatment

orders and the role of juvenile court

judges; and development of innovative

approaches for coordinating services for

children and youth.

d. Application of Technology. This

category includes the testing of

innovative applications of technology to

improve the operation of court

management systems and judicial

practices at both the trial and appellate

court levels.

The Institute seeks to support local

experiments with promising but

untesting applications of technology in

the courts that include a structured

evaluation of the impact of the

technology in terms of costs, benefits,

and staff workload, and an educational

component to assure that the staff is

appropriately informed regarding the

purpose and use of the new technology.

In this context, ‘‘untested’’ refers to

novel applications of technology

developed for the private sector and

other fields that have not previously

been applied to the courts.

The Institute is particularly interested

in supporting efforts to determine what

benefits and problems may occur as a

result of courts entering the

‘‘information superhighway,’’ including

projects to establish standards for

judicial electronic data interchange

(EDI); and local, Statewide, and/or

interstate demonstrations of the courts’

use of EDI (i.e., the exchange of

documents or data in a computerized

format that enables courts to process or

perform work electronically on the

documents received) beyond simply

image transfer (facsimile or computerimaging). In addition, the Institute is

interested in demonstrations and

evaluation of the effective use of

management information systems to

monitor, assess, and predict evolving

court needs; and innovative information

system links between courts and

criminal justice, social service, and

treatment agencies.

Ordinarily, the Institute will not

provide support for the purchase of

equipment or software in order to

implement a technology that has been
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64203

thoroughly tested in other jurisdictions

such as the establishment of videolinks

between courts and jails, the use of

optical imaging for recordkeeping, and

the creation of an automated

management information system. (See

section XI.H.2.b. regarding other limits

on the use of grant funds to purchase

equipment and software.)

In previous funding cycles, grants

have been awarded to support:

Demonstration and evaluation of

communications technology, e.g.,

interactive computerized information

systems to assist pro se litigants; the use

of FAX technology by courts; a multiuser ‘‘system for judicial interchange’’

designed to link disparate automated

information systems and share court

information among judicial system

offices throughout a State without

replacement of the various hardware

and software environments which

support individual courts; a

computerized voice information system

permitting parties to access by

telephone information pertaining to

their cases, an automated public

information directory of courthouse

facilities and services; an automated

appellate court bulletin board; and a

computer-integrated courtroom that

provides full access to the judicial

system for hearing-impaired jurors,

witnesses, crime victims, litigants,

attorneys, and judges.

Demonstration and evaluation of

records technology, including: the

development of a court management

information display system; the

integration of bar-coding technology

with an existing automated case

management system; an on-bench

automated system for generating and

processing court orders; an automated

judicial education management system;

testing of a document management

system for small courts that uses

imaging technology, and of automated

telephone docketing for circuit-riding

judges; and evaluation of the use of

automated teller machines for paying

jurors.

Court technology assistance services,

e.g., circulation of a court technology

bulletin designed to inform judges and

court managers about the latest

developments in court-related

technologies; creation of a court

technology laboratory to provide judges

and court managers with the

opportunity to test automated courtrelated systems; enhancement of a data

base documenting automated systems

currently in use in courts across the

country; establishment of a technical

information service to respond to

specific inquiries concerning courtrelated technologies; development of

court automation performance

standards; and an assessment of

programs that allow public access to

electronically stored court information.

Grants also provided support for

national court technology conferences;

preparation of guidelines on privacy

and public access to electronic court

information and on court access to the

information superhighway; the testing

of a computerized citizen intake and

referral service; development of an

‘‘analytic judicial desktop system’’ to

assist judges in making sentencing

decisions; implementation and

evaluation of a Statewide automated

integrated case docketing and recordkeeping system; a prototype

computerized benchbook using

hypertext technology; and computer

simulation models to assist State courts

in evaluating potential strategies for

improving civil caseflow.

e. Improving the Court’s Response to

Gender-Related Crimes of Violence.

This category includes the development,

testing, presentation, and dissemination

of education programs for State; and

local court judges and court personnel

on:

• The effective use and enforcement

of protective orders and the

implications of mutual orders of

protection;

• Evidentiary issues arising in

gender-related criminal cases, including

the use of expert testimony and the

application of rape shield laws and their

limits on the introduction of evidence of

the cross-examination of witnesses;

• The use of self-defense and

provocation defenses by alleged victims

of gender-related violence accused of

assaulting or killing their alleged

abusers; and

• Sentencing decision-making in

cases involving gender-related crimes of

violence.

Institute funds may not be used to

provide operational support to programs

offering direct services or compensation

to victims of crimes.

In previous funding cycles, the

Institute supported a national

conference on family violence and the

courts, and follow-up conferences and

technical assistance in several States;

development of curricula for judges on

handling stranger and non-stranger rape

and sexual assault cases and on family

violence; evaluation of the effectiveness

of court-ordered treatment for family

violence offenders; a demonstration of

ways to improve court processing of

injunctions for protection and a study of

ways to improve the effectiveness of

civil protection orders for family

violence victims; an examination of

state-of-the-art court practices for

handling family violence cases and of

ways to improve access to rural courts

for victims of family violence; and

preparation of an analysis of the issues

related to the use of expert testimony in

criminal cases involving domestic

violence.

f. The Relationship Between State and

Federal Courts. This category includes

education, research, demonstration, and

evaluation projects designed to facilitate

appropriate and effective

communication, cooperation, and

coordination between State and Federal

courts. The Institute is particularly

interested in innovative education,

evaluation, demonstration, technical

assistance, and research projects that:

i. Build upon the findings and

recommendations made at the Institutesupported National Conference on the

Management of Mass Tort Cases held in

November, 1994. (A summary of the

recommendations and findings from the

conference was published in the Winter

1995 issue of SJI NEWS.)

ii. Develop and test curricula and

other educational materials to:

• illustrate effective methods being

used at the trial court, State, and Circuit

levels to coordinate cases and

administrative activities; and

• conduct regional conferences

replicating the 1992 National

Conference on State/Federal Judicial

Relationships.

iii. Develop and test new approaches

to:

• handle capital habeas corpus cases

fairly and efficiently;

• coordinate related State and Federal

criminal cases;

• coordinate cases that may be

brought under the Violence Against

Women Act;

• exchange information and

coordinate calendars among State and

Federal courts; and

• share jury pools, alternative dispute

resolution programs, and court services.

• In previous funding cycles, the

Institute has supported national and

regional conferences on State-Federal

judicial relationships, a national

conference on mass tort litigation, and

the Chief Justices’ Special Committee on

Mass Tort Litigation. In addition, the

Institute has supported projects

developing judicial impact statement

procedures for national legislation

affecting State courts, and projects

examining methods of State and Federal

court cooperation; procedures for

facilitating certification of questions of

law; the impact on the State courts of

diversity cases and cases brought under

section 1983; the procedures used in

Federal habeas corpus review of State

court criminal cases; the factors that
64204 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

motivate litigants to select Federal or

State courts; and the mechanisms for

transferring cases between Federal and

State courts, as well as the methods for

effectively consolidating, deciding, and

managing complex litigation. The

Institute has also supported a test of

assigning specialized law clerks to trial

courts hearing capital cases in order to

improve the fairness and efficiency of

death penalty litigation at the trial level,

a clearinghouse of information on State

constitutional law decisions,

educational programs for State judges

on coordination of Federal bankruptcy

cases with State litigation, and a

seminar examining the implications of

the ‘‘Federalization’’ of crime.

g. Conference Implementation

Projects. In 1995, the Institute

sponsored four national conferences on

issues of critical importance to the State

courts:

• The National Conference on

Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the

Courts held march 2–5, 1995 in

Albuquerque, NM;

• The National Interbranch

Conference on Funding the State Courts

held September 28–October 1, 1995 in

Minneapolis, MN;

• The National Town Hall Meeting on

Improving Public Confidence in the

Courts convened, via a videoconference,

in 11 sites across the country on October

13–14, 1995; and

• The National Symposium on the

Implementation and Operation of Drug

Courts to be held on December 2–5,

1995 in Portland, OR.

The Institute is interested in

supporting education, demonstration,

technical assistance, research, and

evaluation projects to address the issues

or implement the recommendations and

State action plans resulting from these

conferences. The Institute is particularly

interested in supporting:

i. The National Conference on

Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the

Courts—Innovative national, regional,

and State projects addressing the nonState specific issues discussed during

the Conference, and projects to

implement the action plans developed

by teams from jurisdictions which were

unable to meet the previously

announced special October 6, 1995,

deadline for concept papers. (For further

information about the Conference,

contact SJI Program Manager Cheryl D.

Reynolds at 703–684–6100, or John

Richardson, Research Associate,

National Center for State Courts, P.O.

Box 7898, Williamsburg, VA 23187–

8798, 804–253–2000.)

In previous funding cycles, the

Institute has supported several projects

to prepare and test curricula and other

materials for judges, court personnel,

and judicial education faculty on

diversity and related issues; and provide

information regarding the American

justice system for non-English speakers,

and improve the quality of court

interpreting.

ii. The National Interbranch

Conference on Funding the State

Courts—Innovative projects to develop

and test methods for linking

assessments of effectiveness, such as the

Trial Court Performance Standards, to

fiscal planning and budgeting, including

service efforts and accomplishments

approaches (SEA), performance audits,

and performance budgeting; and test

innovative programs and procedures for

providing clear and open interbranch

communications at the State and local

levels. (For further information about

this conference, contact SJI Deputy

Director, Richard Van Duizend 703–

684–6100 or Robert Tobin, Senior

Research Associate, National Center for

State Courts, 1700 N. Moore Street,

Suite 1710, Arlington, VA 22209 703–

841–0200.)

In previous funding cycles, the

Institute has supported projects that

examined State court expenditures and

staffing; documented methods for

determining judgeship needs; prepared

a trial court financial management

guide; analyzed differing methods for

financing court facilities; evaluated

techniques for improving collection and

administration of monetary penalties

and assessments; and presented regional

conferences on improving relations

between the judicial and legislative

branches of government.

iii. The National Town Hall Meeting

on Improving Public Confidence in the

Courts—Innovative projects to

implement the findings,

recommendations, strategies, and action

plans developed by the local receiving

sites as well as at the national broadcast

site. (For further information about the

National Town Hall meeting, contact SJI

Program Manager Cheryl D. Reynolds,

703–684–6100; Dr. Pamela Casey,

Senior Research Associate, National

Center for State Courts P.O. Box 8798,

Williamsburg, VA 23187–8798, 804–

253–2000; or Kathleen Sampson,

Director, Information and Program

Services, American Judicature Society,

25 E. Washington Street, Suite 1600,

Chicago, IL 60602, 312–558–6900).

For a list of previously funded

projects on topics related to the

National Town Hall Meeting, see section

11.B.2.a.

iv. National Symposium on the

Implementation and Operation of Drug

Courts—Innovative projects that address

the issues, findings, and

recommendations resulting from the

Symposium, including, but not limited

to:

• The development and testing of

educational programs for judges and

court personnel concerning the

management of treatment-based drug

court programs;

• The examination of the judicial

ethics concerns that may be involved in

operating a treatment-based drug court

program;

• The preparation of measures, forms,

and other tools for self-evaluation of a

treatment-based drug court program;

• The development and testing of

innovative information systems to

facilitate the efficient sharing of

information between the court and the

agencies and services involved in the

operation of an effective treatment-base

drug court program; and

• The evaluation of the applicability

of court-enforced treatment programs to

substance abuse-related cases involving

juveniles and cases requiring treatment

services in addition to substance abuse

treatment (e.g., spousal abuse, child

abuse, or mental health cases).

(For further information contact SJI

Program Manager Janice Munsterman

703–684–6100 or Caroline Cooper,

Justice Programs Office, The American

University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue

NW, Brandywine-Suite 660,

Washington, DC 20016–8159, 202–885–

2875.)

The Institute will not fund projects

focused on developing additional

assessment tools, establishing courtenforced treatment programs for adult

substance abusers, or providing support

for basic court or treatment services.

In previous funding cycles, the

Institute has sponsored a National

Conference on Substance Abuse and the

Courts, and State efforts to implement

the plans developed at that Conference.

It has also helped to support projects to

provide technical assistance to State and

local courts; identify successful drug

case management strategies; conduct

seminars on drug case management; and

develop a guidebook for implementing

drug case processing initiatives; as well

as to conduct regional training programs

for State judges and legislators on

substance abuse treatment. In addition,

SJI has supported the evaluation of:

court-enforced treatment programs

initiated by the Dade County, Florida,

Pulaski County, Arkansas, and New

York City courts; special court-ordered

programs for women offenders, and

other court-based alcohol and drug

assessment programs; replication of the

Dade County program in non-urban

sites; assessments of the impact of

legislation and court decisions dealing
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64205

with drug-affected infants, and

strategies for coping with increasing

caseload pressures; development of a

benchbook and other educational

materials to assist judges in child abuse

and neglect cases involving parental

substance abuse and in developing

appropriate sentences for pregnant

substance abusers; tests of the use of a

dual diagnostic treatment model for

domestic violence cases in which

substance abuse was a factor; and

presentation of local and regional

educational programs for judges and

other court personnel on substance

abuse and its treatment.

C. Technical Assistance Grants

1. Description of the Program. The

Board will set aside up to $400,000 of

Fiscal Year 1996 funds to support the

provision of technical assistance to State

and local courts. The exact amount to be

awarded for these grants will depend on

the number and quality of the

applications submitted in this category

and other categories of the Guideline. It

is anticipated, however, that at least

$100,000 will be available each quarter

to support Technical Assistance grants.

The program is designed to provide

State and local courts with sufficient

support to obtain technical assistance to

diagnose a problem, develop a response

to that problem, and initiate

implementation of any needed changes.

Technical Assistance grants are

limited to no more than $30,000 each,

and may cover the cost of obtaining the

services of expert consultants, travel by

a team of officials from one court to

examine a practice, program, or facility

in another jurisdiction that the

applicant court is interested in

replicating, or both. Technical

assistance grant funds ordinarily may

not be used to support production of a

videotape. Normally, the technical

assistance must be completed within 12

months after the start-date of the grant.

2. Eligibility for Technical Assistance

Grants. Only a State or local court may

apply for a Technical Assistance grant.

As with other awards to State or local

courts, cash or in-kind match must be

provided equal to at least 50% of the

grant amount.

3. Review Criteria. Technical

Assistance grants will be awarded on

the basis of criteria including: whether

the assistance would address a critical

need of the court; the soundness of the

technical assistance approach to the

problem; the qualifications of the

consultant(s) to be hired, or the specific

criteria that will be used to select the

consultant(s); commitment on the part

of the court to act on the consultant’s

recommendations; and the

reasonableness of the proposed budget.

The Institute also will consider factors

such as the level and nature of the

match that would be provided, diversity

of subject matter, geographic diversity,

and the level of appropriations available

to the Institute in the current year and

the amount expected to be available in

succeeding fiscal years.

The Board has delegated its authority

to approve these grants to its Technical

Assistance Committee.

4. Application Procedures. In lieu of

formal applications, applicants for

Technical Assistance grants may

submit, at any time, an original and

three copies of a detailed letter

describing the proposed project and

addressing the issues listed below.

Letters from an individual trial or

appellate court must be signed by the

presiding judge or manager of that court.

Letters from the State court system must

be signed by the Chief Justice or State

Court Administrator.

Although there is no prescribed form

for the letter nor a minimum or

maximum page limit, letters of

application should include the

following information to assure that

each of the criteria is addressed:

a. Need for Funding. What is the

critical need facing the court? How will

the proposed technical assistance help

the court to meet this critical need? Why

cannot State or local resources fully

support the costs of the required

consultant services?

b. Project Description. What tasks

would the consultant be expected to

perform and how would they be

accomplished? Who (organization or

individual) would be hired to provide

the assistance and how was this

consultant selected? If a consultant has

not yet been identified, what procedures

and criteria would be used to select the

consultant? (Applicants are expected to

follow their jurisdiction’s normal

procedures for procuring consultant

services.) What is the time frame for

completion of the technical assistance?

How would the court oversee the project

and provide guidance to the consultant,

and who at the court would be

responsible for coordinating all project

tasks and submitting quarterly progress

and financial status reports?

If the consultant has been identified,

a letter from that individual or

organization documenting interest in

and availability for the project, as well

as the consultant’s ability to complete

the assignment within the proposed

time period and for the proposed cost

should accompany the applicant’s letter.

The consultant must agree to submit a

detailed written report to the court and

the Institute upon completion of the

technical assistance.

c. Likelihood of Implementation.

What steps have been/will be taken to

facilitate implementation of the

consultant’s recommendations upon

completion of the technical assistance?

For example, if the support or

cooperation of specific court officials or

committees, other agencies, funding

bodies, organizations, or a court other

than the applicant will be needed to

adopt the changes recommended by the

consultant and approved by the court,

how will they be involved in the review

of the recommendations and

development of the implementation

plan?

d. Budget and Matching State

Contribution. A completed Form E,

‘‘Preliminary Budget’’ (see Appendix V

to the Grant Guideline), must be

included with the applicant’s letter

requesting technical assistance. Please

note that the estimated cost of the

technical assistance services should be

broken down into the categories listed

on the budget form rather than

aggregated under the Consultant/

Contractual category. The budget

narrative should provide the basis for all

project-related costs, including the basis

for determining the estimated

consultant costs (e.g., number of days

per task times the requested daily

consultant rate). In addition, the budget

should provide for submission of two

copies of the consultant’s final report to

the Institute.

e. Support for the Project from the

State Supreme Court or its Designated

Agency or Council. Written concurrence

on the need for the technical assistance

must be submitted. This concurrence

may be a copy of SJI Form B (see

Appendix VI) signed by the Chief

Justice of the State Supreme Court or the

Chief Justice’s designee, or a letter from

the State Chief Justice or designee. The

concurrence may be submitted with the

applicant’s letter or under separate

cover prior to consideration of the

application. The concurrence also must

specify whether the State Supreme

Court would receive, administer, and

account for the grant funds, if awarded,

or would designate the local court or a

specified agency or council to receive

the funds directly.

Letters of application may be

submitted at any time; however, all of

the letters received during a calendar

quarter will be considered at one time.

Applicants submitting letters between

September 30 and December 22, 1995

will be notified of the Board’s decision

by March 22, 1996; those submitting

letters between December 23, 1995 and

March 29, 1996 will be notified by July
64206 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

1, 1996. Notification of the Board’s

decisions concerning letters mailed

between March 30 and June 17, 1996

will be made by August 31, 1996.

Subject to the availability of sufficient

appropriations for fiscal year 1997,

applicants submitting letters between

June 18 and September 30, 1996 will be

notified by December 17, 1996.

If the support or cooperation of

agencies, funding bodies, organizations,

or courts other than the applicant,

would be needed in order for the

consultant to perform the required tasks,

written assurances of such support or

cooperation must accompany the

application letter. Support letters also

may be submitted under separate cover;

however, to ensure that there is

sufficient time to bring them to the

attention of the Board’s Technical

Assistance Committee, letters sent

under separate cover must be received

not less than two weeks prior to the

Board meeting at which the technical

assistance requests will be considered

(i.e., by February 14, 1996; May 29,

1996, and July 11, 1996).

5. Grantee Responsibilities. Technical

Assistance grant recipients are subject to

the same quarterly reporting

requirements as other Institute grantees.

At the conclusion of the grant period, a

Technical Assistance grant recipient

must complete a Technical Assistance

Evaluation Form. The grantee also must

submit to the Institute two copies of a

final report that explains how it intends

to act on the consultant’s

recommendations as well as two copies

of the consultant’s written report.

III. Definitions

The following definitions apply for

the purposes of this guideline:

A. Institute

The State Justice Institute.

B. State Supreme Court

The highest appellate court in a State,

or, for the purposes of the Institute

program, a constitutionally or

legislatively established judicial council

that acts in place of that court. In States

having more than one court with final

appellate authority, State Supreme

Court shall mean that court which also

has administrative responsibility for the

State’s judicial system. State Supreme

Court also includes the office of the

Court or council, if any, it designates to

perform the functions described in this

Guideline.

C. Designated Agency or Council

The office or judicial body which is

authorized under State law or by

delegation from the State Supreme

Court to approve applications for funds

and to receive, administer, and be

accountable for those funds.

D. Grantee

The organization, entity, or individual

to which an award of Institute funds is

made. For a grant based on an

application from a State or local court,

grantee refers to the State Supreme

Court or its designee.

E. Subgrantee

A State or local court which receives

Institute funds through the State

Supreme Court.

F. Match

The portion of project costs not borne

by the Institute. Match includes both inkind and cash contributions. Cash

match is the direct outlay of funds by

the grantee to support the project. Inkind match consists of contributions of

time, services, space, supplies, etc.,

made to the project by the grantee or

others (e.g., advisory board members)

working directly on the project. Under

normal circumstances, allowable match

may be incurred only during the project

period. When appropriate, and with the

prior written permission of the Institute,

match may be incurred from the date of

the Institute Board of Directors’

approval of an award. Match does not

include project-related income such as

tuition or revenue from the sale of grant

products, or the time of participants

attending an education program.

Amounts contributed as cash or in-kind

match may not be recovered through the

sale of grant products during or

following the grant period.

G. Continuation Grant

A grant of no more than 24 months to

permit completion of activities initiated

under an existing Institute grant or

enhancement of the programs or

services produced or established during

the prior grant period.

H. On-going Support Grant

A grant of up to 36 months to support

a project that is national in scope and

that provides the State courts with

services, programs or products for

which there is a continuing important

need.

I. Human Subjects

Individuals who are participants in an

experimental procedure or who are

asked to provide information about

themselves, their attitudes, feelings,

opinions and/or experiences through an

interview, questionnaire, or other data

collection technique(s).

J. Curriculum

The materials needed to replicate an

education or training program

developed with grant funds including,

but not limited to: the learning

objectives; the presentation methods; a

sample agenda or schedule; an outline

of presentations and other instructors’

notes; copies of overhead transparencies

or other visual aids; exercises, case

studies, hypotheticals, quizzes and

other materials for involving the

participants; background materials for

participants; evaluation forms; and

suggestions for replicating the program

including possible faculty or the

preferred qualifications or experience of

those selected as faculty.

K. Products

Tangible materials resulting from

funded projects including, but not

limited to: curricula; monographs;

reports; books; articles; manuals;

handbooks; benchbooks; guidelines;

videotapes; audiotapes; and computer

software.

IV. Eligibility for Award

In awarding funds to accomplish

these objectives and purposes, the

Institute has been authorized by

Congress to award grants, cooperative

agreements, and contracts to State and

local courts and their agencies (42

U.S.C. 10705(b)(1)(A)); national

nonprofit organizations controlled by,

operating in conjunction with, and

serving the judicial branches of State

governments (42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(1)(B));

and national nonprofit organizations for

the education and training of judges and

support personnel of the judicial branch

of State governments (42 U.S.C.

10705(b)(1)(C)).

An applicant will be considered a

national education and training

applicant under section 10705(b)(1)(C)

if: (1) the principal purpose or activity

of the applicant is to provide education

and training to State and local judges

and court personnel; and (2) the

applicant demonstrates a record of

substantial experience in the field of

judicial education and training.

The Institute also is authorized to

make awards to other nonprofit

organizations with expertise in judicial

administration, institutions of higher

education, individuals, partnerships,

firms, corporations, and private agencies

with expertise in judicial

administration, provided that the

objectives of the relevant program

area(s) can be served better. In making

this judgment, the Institute will

consider the likely replicability of the

projects’ methodology and results in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64207

other jurisdictions. For profit

organizations are also eligible for grants

and cooperative agreements; however,

they must waive their fees.

The Institute may also make awards to

Federal, State or local agencies and

institutions other than courts for

services that cannot be adequately

provided through nongovernmental

arrangements.

In addition, the Institute may enter

into inter-agency agreements with other

public or private funders to support

projects consistent with the purpose of

the State Justice Institute Act.

Each application for funding from a

State or local court must be approved,

consistent with State law, by the State’s

Supreme Court or its designated agency

or council. The latter shall receive all

Institute funds awarded to such courts

and be responsible for assuring proper

administration of Institute funds, in

accordance with section XI.B.2. of this

Guideline. A list of persons to contact

in each State regarding approval of

applications from State and local courts

and administration of Institute grants to

those courts is contained in Appendix I.

V. Types of Projects and Grants; Size of

Awards

A. Types of Projects

Except as expressly provided in

section II.B.2.b. and II.C. above, the

Institute has placed no limitation on the

overall number of awards or the number

of awards in each special interest

category. The general types of projects

are:

1. Education and training;

2. Research and evaluation;

3. Demonstration; and

4. Technical assistance.

B. Types of Grants

The Institute has established the

following types of grants:

1. New grants (See sections VI. and

VII.).

2. Continuation grants (See sections

III.H. and IX.A).

3. On-going Support grants (See

sections III.I. and IX.B.).

4. Technical Assistance grants (See

section II.C.).

5. Curriculum Adaptation grants (See

section II.B.2.b.ii.).

6. Scholarships (See section

II.B.2.b.iii).

C. Maximum Size of Awards

1. Except as specified below,

applications for new projects and

applications for continuation grants may

request funding in amounts up to

$200,000, although new and

continuation awards in excess of

$150,000 are likely to be rare and to be

made, if at all, only for highly promising

proposals that will have a significant

impact nationally.

2. Applications for on-going support

grants may request funding in amounts

up to $600,000. At the discretion of the

Board, the funds for on-going support

grants may be awarded either entirely

from the Institute’s appropriations for

the fiscal year of the award or from the

Institute’s appropriations for successive

fiscal years beginning with the fiscal

year of the award. When funds to

support the full amount of an on-going

support grant are not awarded from the

appropriations for the fiscal year of

award, funds to support any subsequent

years of the grant will be made available

upon (1) the satisfactory performance of

the project as reflected in the quarterly

Progress Reports required to be filed and

grant monitoring, and (2) the availability

of appropriations for that fiscal year.

3. Applications for technical

assistance grants may request funding in

amounts up to $30,000.

4. Applications for curriculum

adaptation grants may request funding

in amounts up to $20,000.

5. Applications for scholarships may

request funding in amounts up to

$1,500.

D. Length of Grant Periods

1. Grant periods for all new and

continuation projects ordinarily will not

exceed 15 months.

2. Grant periods for on-going support

grants ordinarily will not exceed 36

months.

3. Grant periods for technical

assistance grants and curriculum

adaptation grants ordinarily will not

exceed 12 months.

VI. Suspension of the Concept Paper

Submission Requirement

Because of its reduced appropriation

for FY 1996, the Institute is not using

concept papers as part of its funding

process this year, except for the special

funding cycle announced previously to

follow up on the National Conference

on Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in

the Courts. Courts, organizations, and

individuals seeking a new grant to

support a project must file a full

application meeting the requirements

set forth in Chapter VII. of this

Guideline, unless the applicant is

seeking a grant under the Institute’s

Curriculum Adaptation, Scholarship, or

Technical Assistance grant programs.

(See sections II.B.2.b. ii and iii, and

section II.C., respectively)

VII. Application Requirements for New

Projects

An application for Institute funding

support must include an application

form; budget forms (with appropriate

documentation); a project abstract and

program narrative; a disclosure of

lobbying form, when applicable; and

certain certifications and assurances.

These required application forms are

described below and are included in

Appendix VII. They also may be

requested via E-mail (SJI@clark.net) or

by calling the Institute and requesting a

copy (703–684–6100). Applicants may

photocopy the forms to make

completion easier.

A. Forms

1. Application Form (FORM A)

The application form requests basic

information regarding the proposed

project, the applicant, and the total

amount of funding support requested

from the Institute. It also requires the

signature of an individual authorized to

certify on behalf of the applicant that

the information contained in the

application is true and complete, that

submission of the application has been

authorized by the applicant, and that if

funding for the proposed project is

approved, the applicant will comply

with the requirements and conditions of

the award, including the assurances set

forth in Form D.

2. Certificate of State Approval (FORM

B)

An application from a State or local

court must include a copy of FORM B

signed by the State’s Chief Justice or

Chief Judge, the director of the

designated agency, or the head of the

designated council. The signature

denotes that the proposed project has

been approved by the State’s highest

court or the agency or council it has

designated. It denotes further that if

funding for the project is approved by

the Institute, the court or the specified

designee will receive, administer, and

be accountable for the awarded funds.

3. Budget Forms (FORM C or C1)

Applicants may submit the proposed

project budget either in the tabular

format of FORM C or in the spreadsheet

format of FORM C1. Applicants

requesting $100,000 or more are

strongly encouraged to use the

spreadsheet format. If the proposed

project period is for more than a year,

a separate form should be submitted for

each year or portion of a year for which

grant support is requested.

In addition to FORM C or C1,

applicants must provide a detailed
64208 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

budget narrative providing an

explanation of the basis for the

estimates in each budget category. (See

section VII.D.)

If funds from other sources are

required to conduct the project, either as

match or to support other aspects of the

project, the source, current status of the

request, and anticipated decision date

must be provided.

4. Assurances (FORM D)

This form lists the statutory,

regulatory, and policy requirements and

conditions with which recipients of

Institute funds must comply.

5. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

This form requires applicants other

than units of State or local government

to disclose whether they, or another

entity that is part of the same

organization as the applicant, have

advocated a position before Congress on

any issue, and to identify the specific

subjects of their lobbying efforts. (See

section X.D.)

B. Project Abstract

The abstract should highlight the

purposes, goals, methods and

anticipated benefits of the proposed

project. It should not exceed one singlespaced page on 81⁄2 by 11 inch paper.

C. Program Narrative

The program narrative for an

application proposing a single project

should not exceed 25 double-spaced

pages on 81⁄2 by 11 inch paper. Margins

must not be less than 1 inch, and type

no smaller than 12-point and 12 cpi

must be used. The page limit does not

include the forms, the abstract, the

budget narrative, and any appendices

containing resumes and letters of

cooperation or endorsement. Additional

background material should be attached

only if it is essential to impart a clear

understanding of the proposed project.

Numerous and lengthy appendices are

strongly discouraged.

The program narrative should address

the following topics:

1. Project Objectives

The applicant should include a clear,

concise statement of what the proposed

project is intended to accomplish. In

stating the objectives of the project,

applicants should focus on the overall

programmatic objective (e.g., to enhance

understanding and skills regarding a

specific subject, or to determine how a

certain procedure affects the court and

litigants) rather than on operational

objectives (e.g., provide training for 32

judges and court managers, or review

data from 300 cases).

2. Program Areas to be Covered

The applicant should list the Special

Interest Category(ies) that is(are)

addressed by the proposed project (see

section II.B.). If the proposed project

does not fall within one of the Institute’s

Special Interest Categories, the

applicant should list the Statutory

Program Area(s) that is(are) addressed

by the proposed project. (See section

II.A.).

3. Need for the Project

If the project is to be conducted in a

specific location(s), the applicant

should discuss the particular needs of

the project site(s) to be addressed by the

project and why those needs are not

being met through the use of existing

materials, programs, procedures,

services or other resources.

If the project is not site-specific, the

applicant should discuss the problems

that the proposed project would

address, and why existing materials,

programs, procedures, services or other

resources do not adequately resolve

those problems. The discussion should

include specific references to the

relevant literature and to the experience

in the field.

4. Tasks, Methods and Evaluation

a. Tasks and Methods. The applicant

should delineate the tasks to be

performed in achieving the project

objectives and the methods to be used

for accomplishing each task. For

example:

i. For research and evaluation

projects, the applicant should include

the data sources, data collection

strategies, variables to be examined, and

analytic procedures to be used for

conducting the research or evaluation

and ensuring the validity and general

applicability of the results. For projects

involving human subjects, the

discussion of methods should address

the procedures for obtaining

respondents’ informed consent,

ensuring the respondents’ privacy and

freedom for risk or harm, and the

protection of others who are not the

subjects of research but would be

affected by the research. If the potential

exists for risk or harm to the human

subjects, a discussion should be

included that explains the value of the

proposed research and the methods to

be used to minimize or eliminate such

risk.

ii. For education and training

projects, the applicant should include

the adult education techniques to be

used in designing and presenting the

program, including the teaching/

learning objectives of the educational

design, the teaching methods to be used,

and the opportunities for structured

interaction among the participants; how

faculty will be recruited, selected, and

trained; the proposed number and

length of the conferences, courses,

seminars or workshops to be conducted;

the materials to be provided and how

they will be developed; and the cost to

participants.

iii. For demonstration projects, the

applicant should include the

demonstration sites and the reasons

they were selected, or if the sites have

not been chosen, how they will be

identified and their cooperation

obtained; and how the program or

procedures will be implemented and

monitored.

iv. For technical assistance projects,

the applicant should explain the types

of assistance that will be provided; the

particular issues and problems for

which assistance will be provided; how

requests will be obtained and the type

of assistance determined; how suitable

providers will be selected and briefed;

how reports will be reviewed; and the

cost to recipients.

b. Evaluation. Every project design

must include an evaluation plan to

determine whether the project met its

objectives. The evaluation should be

designed to provide an objective and

independent assessment of the

effectiveness or usefulness of the

training or services provided; the impact

of the procedures, technology or

services tested; or the validity and

applicability of the research conducted.

In addition, where appropriate, the

evaluation process should be designed

to provide on-going or periodic feed

back on the effectiveness or utility of

particular programs, educational

offerings, or achievements which can

then be further refined as a result of the

evaluation process. The plan should

present the qualifications of the

evaluator(s); describe the criteria,

related to the project’s programmatic

objectives, that will be used to evaluate

the project’s effectiveness; explain how

the evaluation will be conducted,

including the specific data collection

and analysis techniques to be used;

discuss why this approach is

appropriate; and present a schedule for

completion of the evaluation within the

proposed project period.

The evaluation plan should be

appropriate to the type of project

proposed. For example:

i. An evaluation approach suited to

many research projects is a review by an

advisory panel of the research

methodology, data collection

instruments, preliminary analyses, and

products as they are drafted. The panel
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64209

should be comprised of independent

researchers and practitioners

representing the perspectives affected

by the proposed project.

ii. The most valuable approaches to

evaluating educational or training

programs will serve to reinforce the

participants’ learning experience while

providing useful feedback on the impact

of the program and possible areas for

improvement. One appropriate

evaluation approach is to assess the

acquisition of new knowledge, skills,

attitudes or understanding through

participant feedback on the seminar or

training event. Such feedback might

include a self-assessment on what was

learned along with the participant’s

response to the quality and effectiveness

of faculty presentations, the format of

sessions, the value or usefulness of the

material presented and other relevant

factors. Another appropriate approach

would be to use an independent

observer who might request verbal as

well as written responses from

participants in the program. When an

education project involves the

development of curricular materials an

advisory panel of relevant experts can

be coupled with a test of the curriculum

to obtain the reactions of participants

and faculty as indicated above.

iii. The evaluation plan for a

demonstration project should

encompass an assessment of program

effectiveness (e.g., how well did it

work?); user satisfaction, if appropriate;

the cost-effectiveness of the program; a

process analysis of the program (e.g.,

was the program implemented as

designed? did it provide the services

intended to the targeted population?);

the impact of the program (e.g., what

effect did the program have on the

court? what benefits resulted from the

program?); and the replicability of the

program or components of the program.

iv. For technical assistance projects,

applicants should explain how the

quality, timeliness, and impact of the

assistance provided will be determined,

and should develop a mechanism for

feedback from both the users and

providers of the technical assistance.

v. Evaluation plans involving human

subjects should include a discussion of

the procedures for obtaining

respondents’ informed consent,

ensuring the respondents’ privacy and

freedom from risk or harm, and the

protection of others who are not the

subjects of evaluation but would be

affected by it. Other than the provision

of confidentiality to respondents,

human subjects protection issues

ordinarily are not applicable to

participants evaluating an education

program.

5. Project Management

The applicant should present a

detailed management plan including the

starting and completion date for each

task; the time commitments to the

project of key staff and their

responsibilities regarding each project

task; and the procedures that will be

used to ensure that all tasks are

performed on time, within budget, and

at the highest level of quality. In

preparing the project time line, Gantt

Chart, or schedule, applicants should

make certain that all project activities,

including publication or reproduction of

project products and their initial

dissemination will occur within the

proposed project period. The

management plan must also provide for

the submission of Quarterly Progress

and Financial Reports within 30 days

after the close of each calendar quarter

(i.e., no later than January 30, April 30,

July 30, and October 30).

Applicants should be aware that the

Institute is unlikely to approve more

than one limited extension of the grant

period. Therefore, the management plan

should be as realistic as possible and

fully reflect the time commitments of

the proposed project staff and

consultants.

6. Products

The application should contain a

description of the products to be

developed by the project (e.g., training

curricula and materials, videotapes,

articles, manuals, or handbooks),

including when they will be submitted

to the Institute.

a. Dissemination Plan. The

application must explain how and to

whom the products will be

disseminated; describe how they will

benefit the State courts including how

they can be used by judges and court

personnel; identify development,

production, and dissemination costs

covered by the project budget; and

present the basis on which products and

services developed or provided under

the grant will be offered to the courts

community and the public at large (i.e.

whether products will be distributed at

no cost to recipients, or if costs are

involved, the reason for charging

recipients and the estimated price of the

product). (see section X.V.) Ordinarily,

applicants should schedule all product

preparation and distribution activities

within the project period. Applicants

also must submit a diskette containing

a one-page abstract summarizing the

products resulting from a project in

Word, WordPerfect or ASCII. The

abstract should include the grant

number and the name of a contact

person together with that individual’s

address, telephone number, and e-mail

address (if applicable).

A copy of each product must be sent

to the library established in each State

to collect the materials developed with

Institute support. (A list of these

libraries is contained in Appendix II.)

To facilitate their use, all videotaped

products should be distributed in VHS

format.

Twenty copies of all project products,

must be submitted to the Institute. A

master copy of each videotape, in

addition to 20 copies of each videotape

product, must also be provided to the

Institute.

b. Types of Products, The type of

products to be prepared depend on the

nature of the project. For example, in

most instances, the products of a

research, evaluation, or demonstration

project should include an article

summarizing the project findings that is

publishable in a journal serving the

courts community nationally, an

executive summary that will be

disseminated to the project’s primary

audience, or both. Applicants proposing

to conduct empirical research or

evaluation projects with national import

should describe how they will make

their data available for secondary

analysis after the grant period. (See

section X.W.)

The curricula and other products

developed by education and training

projects should be designed for use

outside the classroom so that they may

be used again by original participants

and others in the course of their duties.

c. Institute Review. Applicants must

provide for submitting a final draft of

written grant product(s) to the Institute

for review and approval at least 30 days

before the product(s) are submitted for

publication or reproduction. For

products in a videotape or CD-ROM

format, applicants must provide for

incremental Institute review of the

product at the treatment, script, roughcut, and final stages of development, or

their equivalents. No grant funds may be

obligated for publication or

reproduction of a final grant product

without the written approval of the

Institute.

d. Acknowledgment, Disclaimer, and

Logo. Applicants must also provide for

including in all project products a

prominent acknowledgment that

support was received from the Institute

and a disclaimer paragraph based on the

example provided in section X.Q. of the

Guideline. The ‘‘SJI’’ logo must appear

on the front cover of a written product,

or in the opening frames of a video

product, unless the Institute approves

another placement.
64210 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

7. Applicant Status

An applicant that is not a State or

local court and has not received a grant

from the Institute within the past two

years should state whether it is either a

national non-profit organization

controlled by, operating in conjunction

with, and serving the judicial branches

of State governments; or a national nonprofit organization for the education and

training of State court judges and

support personnel. See section IV. If the

applicant is a nonjudicial unit of

Federal, State, or local government, it

must explain whether the proposed

services could be adequately provided

by non-governmental entities.

8. Staff Capability

The applicant should include a

summary of the training and experience

of the key staff members and

consultants that qualify them for

conducting and managing the proposed

project. Resumes of identified staff

should be attached to the application. If

one or more key staff members and

consultants are not known at the time of

the application, a description of the

criteria that will be used to select

persons for these positions should be

included.

9. Organizational Capacity

Applicants that have not received a

grant from the Institute within the past

two years should include a statement

describing the capacity of the applicant

to administer grant funds including the

financial systems used to monitor

project expenditures (and income, if

any) and a summary of the applicant’s

past experience in administering grants,

as well as any resources or capabilities

that the applicant has that will

particularly assist in the successful

completion of the project.

If the applicant is a non-profit

organization (other than a university), it

must also provide documentation of its

501(c) tax exempt status as determined

by the Internal Revenue Service and a

copy of a current certified audit report.

For purposes of this requirement,

‘‘current’’ means no earlier than two

years prior to the current calendar year.

If a current audit report is not available,

the Institute will require the

organization to complete a financial

capability questionnaire which must be

signed by a Certified Public Accountant.

Other applicants may be required to

provide a current audit report, a

financial capability questionnaire, or

both, if specifically requested to do so

by the Institute.

Unless requested otherwise, an

applicant that has received a grant from

the Institute within the past two years

should describe only the changes in its

organizational capacity, tax status, or

financial capability that may affect its

capacity to administer a grant.

10. Statement of Lobbying Activities

Non-governmental applicants must

submit the Institute’s Disclosure of

Lobbying Activities Form that requires

them to state whether they, or another

entity that is a part of the same

organization as the applicant, have

advocated a position before Congress on

any issue, and identifies the specific

subjects of their lobbying efforts.

11. Letters of Support for the Project

If the cooperation of courts

organizations, agencies or individuals

other than the applicant is required to

conduct the project, the applicant

should attach written assurances of

cooperation and availability to the

application, or send them under

separate cover. In order to ensure that

there is sufficient time to bring them to

the Board’s attention, letters of support

sent under separate cover must be

received at least four weeks before the

meeting of the Board of Directors at

which the application will be

considered (i.e., no later than February

1, 1996, May 16, 1996, June 28, 1996, or

August 22, 1996, respectively).

D. Budget Narrative

The budget narrative should provide

the basis for the computation of all

project-related costs. Additional

background or schedules may be

attached if they are essential to

obtaining a clear understanding of the

proposed budget. Numerous and

lengthy appendices are strongly

discouraged.

The budget narrative should cover the

costs of all components of the project

and clearly identify costs attributable to

the project evaluation. Under OMB

grant guidelines incorporated by

reference in this Guideline, grant funds

may not be used to pay for coffee breaks

during seminars or meetings, or to

purchase alcoholic beverages.

1. Justification of Personnel

Compensation

The applicant should set forth the

percentages of time to be devoted by the

individuals who will serve as the staff

of the proposed project, the annual

salary of each of those persons, and the

number of work days per year used for

calculating the percentages of time or

daily rate of those individuals. The

applicant should explain any deviations

from current rates or established written

organization policies. If grant funds are

requested to pay the salary and related

costs for a current employee of a court

or other unit of government, the

applicant should explain why this

would not constitute a supplantation of

State or local funds in violation of 42

U.S.C. 10706(d)(1). An acceptable

explanation may be that the position to

be filled is a new one established in

conjunction with the project or that the

grant funds will be supporting only the

portion of the employee’s time that will

be dedicated to new or additional duties

related to the project.

2. Fringe Benefit Computation

The applicant should provide a

description of the fringe benefits

provided to employees. If percentages

are used, the authority for such use

should be presented as well as a

description of the elements included in

the determination of the percentage rate.

3. Consultant/Contractual Services and

Honoraria

The applicant should describe the

tasks each consultant will perform, the

estimated total amount to be paid to

each consultant, the basis for

compensation rates (e.g., number of

days × the daily consultant rates), and

the method for selection. Rates for

consultant services must be set in

accordance with section XI.H.2.c.

Honorarium payments must be justified

in the same manner as other consultant

payments.

4. Travel

Transporation costs and per diem

rates must comply with the policies of

the applicant organization. If the

applicant does not have an established

travel policy, then travel rates shall be

consistent with those established by the

Institute or the Federal Government. (A

copy of the Institute’s travel policy is

available upon request.) The budget

narrative should include an explanation

of the rate used, including the

components of the per diem rate and the

basis for the estimated transportation

expenses. The purpose for travel should

also be included in the narrative.

5. Equipment

Grant funds many be used to purchase

only the equipment that is necessary to

demonstrate a new technological

application in a court, or that is

otherwise essential to accomplishing the

objectives of the project. Equipment

purchases to support basic court

operations ordinarily will not be

approved. The applicant should

describe the equipment to be purchased

or leased and explain why the

acquisition of that equipment is
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64211

essential to accomplish the project’s

goals and objectives. The narrative

should clearly identify which

equipment is to be leased and which is

to be purchased. The method of

procurement should also be described.

Purchases for automatic data processing

equipment must comply with section

XI.H.2.b.

6. Supplies

The applicant should provide a

general description of the supplies

necessary to accomplish the goals and

objectives of the grant. In addition, the

applicant should provide the basis for

the amount requested for this

expenditure category.

7. Construction

Construction expenses are prohibited

except for the limited purposes set forth

in section X.H.2. Any allowable

construction or renovation expense

should be described in detail in the

budget narrative.

8. Telephone

Applicants should include

anticipated telephone charges,

distinguishing between monthly charges

and long distance charges in the budget

narrative. Also, applicants should

provide the basis used in developing the

monthly and long distance estimates.

9. Postage

Anticipated postage costs for projectrelated mailings should be described in

the budget narrative. The cost of special

mailings, such as for a survey or for

announcing a workshop, should be

distinguished from routine operational

mailing costs. The bases for all postage

estimates should be included in the

justification material.

10. Printing/Photocopying

Anticipated costs for printing or

photocopying should be included in the

budget narrative. Applicants should

provide the details underlying these

estimates in support of the request.

11. Indirect Costs

Applicants should describe the

indirect cost rates applicable to the

grant in detail. If costs often included

within an indirect cost rate are charged

directly (e.g., a percentage of the time of

senior managers to supervise product

activities), the applicant should specify

that these costs are not included within

their approved indirect cost rate. These

rates must be established in accordance

with section XI.H.4. If the applicant has

an indirect cost rate or allocation plan

approved by any Federal granting

agency, a copy of the approved rate

agreement should be attached to the

application.

12. Match

The applicant should describe the

source of any matching contribution and

the nature of the match provided. Any

additional contributions to the project

should be described in this section of

the budget narrative as well. If in-kind

match is to be provided, the applicant

should describe how the amount and

value of the time, services or materials

actually contributed will be

documented sufficiently clearly to

permit them to be included in an audit

of the grant. Applicants should be aware

that the time spent by participants in

education courses does not qualify as

in-kind match. (Samples of forms used

by current grantees to track in-kind

match are available from the Institute

upon request.

Applicants that do not contemplate

making machine contributions

continuously throughout the course of

the project or on a task-by-task basis

must provide a schedule within 30 days

after the beginning of the project period

indicating at what points during the

project period the matching

contributions will be made. (See

sections III.F., VIII.B., X.B. and XI.D.1.)

E. Submission Requirements

1. An application package containing

the application, an original signature on

FORM A (and on FORM B, if the

application is from a State or local

court, or on the Disclosure of Lobbying

Form if the applicant is not a unit of

State or local government), and four

photocopies of the application package

must be sent by first class or overnight

mail, or by courier no later than

February 14, 1996. A postmark or

courier receipt will constitute evidence

of the submission date. Please mark

APPLICATION on all application

package envelopes and send to: State

Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite

600, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

Receipt of each proposal will be

acknowledged in writing. Extensions of

the deadline for receipt of applications

will not be granted. See section VII.C.11.

for receipt deadlines for letters of

support.

2. Applicants submitting more than

one application may include material

that would be identical in each

application in a cover letter, and

incorporate that material by reference in

each application. The incorporated

material will be counted against the 25-

page limit for the program narrative. A

copy of the cover letter should be

attached to each copy of each

application.

VIII. Application Review Procedures

A. Preliminary Inquiries

The Institute staff will answer

inquiries concerning application

procedures. The staff contact will be

named in the Institute’s letter

acknowledging receipt of the

application.

B. Selection Criteria

1. All applications will be rated on

the basis of the criteria set forth below.

The Institute will accord the greatest

weight to the following criteria:

a. The soundness of the methodology;

b. The demonstration of need for the

project;

c. The appropriateness of the

proposed evaluation design;

d. The applicant’s management plan

and organizational capabilities;

e. The qualifications of the project’s

staff;

f. The products and benefits resulting

from the project including the extent to

which the project will have long-term

benefits for State courts across the

Nation;

g. The degree to which the findings,

procedures, training, technology, or

other results of the project can be

transferred to other jurisdictions.

h. The reasonableness of the proposed

budget;

i. The demonstration of cooperation

and support of other agencies that may

be affected by the project; and

j. The proposed project’s relationship

to one of the ‘‘Special Interest’’

categories set forth in section II.B.

2. In determining which applicants to

fund, the Institute will also consider

whether the applicant is a State court,

a national court support or education

organization, a non-court unit of

government, or other type of entity

eligible to receive grants under the

Institute’s enabling legislation (see 42

U.S.C. 10705(6) (as amended) and

Section IV above); the availability of

financial assistance from other sources

for the project; the amount and nature

(cash or in-kind) of the applicant’s

match; the extent to which the proposed

project would also benefit the Federal

courts or help State courts enforce

Federal constitutional and legislative

requirements; and the level of

appropriations available to the Institute

in the current year and the amount

expected to be available in succeeding

fiscal years.

C. Review and Approval Process

Applications will be reviewed

competitively by the Board of Directors.

The Institute staff will prepare a

narrative summary of each application,
64212 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

and a rating sheet assigning points for

each relevant selection criterion. When

necessary, applications may also be

reviewed by outside experts.

Committees of the Board will review

applications within assigned program

categories and prepare

recommendations to the full Board. The

full Board of Directors will then decide

which applications to approve for a

grant. The decision to award a grant is

solely that of the Board of Directors.

Awards approved by the Board will

be signed by the Chairman of the Board

on behalf of the Institute.

D. Return Policy

Unless a specific request is made,

unsuccessful applications will not be

returned. Applicants are advised that

Institute records are subject to the

provisions of the Federal Freedom of

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

E. Notification of Board Decision

The Institute will send written notice

to applicants concerning all Board

decisions to approve or deny their

respective applications and the key

issues and questions that arose during

the review process. A decision by the

Board to deny and application may not

be appealed, but does not prohibit

resubmission of a proposal based on

that application in a subsequent round

of funding. The Institute will also notify

the designated State contact listed in

Appendix I when grants are approved

by the Board to support projects that

will be conducted by or involve courts

in their State.

F. Response to Notification of Approval

Applicants have 30 days from the date

of the letter notifying them that the

Board has approved their application to

respond to any revisions requested by

the Board. If the requested revisions (or

a reasonable schedule for submitting

such revisions) have not been submitted

to the Institute within 30 days after

notification, the approval will be

automatically rescinded and the

application presented to the Board for

reconsideration.

IX. Renewal Funding Procedures and

Requirements

The Institute recognizes two types of

renewal funding as described below—

‘‘continuation grants’’ and ‘‘on-going

support grants.’’ The award of an initial

grant to support a project does not

constitute a commitment by the Institute

to renew funding. The Board of

Directors anticipates allocating no more

than $2 million of available FY 1996

grant funds for renewal grants. In

reviewing applications for renewal

grants, the Board will consider a

number of factors in addition to the

criteria set forth in section VIII.B.,

including whether continuing the

project would provide assistance in

finding solutions to current court

problems; whether the project has

national impact; whether the project is

being run in an efficient and costeffective manner; and whether the

project could operate in the future or its

products could be implemented without

additional SJI grant assistance.

A. Continuation Grants

1. Purpose and Scope

Continuation grants are intended to

support projects with a limited duration

that involve the same type of activities

as the previous project. They are

intended to enhance the specific

program or service produced or

established during the prior grant

period. They may be used, for example,

when a project is divided into two or

more sequential phases, for secondary

analysis of data obtained in an Institutesupported research project, or for more

extensive testing of an innovative

technology, procedure, or program

developed with SJI grant support.

In order for a project to be considered

for continuation funding, the grantee

must have completed the project tasks

and met all grant requirements and

conditions in a timely manner, absent

extenuating circumstances or prior

Institute approval of changes to the

project design. Continuation grants are

not intended to provide support for a

project for which the grantee has

underestimated the amount of time or

funds needed to accomplish the project

tasks.

2. Application Procedures—Letters of

Intent

Unless specifically invited to submit

a renewal application by the Institute, a

grantee seeking a continuation grant

must inform the Institute, by letter, of its

intent to submit an application for such

funding as soon as the need for renewal

funding becomes apparent but no less

than 120 days before the end of the

current grant period.

a. A letter of intent must be no more

than 3 single-spaced pages on 81⁄2 by 11

inch paper and must contain a concise

but thorough explanation of the need for

continuation; an estimate of the funds to

be requested; and a brief description of

anticipated changes in scope, focus or

audience of the project.

b. Letters of intent will not be

reviewed competitively. Institute staff

will review the proposed activities for

the next project period and, within 30

days of receiving a letter of intent,

inform the grantee of specific issues to

be addressed in the continuation

application and the date by which the

application for a continuation grant

must be submitted.

3. Application Format

An application for a continuation

grant must include an application form,

budget forms (with appropriate

documentation), a project abstract

conforming to the format set forth in

section VII.B., a program narrative, a

budget narrative, a disclosure of

lobbying form (from applicants other

than units of State or local government),

and certain certifications and

assurances.

The program narrative should

conform to the length and format

requirements set forth in section VII.C.

However, rather than the topics listed in

section VII.C., the program narrative of

an application for a continuation grant

should include:

a. Project Objectives. The applicant

should clearly and concisely state what

the continuation project is intended to

accomplish.

b. Need for Continuation. The

applicant should explain why

continuation of the project is necessary

to achieve the goals of the project, and

how the continuation will benefit the

participating courts or the courts

community generally. That is, to what

extent will the original goals and

objectives of the project be unfulfilled if

the project is not continued, and

conversely, how will the findings or

results of the project be enhanced by

continuing the project?

c. Report of Current Project Activities.

The applicant should discuss the status

of all activities conducted during the

previous project period. Applicants

should identify any activities that were

not completed, and explain why.

d. Evaluation Findings. The applicant

should present the key findings, impact,

or recommendations resulting from the

evaluation of the project, if they are

available, and how they will be

addressed during the proposed

continuation. If the findings are not yet

available, applicants should provide the

date by which they will be submitted to

the Institute. Ordinarily, the Board will

not consider an application for

continuation funding until the Institute

has received the evaluator’s report.

e. Tasks, Methods, Staff and Grantee

Capability. The applicant should fully

describe any changes in the tasks to be

performed, the methods to be used, the

products of the project, and how and to

whom those products will be

disseminated, as well as any changes in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64213

the assigned staff or the grantee’s

organizational capacity. Applicants

should include, in addition, the criteria

and methods by which the proposed

continuation project would be

evaluated.

f. Task Schedule. The applicant

should present a detailed task schedule

and timeline for the next project period.

g. Other Sources of Support. The

applicant should indicate why other

sources of support are inadequate,

inappropriate or unavailable.

4. Budget and Budget Narrative

The applicant should provide a

complete budget and budget narrative

conforming to the requirements set forth

in paragraph VII.D. Changes in the

funding level requested should be

discussed in terms of corresponding

increases or decreases in the scope of

activities or services to be rendered.

5. References to Previously Submitted

Material

An application for a continuation

grant should not repeat information

contained in a previously approved

application or other previously

submitted materials, but should provide

specific references to such materials

where appropriate.

6. Submission Requirements, Review

and Approval Process, and Notification

of Decision

The submission requirements set forth

in section VII.E., other than the deadline

for mailing, apply to applications for a

continuation grant. Such applications

will be rated on the selection criteria set

forth in section VIII.B. and the factors

listed at the beginning of this Chapter.

The key findings and recommendations

resulting from an evaluation of the

project and the proposed response to

those findings and recommendations

will also be considered. The review and

approval process, return policy, and

notification procedures are the same as

those for new projects set forth in

sections VIII.C.–VIII.E.

B. On-Going Support Grants

1. Purpose and Scope

On-going support grants are intended

to support projects that are national in

scope and that provide the State courts

with services, programs or products for

which there is a continuing important

need. An on-going support grant may

also be used to fund longitudinal

research that directly benefits the State

courts. On-going support grants are

subject to the limits on size and

duration set forth in V.C.2. and V.D.2.

A project is eligible for consideration for

an on-going support grant if:

a. The project is supported by and has

been evaluated under a grant from the

Institute;

b. The project is national in scope and

provides a significant benefit to the

State courts;

c. There is a continuing important

need for the services, programs or

products provided by the project as

indicated by the level of use and

support by members of the court

community;

d. The project is accomplishing its

objectives in an effective and efficient

manner; and

e. It is likely that the service or

program provided by the project would

be curtailed or significantly reduced

without Institute support.

Each project supported by an on-going

support grant must include an

evaluation component assessing its

effectiveness and operation throughout

the grant period. The evaluation should

be independent, but may be designed

collaboratively by the evaluator and the

grantee. The design should call for

regular feedback from the evaluator to

the grantee throughout the project

period concerning recommendations for

mid-course corrections or improvement

of the project, as well as periodic reports

to the Institute at relevant points in the

project.

An interim evaluation report must be

submitted 18 months into the grant

period. The decision to obligate Institute

funds to support the third year of the

project will be based on the interim

evaluation findings and the applicant’s

response to any deficiencies noted in

the report.

A final evaluation assessing the

effectiveness, operation of, and

continuing need for the project must be

submitted 90 days before the end of the

3-year project period.

In addition, a detailed annual task

schedule must be submitted not later

than 45 days before the end of the first

and second years of the grant period,

along with an explanation of any

necessary revisions in the projected

costs for the remainder of the project

period. (See also sections IX.B.3.f. and

IX.B.4.)

2. Application Procedures—Letters of

Intent

The Board will consider awarding an

on-going support grant for a period of

up to 36 months. The total amount of

the grant will be fixed at the time of the

initial award. Funds ordinarily will be

made available in annual increments as

specified in section V.C.2.

Unless specifically invited to submit

a renewal application by the Institute, a

grantee seeking an on-going support

grant must inform the Institute, by

letter, of its intent to submit an

application for such funding as soon as

the need for renewal funding becomes

apparent but no less than 120 days

before the end of the current grant

period. The letter of intent should be in

the same format as that prescribed for

continuation grants in section IX.A.2.a.

3. Application Procedures and Format

An application for an on-going

support grant must include an

application form, budget forms (with

appropriate documentation), a project

abstract conforming to the format set

forth in section VII.B., a program

narrative, a budget narrative, and certain

certifications and assurances.

The program narrative should

conform to the length and format

requirements set forth in section VII.C.

However, rather than the topics listed in

section VII.C., the program narrative of

applications for on-going support grants

should address:

a. Description of Need for and

Benefits of the Project. The applicant

should provide a detailed discussion of

the benefits provided by the project to

the State courts around the country,

including the degree to which State

courts, State court judges, or State court

managers and personnel are using the

services or programs provided by the

project.

b. Demonstration of Court Support.

The applicant should demonstrate

support for the continuation of the

project from the courts community.

c. Report on Current Project Activities.

The applicant should discuss the extent

to which the project has met its goals

and objectives, identify any activities

that have not been completed, and

explain why.

d. Evaluation Findings. The applicant

should attach a copy of the final

evaluation report regarding the

effectiveness, impact, and operation of

the project, specify the key findings or

recommendations resulting from the

evaluation, and explain how they will

be addressed during the proposed

renewal period. Ordinarily, the Board

will not consider an application for ongoing support until the Institute has

received the evaluator’s report.

e. Objectives, Tasks, Methods, Staff

and Grantee Capability. The applicant

should describe fully any changes in the

objectives; tasks to be performed; the

methods to be used; the products of the

project; how and to whom those

products will be disseminated; the

assigned staff; and the grantee’s

organizational capacity.

f. Task Schedule. The applicant

should present a general schedule for
64214 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

the full proposed project period and a

detailed task schedule for the first year

of the proposed new project period as

part of the application. If an on-going

support grant is awarded, a detailed

annual task plan must be submitted no

later than 45 days before the end of

years one and two of the grant. (See

section IX.B.1.)

g. Other Sources of Support. The

applicant should indicate why other

sources of support are inadequate,

inappropriate or unavailable.

4. Budget and Budget Narrative

The applicant should provide a

complete three-year budget and budget

narrative conforming to the

requirements set forth in paragraph

VII.D. A complete budget narrative

should be provided for each year, or

portion of a year, for which grant

support is requested. The budget should

provide for realistic cost-of-living and

staff salary increases over the course of

the requested project period.

If an on-going support grant is

awarded, an updated budget and

explanatory narrative for the next grant

year should be submitted no later than

45 days before the end of the first and

second grant years. Changes in the

funding level requested should be

discussed in terms of corresponding

increases or decreases in the scope of

activities or services to be rendered.

Applicants should be aware that the

Institute is unlikely to approve a

supplemental budget increase for an ongoing support grant in the absence of

well-documented, unanticipated factors

that clearly justify the requested

increase.

5. References to Previously Submitted

Material

An application for an on-going

support grant should not repeat

information contained in a previously

approved application or other

previously submitted materials, but

should provide specific references to

such materials where appropriate.

6. Submission Requirements, Review

and Approval Process, and Notification

of Decision

The submission requirements set forth

in section VII.E., other than the deadline

for mailing, apply to applications for an

on-going support grant. Such

applications will be rated on the

selection criteria set forth in section

VIII.B and the factors listed at the

beginning of this Chapter. The key

findings and recommendations resulting

from an evaluation of the project and

the proposed response to those findings

and recommendations will also be

considered. The review and approval

process, return policy, and notification

procedures are the same as those for

new projects set forth in sections

VIII.C.–VIII.E.

X. Compliance Requirements

The State Justice Institute Act

contains limitations and conditions on

grants, contracts and cooperative

agreements of which applicants and

recipients should be aware. In addition

to eligibility requirements which must

be met to be considered for an award

from the Institute, all applicants should

be aware of and all recipients will be

responsible for ensuring compliance

with the following:

A. State and Local Court Systems

Each application for funding from a

State or local court must be approved,

consistent with State law, by the State’s

Supreme Court, or its designated agency

or council. The Supreme Court or its

designee shall receive, administer, and

be accountable for all funds awarded on

the basis of such an application. 42

U.S.C. 10705(b)(4). Appendix I to this

Guideline lists the persons to contact in

each State regarding the administration

of Institute grants to State and local

courts.

B. Matching Requirements

1. All awards to courts or other units

of State or local government (not

including publicly supported

institutions of higher education) require

a match from private or public sources

of not less than 50% of the total amount

of the Institute’s award. For example, if

the total cost of a project is anticipated

to be $150,000, a State court or

executive branch agency may request up

to $100,000 from the Institute to

implement the project. The remaining

$50,000 (50% of the $100,000 requested

from SJI) must be provided as a match.

A cash match, non-cash match, or both

may be provided, but the Institute will

give preference to those applicants who

provide a cash match to the Institute’s

award. (For a further definition of

match, see section III.F.)

The requirement to provide match

may be waived in exceptionally rare

circumstances upon approval of the

Chief Justice of the highest court in the

State and a majority of the Board of

Directors. 42 U.S.C. 10705(d).

2. Other eligible recipients of Institute

funds are not required to provide a

match, but are encouraged to contribute

to meeting the costs of the project. In

instances where match is proposed, the

grantee is responsible for ensuring that

the total amount proposed is actually

contributed. If a proposed contribution

is not fully met, the Institute may

reduce the award amount accordingly,

in order to maintain the ratio originally

provided for in the award agreement

(see sections VIII.B. above and XI.D.).

C. Conflict of Interest

Personnel and other officials

connected with Institute-funded

programs shall adhere to the following

requirements:

1. No official or employee of a

recipient court or organization shall

participate personally through decision,

approval, disapproval, recommendation,

the rendering of advice, investigation, or

otherwise in any proceeding,

application, request for a ruling or other

determination, contract, grant,

cooperative agreement, claim,

controversy, or other particular matter

in which Institute funds are used, where

to his/her knowledge he/she or his/her

immediate family, partners,

organization other than a public agency

in which he/she is serving as officer,

director, trustee, partner, or employee or

any person or organization with whom

he/she is negotiating or has any

arrangement concerning prospective

employment, has a financial interest.

2. In the use of Institute project funds,

an official or employee of a recipient

court or organization shall avoid any

action which might result in or create

the appearance of:

a. Using an official position for

private gain; or

b. Affecting adversely the confidence

of the public in the integrity of the

Institute program.

3. Requests for proposals or

invitations for bids issued by a recipient

of Institute funds or a subgrantee or

subcontractor will provide notice to

prospective bidders that the contractors

who develop or draft specifications,

requirements, statements of work and/or

requests for proposals for a proposed

procurement will be excluded from

bidding on or submitting a proposal to

compete for the award of such

procurement.

D. Lobbying

Funds awarded to recipients by the

Institute shall not be used, indirectly or

directly, to influence Executive orders

or similar promulgations by Federal,

State or local agencies, or to influence

the passage or defeat of any legislation

by Federal, State or local legislative

bodies. 42 U.S.C. 10706(a).

It is the policy of the Board of

Directors to award funds only to support

applications submitted by organizations

that would carry out the objectives of

their applications in an unbiased

manner. Consistent with this policy and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64215

the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 10706, the

Institute will not knowingly award a

grant to an applicant that has, directly

or through an entity that is part of the

same organization as the applicant,

advocated a position before Congress on

the specific subject matter of the

application.

E. Political Activities

No recipient shall contribute or make

available Institute funds, program

personnel, or equipment to any political

party or association, or the campaign of

any candidate for public or party office.

Recipients are also prohibited from

using funds in advocating or opposing

any ballot measure, initiative, or

referendum. Finally, officers and

employees of recipients shall not

intentionally identify the Institute or

recipients with any partisan or

nonpartisan political activity associated

with a political party or association, or

the campaign of any candidate for

public or party office. 42 U.S.C.

10706(a).

F. Advocacy

No funds made available by the

Institute may be used to support or

conduct training programs for the

purpose of advocating particular

nonjudicial public policies or

encouraging nonjudicial political

activities. 42 U.S.C. 10706(b).

G. Prohibition Against Litigation

Support

No funds made available by the

Institute may be used directly or

indirectly to support legal assistance to

parties in litigation, including cases

involving capital punishment.

H. Supplantation and Construction

To ensure that funds are used to

supplement and improve the operation

of State courts, rather than to support

basic court services, funds shall not be

used for the following purposes:

1. To supplant State or local funds

supporting a program or activity (such

as paying the salary of court employees

who would be performing their normal

duties as part of the project, or paying

rent for space which is part of the

court’s normal operations);

2. To construct court facilities or

structures, except to remodel existing

facilities or to demonstrate new

architectural or technological

techniques, or to provide temporary

facilities for new personnel or for

personnel involved in a demonstration

or experimental program; or

3. Solely to purchase equipment.

I. Confidentiality of Information

Except as provided by Federal law

other than the State Justice Institute Act,

no recipient of financial assistance from

SJI may use or reveal any research or

statistical information furnished under

the Act by any person and identifiable

to any specific private person for any

purpose other than the purpose for

which the information was obtained.

Such information and copies thereof

shall be immune from legal process, and

shall not, without the consent of the

person furnishing such information, be

admitted as evidence or used for any

purpose in any action, suit, or other

judicial; legislative, or administrative

proceedings.

J. Human Research Protection

All research involving human subjects

shall be conducted with the informed

consent of those subjects and in a

manner that will ensure their privacy

and freedom from risk or harm and the

protection of persons who are not

subjects of the research but would be

affected by it, unless such procedures

and safeguards would make the research

impractical. In such instances, the

Institute must approve procedures

designed by the grantee to provide

human subjects with relevant

information about the research after

their involvement and to minimize or

eliminate risk of harm to those subjects

due to their participation.

K. Nondiscrimination

No person may, on the basis of race,

sex, national origin, disability, color, or

creed be excluded from participation in,

denied the benefits of, or otherwise

subjected to discrimination under any

program or activity supported by

Institute funds. Recipients of Institute

funds must immediately take measures

necessary to effectuate this provision.

L. Reporting Requirements

Recipients of Institute funds, other

than scholarships awarded under

section II.B.2.b.iii., shall submit

Quarterly Progress and Financial

Reports within 30 days of the close of

each calendar quarter (that is, no later

than January 30, April 30, July 30, and

October 30). Two copies of each report

must be sent. The Quarterly Progress

Reports shall include a narrative

description of project activities during

the calendar quarter, the relationship

between those activities and the task

schedule and objectives set forth in the

approved application or an approved

adjustment thereto, any significant

problems areas that have developed and

how they will be resolved, and the

activities scheduled during the next

reporting period.

The quarterly financial status report

shall be submitted in accordance with

section XI.G.2. of this guideline. A final

project progress report and financial

status report shall be submitted within

90 days after the end of the grant period

in accordance with section XI.K.2. of

this Guideline.

M. Audit

Each recipient must provide for an

annual fiscal audit which shall include

an opinion on whether the financial

statements of the grantee present fairly

its financial position and financial

operations are in accordance with

generally accepted accounting

principles. (See section XI.J. of the

Guideline for the requirements of such

audits.)

N. Suspension of Funding

After providing a recipient reasonable

notice and opportunity to submit

written documentation demonstrating

why fund termination or suspension

should not occur, the Institute may

terminate or suspend funding of a

project that fails to comply substantially

with the Act, Institute Guideline, or the

terms and conditions of the award. 42

U.S.C. 10708(a).

O. Title to Property

At the conclusion of the project, title

to all expendable and nonexpendable

personal property purchased with

Institute funds shall vest in the recipient

court, organization, or individual that

purchased the property if certification is

made to the Institute that the property

will continue to be used for the

authorized purposes of the Institutefunded project or other purposes

consistent with the State Justice

Institute Act, as approved by the

Institute. If such certification is not

made or the Institute disapproves such

certification, title to all such property

with an aggregate or individual value of

$1,000 or more shall vest in the

Institute, which will direct the

disposition of the property.

P. Original Material

All products prepared as the result of

Institute-supported projects must be

originally-developed material unless

otherwise specified in the award

documents. Material not originally

developed that is included in such

products must be properly identified,

whether the material is in a verbatim or

extensive paraphrase format.
64216 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

Q. Acknowledgment and Disclaimer

Recipients of Institute funds shall

acknowledge prominently on all

products developed with grant funds

that support was received from the

Institute. The ‘‘SJI’’ logo must appear on

the front cover of a written product, or

in the opening frames of a video project,

unless another placement is approved in

writing by the Institute. This includes

final products printed or otherwise

reproduced during the grant period, as

well as reprintings or reproductions of

those materials following the end of the

grant period. A camera-ready logo sheet

is available from the Institute upon

request.

Recipients also shall display the

following disclaimer on all grant

products;

‘‘This [document, film, videotape,

etc.] was developed under [grant/

cooperative agreement, number SJI-

(insert number)] from the Sate Justice

Institute. The points of view expressed

are those of the [author(s), filmmaker(s),

etc.] and do not necessarily represent

the official position or policies of the

State Justice Institute.’’

R. Institute Approval of Grant Products

No grant funds may be obligated for

publication or reproduction of a final

product developed with grant funds

without the written approval of the

Institute. Grantees shall submit a final

draft of each written product to the

Institute for review and approval. These

drafts shall be submitted at least 30 days

before the product is scheduled to be

sent for publication or reproduction to

permit Institute review and

incorporation of any appropriate

changes agreed upon by the grantee and

the Institute. Grantees shall provide for

timely review by the Institute of

videotape or CD–ROM products at the

treatment, script, rough cut, and final

stages of development or their

equivalents, prior to initiating the next

stage of product development.

S. Distribution of Grant Products

In addition to the distribution

specified in the grant application,

grantees shall send:

1. Twenty copies of each final product

developed with grant funds to the

Institute, unless the product was

developed under either a curriculum

adaptation or a technical assistance

grant, in which case submission of 2

copies is required.

2. A master copy of each videotape

produced with grant funds to the

Institute.

3. A one-page abstract to the Institute

summarizing the products produced

during the project for posting on the

Internet together with a diskette

containing the abstract in Word,

WordPerfect, or ASCII. The abstract

should include the grant number, a

contact name, address, telephone

numbers, and e-mail address (if

applicable).

4. One copy of each final product

developed with grant funds to the

library established in each State to

collect materials prepared with Institute

support. (A list of these libraries is

contained in Appendix II. Labels for

these libraries are available from the

Institute upon request.) Recipients of

curriculum adaptation and technical

assistance grants are not required to

submit final products to State libraries.

T. Copyrights

Except as otherwise provided in the

terms and conditions of an Institute

award, a recipient is free to copyright

any books, publications, or other

copyrightable materials developed in

the course of an Institute-supported

project, but the Institute shall reserve a

royalty-free, nonexclusive and

irrevocable right to reproduce, publish,

or otherwise use, and to authorize

others to use, the materials for purposes

consistent with the State Justice

Institute Act.

U. Inventions and Patents

If any patentable items, patent rights,

processes, or inventions are produced in

the course of institute-sponsored work,

such fact shall be promptly and fully

reported to the Institute. Unless there is

a prior agreement between the grantee

and the Institute on disposition of such

items, the Institute shall determine

whether protection of the invention or

discovery shall be sought. The Institute

will also determine how the rights in

the invention or discovery, including

rights under any patent issued thereon,

shall be allocated and administered in

order to protect the public interest

consistent with ‘‘Government Patent

Policy’’ (President’s Memorandum for

Heads of Executive Departments and

Agencies, February 18, 1983, and

Statement of Government Patent Policy).

V. Charges for Grant-Related Products/

Recovery of Costs

When Institute funds fully cover the

cost of developing, producing, and

disseminating a product, (e.g., a report,

curriculum, videotape or software), the

product should be distributed to the

field without charge. When Institute

funds only partially cover the

development, production, or

dissemination costs, the grantee may,

with the Institute’s prior written

approval, recover its costs for

developing, producing, and

disseminating the material to those

requesting it, to the extent that those

costs were not covered by Institute

funds or grantee matching

contributions.

Applicants should disclose their

intent to sell grant-related products in

the application. Grantees must obtain

the written, prior approval of the

Institute of their plans to recover project

costs through the sale of grant products.

Written requests to recover costs

ordinarily should be received during the

grant period and should specify the

nature and extent of the costs to be

recouped, the reason that such costs

were not budgeted (if the rationale was

not disclosed in the approved

application), the number of copies to be

sold, the intended audience for the

products to be sold, and the proposed

sale price. If the product is to be sold

for more than $25.00, the written

request also should include a detailed

itemization of costs that will be

recovered and a certification that the

costs were not supported by either

Institute grant funds or grantee

matching contributions.

In the event that the sale of grant

products results in revenues that exceed

the costs to develop, produce, and

disseminate the product, the revenue

must continue to be used for the

authorized purposes of the Institutefunded project or other purposes

consistent with the State Justice

Institute Act that have been approved by

the Institute. See sections III.F. and XI.F.

for requirements regarding projectrelated income realized during the

project period.

W. Availability of Research Data for

Secondary Analysis

Upon request, grantees must make

available for secondary analysis a

diskette(s) or data tape(s) containing

research and evaluation data collected

under an Institute grant and the

accompanying code manual. Grantees

may recover the actual cost of

duplicating and mailing or otherwise

transmitting the data set and manual

from the person or organization

requesting the data. Grantees may

provide the requested data set in the

format in which it was created and

analyzed.

X. Approval of Key Staff

If the qualifications of an employee or

consultant assigned to a key project staff

position are not described in the

application or if there is a change of a

person assigned to such a position, a

recipient shall submit a description of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64217

the qualifications of the newly assigned

person to the Institute. Prior written

approval of the qualifications of the new

person assigned to a key staff position

must be received from the Institute

before the salary or consulting fee of

that person and associated costs may be

paid or reimbursed from grant funds.

XI. Financial Requirements

A. Accounting Systems and Financial

Records

All grantees, subgrantees, contractors,

and other organizations directly or

indirectly receiving Institute funds are

required to establish and maintain

accounting systems and financial

records to accurately account for funds

they receive. These records shall

include total program costs, including

Institute funds, State and local matching

shares, and any other fund sources

included in the approved project

budget.

1. Purpose

The purpose of this section is to

establish accounting system

requirements and to offer guidance on

procedures which will assist all

grantees/subgrantees in:

a. Complying with the statutory

requirements for the awarding,

disbursement, and accounting of funds;

b. Complying with regulatory

requirements of the Institute for the

financial management and disposition

of funds;

c. Generating financial data which can

be used in the planning, management

and control of programs; and

d. Facilitating an effective audit of

funded programs and projects.

2. References

Except where inconsistent with

specific provisions of this Guideline, the

following regulations, directives and

reports are applicable to Institute grants

and cooperative agreements under the

same terms and conditions that apply to

Federal grantees. These materials

supplement the requirements of this

section for accounting systems and

financial recordkeeping and provide

additional guidance on how these

requirements may be satisfied.

(Circulars may be obtained from OMB

by calling 202–395–7250.)

a. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–21, Cost Principles

for Educational Institutions.

b. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–87, Cost Principles

for State and Local Governments.

c. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–88 (revised), Indirect

Cost Rates, Audit and Audit Follow-up

at Educational Institutions.

d. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–102, Uniform

Administrative Requirements for

Grants-in-Aid to State and Local

Governments.

e. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–110, Grants and

Agreements with Institutions of Higher

Education, Hospitals and other NonProfit Organizations.

f. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–128, Audits of State

and Local Governments.

g. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–122, Cost Principles

for Non-profit Organizations.

h. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–133, Audits of

Institutions of Higher Education and

Other Non-profit Institutions.

B. Supervision and Monitoring

Responsibilities

1. Grantee Responsibilities

All grantees receiving direct awards

from the Institute are responsible for the

management and fiscal control of all

funds. Responsibilities include

accounting for receipts and

expenditures, maintaining adequate

financial records and refunding

expenditures disallowed by audits.

2. Responsibilities of State Supreme

Court

Each application for funding from a

State or local court must be approved,

consistent with State law, by the State’s

Supreme Court, or its designated agency

or council.

The State Supreme Court or its

designee shall receive all Institute funds

awarded to such courts; shall be

responsible for assuring proper

administration of Institute funds; and

shall be responsible for all aspects of the

project, including proper accounting

and financial recordkeeping by the

subgrantee. These responsibilities

include:

a. Reviewing Financial Operations.

The State Supreme Court or its designee

should be familiar with, and

periodically monitor, its subgrantees’

financial operations, records system and

procedures. Particular attention should

be directed to the maintenance of

current financial data.

b. Recording Financial Activities. The

subgrantee’s grant award or contract

obligation, as well as cash advances and

other financial activities, should be

recorded in the financial records of the

State Supreme Court or its designee in

summary form. Subgrantee expenditures

should be recorded on the books of the

State Supreme Court OR evidenced by

report forms duly filed by the

subgrantee. Non-Institute contributions

applied to projects by subgrantees

should likewise be recorded, as should

any project income resulting from

program operations.

c. Budgeting and Budget Review. The

State Supreme Court or its designee

should ensure that each subgrantee

prepares an adequate budget as the basis

for its award commitment. The detail of

each project budget should be

maintained on file by the State Supreme

Court.

d. Accounting for Non-Institute

Contributions. The State Supreme Court

or its designee will ensure, in those

instances where subgrantees are

required to furnish non-Institute

matching funds, that the requirements

and limitations of this guideline are

applied to such funds.

e. Audit Requirement. The State

Supreme Court or its designee is

required to ensure that subgrantees have

met the necessary audit requirements as

set forth by the Institute (see sections

X.M. and XI.J).

f. Reporting Irregularities. The State

Supreme Court, its designees, and its

subgrantees are responsible for

promptly reporting to the Institute the

nature and circumstances surrounding

any financial irregularities discovered.

C. Accounting System

The grantee is responsible for

establishing and maintaining an

adequate system of accounting and

internal controls for itself and for

ensuring that an adequate system exists

for each of its subgrantees and

contractors. An acceptable and adequate

accounting system is considered to be

one which:

1. Properly accounts for receipt of

funds under each grant awarded and the

expenditure of funds for each grant by

category of expenditure (including

matching contributions and project

income);

2. Assures that expended funds are

applied to the appropriate budget

category included with the approved

grant;

3. Presents and classifies historical

costs of the grant as required for

budgetary and evaluation purposes;

4. Provides cost and property controls

to assure optimal use of grant funds;

5. Is integrated with a system of

internal controls adequate to safeguard

the funds and assets covered, check the

accuracy and reliability of the

accounting data, promote operational

efficiency, and assure conformance with

any general or special conditions of the

grant;
64218 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

6. Meets the prescribed requirements

for periodic financial reporting of

operations; and

7. Provides financial data for

planning, control, measurement and

evaluation of direct and indirect costs.

D. Total Cost Budgeting and Accounting

Accounting for all funds awarded by

the Institute shall be structured and

executed on a ‘‘total project cost’’ basis.

That is, total project costs, including

Institute funds, State and local matching

shares, and any other fund sources

included in the approved project budget

shall be the foundation for fiscal

administration and accounting. Grant

applications and financial reports

require budget and cost estimates on the

basis of total costs.

1. Timing of Matching Contributions

Matching contributions need not be

applied at the exact time of the

obligation of Institute funds. However,

the full matching share must be

obligated during the award period,

except that with the prior written

permission of the Institute,

contributions made following approval

of the grant by the Institute’s Board but

before the beginning of the grant may be

counted as match. Grantees that do not

contemplate making matching

contributions continuously throughout

the course of a project or on a task-bytask basis, are required to submit a

schedule within 30 days after the

beginning of the project period

indicating at what points during the

project period the matching

contributions will be made. In instances

where a proposed cash match is not

fully met, the Institute may reduce the

award amount accordingly, in order to

maintain the ratio originally provided

for in the award agreement.

2. Records for Match

All grantees must maintain records

which clearly show the source, amount,

and timing of all matching

contributions. In addition, if a project

has included, within its approved

budget, contributions which exceed the

required matching portion, the grantee

must maintain records of those

contributions in the same manner as it

does the Institute funds and required

matching shares. For all grants made to

State and local courts, the State

Supreme Court has primary

responsibility for grantee/subgrantee

compliance with the requirements of

this section. (See section XI.B.2.)

E. Maintenance and Retention of

Records

All financial records, supporting

documents, statistical records and all

other records pertinent to grants,

subgrants, cooperative agreements or

contracts under grants shall be retained

by each organization participating in a

project for at least three years for

purposes of examination and audit.

State Supreme Courts may impose

record retention and maintenance

requirements in addition to those

prescribed in this chapter.

1. Coverage

The retention requirement extends to

books of original entry, source

documents supporting accounting

transactions, the general ledger,

subsidiary ledgers, personnel and

payroll records, canceled checks, and

related documents and records. Source

documents include copies of all grant

and subgrant awards, applications, and

required grantee/subgrantee financial

and narrative reports. Personnel and

payroll records shall include the time

and attendance reports for all

individuals reimbursed under a grant,

subgrant or contract, whether they are

employed full-time or part-time. Time

and effort reports will be required for

consultants.

2. Retention Period

The three-year retention period starts

from the date of the submission of the

final expenditure report or, for grants

which are renewed annually, from the

date of submission of the annual

expenditure report.

3. Maintenance

Grantees and subgrantees are

expected to see that records of different

fiscal years are separately identified and

maintained so that requested

information can be readily located.

Grantees and subgrantees are also

obligated to protect records adequately

against fire or other damage. When

records are stored away from the

grantee’s/subgrantee’s principal office, a

written index of the location of stored

records should be on hand, and ready

access should be assured.

4. Access

Grantees and subgrantees must give

any authorized representative of the

Institute access to and the right to

examine all records, books, papers, and

documents related to an Institute grant.

F. Project-Related Income

Records of the receipt and disposition

of project-related income must be

maintained by the grantee in the same

manner as required for the project funds

that gave rise to the income. The

policies governing the disposition of the

various types of project-related income

are listed below.

1. Interest

A State and any agency or

instrumentality of a State including

State institutions of higher education

and State hospitals, shall not be held

accountable for interest earned on

advances of project funds. When funds

are awarded to subgrantees through a

State, the subgrantees are not held

accountable for interest earned on

advances of project funds. Local units of

government and nonprofit organizations

that are direct grantees must refund any

interest earned. Grantees shall order

their affairs so as to ensure minimum

balances in their respective grant cash

accounts.

2. Royalties

The grantee/subgrantee may retain all

royalties received from copyrights or

other works developed under projects or

from patents and inventions, unless the

terms and conditions of the project

provide otherwise.

3. Registration and Tuition Fees

Registration and tuition fees shall be

used to pay project-related costs not

covered by the grant, or to reduce the

amount of grant funds needed to

support the project. Registration and

tuition fees may be used for other

purposes only with the prior written

approval of the Institute. Estimates of

registration and tuition fees, and any

expenses to be offset by the fees, should

be included in the application budget

forms and narrative.

4. Income From the Sale of Grant

Products

When grant funds fully cover the cost

of producing and disseminating a

limited number of copies of a product,

the grantee may, with the written prior

approval of the Institute, sell additional

copies reproduced at its expense only at

a price intended to recover actual

reproduction and distribution costs that

were not covered by Institute grant

funds or grantee matching contributions

to the project. When grant funds only

partially cover the costs of developing,

producing and disseminating a product,

the grantee may, with the written prior

approval of the Institute, recover costs

for developing, reproducing, and

disseminating the material to the extent

that those costs were not covered by

Institute grant funds or grantee

matching contributions. If the grantee

recovers its costs in this manner, then
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64219

amounts expended by the grantee to

develop, produce, and disseminate the

material may not be considered match.

If the sale of products occurs during

the project period, the costs and income

generated by the sales must be reported

on the Quarterly Financial Status

Reports and documented in an auditable

manner. Whenever possible, the intent

to sell a product should be disclosed in

the application or reported to the

Institute in writing once a decision to

sell products has been made. The

grantee must request approval to recover

its product development, reproduction,

and dissemination costs as specified in

section X.V.

5. Other

Other project income shall be treated

in accordance with disposition

instructions set forth in the project’s

terms and conditions.

G. Payments and Financial Reporting

Requirements

1. Payment of Grant Funds

The procedures and regulations set

forth below are applicable to all

Institute grant funds and grantees.

a. Request for Advance or

Reimbursement of Funds. Grantees will

receive funds on a ‘‘Check-Issued’’

basis. Upon receipt, review, and

approval of a Request for Advance or

Reimbursement by the Institute, a check

will be issued directly to the grantee or

its designated fiscal agent. A request

must be limited to the grantee’s

immediate cash needs. The Request for

Advance or Reimbursement, along with

the instructions for its preparation, will

be included in the official Institute

award package.

b. Continuation and On-Going

Support Awards. For purposes of

submitting Requests for Advance or

Reimbursement, recipients of

continuation and on-going support

grants should treat each grant as a new

project and number their requests

accordingly (i.e. on a grant rather than

a project basis). For example, the first

request for payment from a continuation

grant or each year of an on-going

support would be number 1, the second

number 2, etc. (See Recommendations

to Grantees in the Introduction for

further guidance.)

c. Termination of Advance and

Reimbursement Funding. When a

grantee organization receiving cash

advances from the Institute:

i. Demonstrates an unwillingness or

inability to attain program or project

goals, or to establish procedures that

will minimize the time elapsing

between cash advances and

disbursements, or cannot adhere to

guideline requirements or special

conditions;

ii. Engages in the improper award and

administration of subgrants or contracts;

or

iii. Is unable to submit reliable and/

or timely reports; the Institute may

terminate advance financing and require

the grantee organization to finance its

operations with its own working capital.

Payments to the grantee shall then be

made by check to reimburse the grantee

for actual cash disbursements. In the

event the grantee continues to be

deficient, the Institute reserves the right

to suspend reimbursement payments

until the deficiencies are corrected.

d. Principle of Minimum Cash on

Hand. Recipient organizations should

request funds based upon immediate

disbursement requirements. Grantees

should time their requests to ensure that

cash on hand is the minimum needed

for disbursements to be made

immediately or within a few days. Idle

funds in the hands of subgrantees will

impair the goals of good cash

management.

2. Financial Reporting

a. General Requirements. In order to

obtain financial information concerning

the use of funds, the Institute requires

that grantees/subgrantees of these funds

submit timely reports for review.

Three copies of the Financial Status

Report are required from all grantees,

other than recipients of scholarships

under section II.B.2.b.iii., for each active

quarter on a calendar-quarter basis. This

report is due within 30 days after the

close of the calendar quarter. It is

designed to provide financial

information relating to Institute funds,

State and local matching shares, and

any other fund sources included in the

approved project budget. The report

contains information on obligations as

well as outlays. A copy of the Financial

Status Report, along with instructions

for its preparation, will be included in

the official Institute Award package. In

circumstances where an organization

requests substantial payments for a

project prior to the completion of a

given quarter, the Institute may request

a brief summary of the amount

requested, by object class, in support of

the Request for Advance or

Reimbursement.

b. Additional Requirements for

Renewal Grants. Grantees receiving a

continuation or on-going support grant

should number their quarterly Financial

Status Reports on a grant rather than a

project basis. For example, the first

quarterly report for a continuation grant

or each year of an on-going support

award should be number 1, the second

number 2, etc.

3. Consequences of Non-Compliance

With Submission Requirements

Failure of the grantee organization to

submit required financial and program

reports may result in a suspension of

grant payments or revocation of the

grant award.

H. Allowability of Costs

1. General

Except as may be otherwise provided

in the conditions of a particular grant,

cost allowability shall be determined in

accordance with the principles set forth

in OMB Circulars A–87, Cost Principles

for State and Local Governments; A–21,

Cost Principles Applicable to Grants

and Contracts with Educational

Institutions; and A–122, Cost Principles

for Non-Profit Organizations. No costs

may be recovered to liquidate

obligations which are incurred after the

approved grant period. Copies of these

circulars may be obtained from OMB by

calling (202) 395–7250.

2. Costs Requiring Prior Approval

a. Preagreement Costs. The written

prior approval of the Institute is

required for costs which are considered

necessary to the project but occur prior

to the award date of the grant.

b. Equipment. Grant funds may be

used to purchase or lease only that

equipment which is essential to

accomplishing the goals and objectives

of the project. The written prior

approval of the Institute is required

when the amount of automated data

processing (ADP) equipment to be

purchased or leased exceeds $10,000 or

the software to be purchased exceeds

$3,000.

c. Consultants. The written prior

approval of the Institute is required

when the rate of compensation to be

paid a consultant exceeds $300 a day.

3. Travel Costs

Transporation and per diem rates

must comply with the policies of the

applicant organization. If the applicant

does not have an established written

travel policy, then travel rates shall be

consistent with those established by the

Institute or the Federal Government.

Institute funds shall not be used to

cover the transportation or per diem

costs of a member of a national

organization to attend an annual or

other regular meeting of that

organization.

4. Indirect Costs

These are costs of an organization that

are not readily assignable to a particular
64220 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

project, but are necessary to the

operation of the organization and the

performance of the project. The cost of

operating and maintaining facilities,

depreciation, and administrative

salaries are examples of the types of

costs that are usually treated as indirect

costs. It is the policy of the Institute that

all costs should be budgeted directly;

however, if a recipient has an indirect

cost rate approved by a Federal agency

as set forth below, the Institute will

accept that rate.

a. Approved Plan Available.

i. The Institute will accept an indirect

cost rate or allocation plan approved for

a grantee during the preceding two years

by any Federal granting agency on the

basis of allocation methods substantially

in accord with those set forth in the

applicable cost circulars. A copy of the

approved agreement must be submitted

to the Institute.

ii. Where flat rates are accepted in

lieu of actual indirect costs, grantees

may not also charge expenses normally

included in overhead pools, e.g.,

accounting services, legal services,

building and occupancy and

maintenance, etc., as direct costs.

iii. Organizations with an approved

indirect cost rate, utilizing total direct

costs as the base, usually exclude

contracts under grants from any

overhead recovery. The negotiated

agreement will stipulate that contracts

are excluded from the base for overhead

recovery.

b. Establishment of Indirect Cost

Rates. In order to be reimbursed for

indirect costs, a grantee or organization

must first establish an appropriate

indirect cost rate. To do this, the grantee

must prepare an indirect cost rate

proposal and submit it to the Institute.

The proposal must be submitted within

three months after the start of the grant

period to assure recovery of the full

amount of allowable indirect costs, and

it must be developed in accordance with

principles and procedures appropriate

to the type of grantee institution

involved as specified in the applicable

OMB Circular. Copies of OMB Circulars

may be obtained directly from OMB by

calling (202) 395–7250.

c. No Approved Plan. If an indirect

cost proposal for recovery of actual

indirect costs is not submitted to the

Institute within three months after the

start of the grant period, indirect costs

will be irrevocably disallowed for all

months prior to the month that the

indirect cost proposal is received. This

policy is effective for all grant awards.

I. Procurement and Property

Management Standards

1. Procurement Standards

For State and local governments, the

Institute is adopting the standards set

forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular

A–102. Institutions of higher education,

hospitals, and other non-profit

organizations will be governed by the

standards set forth in Attachment O of

OMB Circular A–110.

2. Property Management Standards

The property management standards

as prescribed in Attachment N of OMB

Circulars A–102 and A–110 shall be

applicable to all grantees and

subgrantees of Institute funds except as

provided in section X.O.

All grantees/subgrantees are required

to be prudent in the acquisition and

management of property with grant

funds. If suitable property required for

the successful execution of projects is

already available within the grantee or

subgrantee organization, expenditures of

grant funds for the acquisition of new

property will be considered

unnecessary.

J. Audit Requirements

1. Implementation

Each non-scholarship grantee

(including a State or local court

receiving a subgrant from the State

Supreme Court) shall provide for an

annual fiscal audit. The audit may be of

the entire grantee organization (e.g., a

university) or of the specific project

funded by the Institute. Audits

conducted in accordance with the

Single Audit Act of 1984 and OMB

Circular A–128, or OMB Circular A–133

will satisfy the requirement for an

annual fiscal audit. The audit shall be

conducted by an independent Certified

Public Accountant, or a State or local

agency authorized to audit government

agencies.

Grantees who receive funds from a

Federal agency and who satisfy audit

requirements of the cognizant Federal

agency, should submit a copy of the

audit report prepared for that Federal

agency to the Institute in order to satisfy

the provisions of this section. Cognizant

Federal agencies do not send reports to

the Institute. Therefore, each grantee

must send this report directly to the

Institute.

2. Resolution and Clearance of Audit

Reports

Timely action on recommendations

by responsible management officials is

an integral part of the effectiveness of an

audit. Each grant recipient shall have

policies and procedures for acting on

audit recommendations by designating

officials responsible for: follow-up,

maintaining a record of the actions

taken on recommendations and time

schedules, responding to and acting on

audit recommendations, and submitting

periodic reports to the Institute on

recommendations and actions taken.

3. Consequences of Non-Resolution of

Audit Issues

It is the general policy of the State

Justice Institute not to make new grant

awards to an applicant having an

unresolved audit report involving

Institute awards. Failure of the grantee

organization to resolve audit questions

may also result in the suspension of

payments for active Institute grants to

that organization.

K. Close-Out of Grants

1. Definition

Close-out is a process by which the

Institute determines that all applicable

administrative and financial actions and

all required work of the grant have been

completed by both the grantee and the

Institute.

2. Grantee Close-Out Requirements

Within 90 days after the end date of

the grant or any approved extension

thereof (revised end date), the following

documents must be submitted to the

Institute by the grantee other than a

recipient of a scholarship under section

II.B.2.b.iii. These reporting requirements

apply at the conclusion of any nonscholarship grant, even when the project

will receive renewal funding through a

continuation or on-going support grant.

a. Financial State Report. The final

report of expenditures must have no

unliquidated obligations and must

indicate the exact balance of

unobligated funds. Any unobligated/

unexpended funds will be deobligated

from the award by the Institute. Final

payment requests for obligations

incurred during the award period must

be submitted to the Institute prior to the

end of 90-day close-out period. Grantees

on a check-issued basis, which have

drawn down funds in excess of their

obligations/expenditures, must return

any unused funds as soon as it is

determined that the funds are not

required. In no case should any unused

funds remain with the grantee beyond

the submission date of the final

financial status report.

b. Final Progress Report. This report

should describe the project activities

during the final calendar quarter of the

project and the close-out period,

including to whom project products

have been disseminated; provide a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64221

summary of activities during the entire

project; specify whether all the

objectives set forth in the approved

application or an approved adjustment

thereto have been met and, if any of the

objectives have not been met, explain

the reasons therefor; and discuss what,

if anything, could have been done

differently that might have enhanced

the impact of the project or improved its

operation.

3. Extension of Close-Out Period

Upon the written request of the

grantee, the Institute may extend the

close-out period to assure completion of

the Grantee’s close-out requirements.

Requests for an extension must be

submitted at least 14 days before the

end of the close-out period and must

explain why the extension is necessary

and what steps will be taken to assure

that all the grantee’s responsibilities

will be met by the end of the extension

period.

XII. Grant Adjustments

All requests for program or budget

adjustments requiring Institute approval

must be submitted in a timely manner

by the project director. All requests for

changes from the approved application

will be carefully reviewed for both

consistency with this Guideline and the

enhancement of grant goals and

objectives.

A. Grant Adjustments Requiring Prior

Written Approval

There are several types of grant

adjustments which require the prior

written approval of the Institute.

Examples of these adjustments include:

1. Budget revisions among direct cost

categories which, individually or in the

aggregate, exceed or are expected to

exceed five percent of the approved

original budget or the most recently

approved revised budget. For the

purposes of this section, the Institute

will view budget revisions

cumulatively.

For continuation and on-going

support grants, funds from the original

award may be used during the renewal

grant period and funds awarded by a

continuation or on-going support grant

may be used to cover project-related

expenditures incurred during the

original award period, with the prior

written approval of the Institute.

2. A change in the scope of work to

be performed or the objectives of the

project (see section XII.D.).

3. A change in the project site.

4. A change in the project period,

such as an extension of the grant period

and/or extension of the final financial or

progress report deadline (see section

XII.E.).

5. Satisfaction of special conditions, if

required.

6. A change in or temporary absence

of the project director (see sections

XII.F. and G.).

7. The assignment of an employee or

consultant to a key staff position whose

qualifications were not described in the

application, or a change of a person

assigned to a key project staff position

(see section X.X.).

8. A change in the name of the grantee

organization.

9. A transfer or contracting out of

grant-supported activities (see section

XII.H.).

10. A transfer of the grant to another

recipient.

11. Preagreement costs, the purchase

of automated data processing equipment

and software, and consultant rates, as

specified in section XI.H.2.

12. A change in the nature or number

of the products to be prepared or the

manner in which a product would be

distributed.

B. Request for Grant Adjustments

All grantees and subgrantees must

promptly notify their SJI program

manager, in writing, of events or

proposed changes which may require an

adjustment to the approved application.

In requesting an adjustment, the grantee

must set forth the reasons and basis for

the proposed adjustment and any other

information the SJI program managers

determine would help the Institute’s

review.

C. Notification of Approval/Disapproval

If the request is approved, the grantee

will be sent a Grant Adjustment signed

by the Executive Director or his

designee. If the request is denied, the

grantee will be sent a written

explanation of the reasons for the

denial.

D. Changes in the Scope of the Grant

A grantee/subgrantee may make

minor changes in methodology,

approach, or other aspects of the grant

to expedite achievement of the grant’s

objectives with subsequent notification

of the SJI program manager. Major

changes in scope, duration, training

methodology, or other significant areas

must be approved in advance by the

Institute.

E. Date Changes

A request to change or extend the

grant period must be made at least 30

days in advance of the end date of the

grant. The reasons why the change is

necessary and the steps being taken to

avoid further delays should be

explained in detail. A revised task plan

should accompany requests for a no-cost

extension of the grant period, along with

a revised budget if shifts among budget

categories will be needed. A request to

change or extend the deadline for the

final financial report or final progress

report must be made at least 14 days in

advance of the report deadline (see

section XI.K.3.). Grantees should be

aware that the Institute is unlikely to

approve more than one limited

extension of the grant period.

F. Temporary Absence of the Project

Director

Whenever absence of the project

director is expected to exceed a

continuous period of one month, the

plans for the conduct of the project

director’s duties during such absence

must be approved in advance by the

Institute. This information must be

provided in a letter signed by an

authorized representative of the grantee/

subgrantee at least 30 days before the

departure of the project director, or as

soon as it is known that the project

director will be absent. The grant may

be terminated if arrangements are not

approved in advance by the Institute.

G. Withdrawal of/Change in Project

Director

If the project director relinquishes or

expects to relinquish active direction of

the project, the Institute must be

notified immediately. In such cases, if

the grantee/subgrantee wishes to

terminate the project, the Institute will

forward procedural instructions upon

notification of such intent. If the grantee

wishes to continue the project under the

direction of another individual, a

statement of the candidate’s

qualifications should be sent to the

Institute for review and approval. The

grant may be terminated if the

qualifications of the proposed

individual are not approved in advance

by the Institute.

H. Transferring or Contracting Out of

Grant-Supported Activities

A principal activity of the grantsupported project shall not be

transferred or contracted out to another

organization without specific prior

approval by the Institute. All such

arrangements should be formalized in a

contract or other written agreement

between the parties involved. Copies of

the proposed contract or agreement

must be submitted for prior approval at

the earliest possible time. The contract

or agreement must state, at a minimum,

the activities to be performed, the time

schedule, the policies and procedures to
64222 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

be followed, the dollar limitation of the

agreement, and the cost principles to be

followed in determining what costs,

both direct and indirect, are to be

allowed. The contract or other written

agreement must not affect the grantee’s

overall responsibility for the direction of

the project and accountability to the

Institute.

State Justice Institute Board of

Directors

David A. Brock, Co-Chairman, Chief Justice,

Supreme Court of New Hampshire,

Concord, New Hampshire

John F. Daffron, Jr., Co-Chairman, Judge,

Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Chesterfield,

Virginia

Sandra A. O’Connor, Secretary, States

Attorney of Baltimore County, Towson,

Maryland

Terrence B. Adamson, Esq., Executive

Committee Member, Kaye, Scholer,

Fierman, Hays, and Handler, Washington,

DC

Joseph F. Baca, Chief Justice, Supreme Court

of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Robert N. Baldwin, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Virginia,

Richmond, Virginia

Carlos R. Garza, Administrative Judge (ret.),

Vienna, Virginia

Janice L. Gradwohl, Judge (ret.), County

Courts, Lincoln, Nebraska

Keith McNamara, Esq., McNamara and

McNamara, Columbus, Ohio

Florence Murray, Justice, Rhode Island

Supreme Court, Providence, Rhode Island

Janie L. Shores, Justice, Supreme Court of

Alabama, Montgomery, Alabama

David I. Tevelin, Executive Director (ex

officio)

David I. Tevelin,

Executive Director.

Appendix I.—List of State Contacts

Regarding Administration of Institute

Grants to State and Local Courts

Mr. Frank Gregory, Administrative Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, 817

South Court Street, Montgomery, Alabama

36130, (205) 834–7990

Mr. Arthur H. Snowden II, Administrative

Director, Alaska Court System, 303 K

Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, (907)

264–0547

Mr. David K. Byers, Administrative Director,

Supreme Court of Arizona, 1501 West

Washington Street, Suite 411, Phoenix,

Arizona 85007–3330, (602) 542–9301

Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, 625

Marshall, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201–

1078, (501) 376–6655

Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, 303 Second Street, South Tower,

San Francisco, California 94107, (415) 396–

9100

Mr. Steven V. Berson, State Court

Administrator, Colorado Judicial

Department, 1301 Pennsylvania Street,

Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80203–2416,

(303) 861–1111, ext. 585

Ms. Faith P. Arkin, Director, External Affairs,

Office of the Chief Court Administrator,

Drawer N, Station A, Hartford, Connecticut

06106, (203) 566–8210

Mr. Lowell Groundland, Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, Carvel

State Office Building, 820 N. French Street,

Wilmington, Delaware 19801, (302) 571–

2480

Mr. Ulysses Hammond, Executive Officer,

Courts of the District of Columbia, 500

Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20001, (202) 879–1700

Mr. Kenneth Palmer, State Courts

Administrator, Florida State Courts

System, Supreme Court Building,

Tallahassee, Florida 32399–1900, (904)

922–5081

Mr. Robert L. Doss, Jr., Director,

Administrative Office of the Georgia

Courts, The Judicial Council of Georgia,

244 Washington Street, S.W., Suite 500,

Atlanta, Georgia 30334–5900, (404) 656–

5171

Mr. Perry C. Taitano, Administrative

Director, Superior Court of Guam, Judiciary

Building, 110 West O’Brien Drive, Agana,

Guam 96920, 011 (671) 472–8961 through

8968

Sharon Miyoshiro, Administrative Director of

the Courts, Office of the Administrative

Director, Post Office Box 2560, Honolulu,

Hawaii 96813, (808) 539–4900

Honorable Charles F. McDevitt, Chief Justice,

Idaho Supreme Court, 451 West State

Street, Boise, Idaho 83720, (208) 334–3464

Mr. Robert E. Davison, Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, 840 S.

Spring Street, Springfield, Illinois 62704,

(312) 793–3250

Mr. Bruce A. Kotzan, Executive Director,

Supreme Court of Indiana, State House,

Room 323, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204,

(317) 232–2542

Mr. William J. O’Brien, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Iowa,

State House, Des Moines, Iowa 50319,

(515) 281–5241

Dr. Howard P. Schwartz, Judicial

Administrator, Kansas Judicial Center, 301

West 10th Street, Topeka, Kansas 66612,

(923) 296–4873

Ms. Laura Stammel, Assistant Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, 100

Mill Creek Park, Frankfort, Kentucky

40601, (502) 564–2350

Dr. Hugh M. Collins, Judicial Administrator,

Supreme Court of Louisiana, 301 Loyola

Avenue, Room 109, New Orleans,

Louisiana 70112–1887, (504) 568–5747

Mr. James T. Glessner, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, P.O. Box 4820, Downtown Station,

Portland, Maine 04112, (207) 822–0792

Ms. Deborah A. Unitus, Assistant State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, Rowe Boulevard and Taylor

Avenue, Annapolis, Maryland 21401, (301)

974–2141

Honorable John J. Irwin, Jr., Chief Justice for

Administration and Management, The

Trial Court, Administrative Office of the

Trial Court, Two Center Plaza, Suite 540,

Boston, Massachusetts 02108, (617) 742–

8575

Ms. Marilyn K. Hall, State Court

Administrator, Michigan Supreme Court,

P.O. Box 30048, 611 West Ottawa Street,

Lansing, Michigan 48909, (517) 373–0136

Ms. Sue K. Dosal, State Court Administrator,

Supreme Court of Minnesota, 230 State

Capitol, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, (617)

296–2474

Honorable Leslie Johnson, Director, Center

for Court Education and Continuing

Studies, P.O. Box 879, Oxford, Mississippi

38677, (601) 232–5955

Mr. Ron Larkin, State Court Administrator,

1105 R Southwest Blvd., Jefferson City,

Missouri 65109, (314) 751–3585

Mr. Patrick A. Chenovick, State Court

Administrator, Montana Supreme Court,

Justice Building, Room 315, 215 North

Sanders, Helena, Montana 59620–3001,

(406) 444–2621

Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Nebraska,

State Capitol Building, Room 1220,

Lincoln, Nebraska 68509, (404) 471–2643

Mr. Donald J. Mello, Court Administrator,

Administrative Office of the Courts,

Capitol Complex, Carson City, Nevada

89710, (702) 885–5076

Mr. Donald Goodnow, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of New

Hampshire, Frank Rowe Kenison Building,

Concord, New Hampshire 03301, (603)

271–2419

Mr. Robert Lipscher, Administrative Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, CN–

037, RJH Justice Complex, Trenton, New

Jersey 08625, (609) 984–0275

Honorable E. Leo Milonas, Chief

Administrative Judge, Office of Court

Administration, 270 Broadway, New York,

New York 10007, (212) 587–2004

Ms. Deborah Kanter, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, Supreme Court of New Mexico,

Supreme Court Building, Room 25, Sante

Fe, New Mexico 87503, (505) 827–4800

Hon. Jack Cozort, Acting Administrative

Director, Administrative Office of the

Courts, P.O. Box 2448, Raleigh, North

Carolina 27602, (919) 733–7106/7107

Mr. Keithe E. Nelson, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of North

Dakota, State Capitol Building, Bismarck,

North Dakota 58505, (701) 224–4216

Mr. Stephan W. Stover, Administrative

Director of the Courts, Supreme Court of

Ohio, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad

Street, Columbus, Ohio 43266–0419, (614)

466–2653

Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Administrative

Director, Administrative Office of the

Courts, 1925 N. Stiles, Suite 305,

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105, (405)

521–2450

Ms. Kingsley Click, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Oregon,

Supreme Court Building, Salem, Oregon

97310, (503) 986–5500

Mr. Thomas B. Darr, Director for Legislative

Affairs, Communications and

Administration, 5035 Ritter Road,

Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055, (717)

795–2000

Dr. Robert C. Harrall, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Rhode

Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,

Rhode Island 02903, (401) 277–3266

Mr. George A. Markert, Director, South

Carolina Court Administration, P.O. Box
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64223

50447, Columbia, South Carolina 29250,

(803) 734–1800.

Honorable Robert A. Miller, Chief Justice,

Supreme Court of South Dakota, 500 East

Capitol Avenue, Pierre, South Dakota

57501, (605) 773–4885

Mr. Charles E. Ferrell, Executive Secretary,

Supreme Court of Tennessee, Supreme

Court Building, Room 422, Nashville

Tennessee 37219, (615) 741–2687

Mr. Jerry L. Benedict, Administrative

Director, Office of Court Administration of

the Texas Judicial System, P.O. Box 12066,

Austin, Texas 78711, (512) 463–1625

Mr. Daniel Becker, State Court Administrator,

Administrative Office of the Courts, 230

South 500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102,

(801) 533–6371

Mr. Lee Suskin, Acting Court Administrator,

Supreme Court of Vermont, 111 State

Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602, (802)

828–3281

Ms. Viola E. Smith, Clerk of the Court/

Administrator, Territorial Court of the

Virgin Islands, P.O. Box 70, Charlotte

Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801,

(809) 774–6680, ext 248

Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, Executive Secretary,

Supreme Court of Virginia, Administrative

Offices, 100 North Ninth Street, 3rd Floor,

Richmond, Virginia 23219, (804) 786–6455

Ms. Mary C. McQueen, Administrator for the

Courts, Supreme Court of Washington,

Highways-Licensing Building, 6th Floor,

12th & Washington, Olympia, Washington

98504, (206) 753–5780

Mr. Ted J. Philyaw, Administrative Director

of the Courts, Administrative Office, 402–

E State Capitol, Charleston, West Virginia

25305, (304) 348–0145

Mr. J. Denis Moran, Director of State Courts,

P.O. Box 1688, Madison, Wisconsin

53701–1688, (608) 266–6828

Mr. Robert L. Duncan, Court Coordinator,

Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne,

Wyoming 82002, (307) 777–7581

Appendix II.—SJI Libraries Designated

Sites and Contacts (August 1995)

State: Alabama

Location: Supreme Court Library

Contact: Mr. William C. Younger, State Law

Librarian, Alabama Supreme Court Bldg.,

445 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama

36130, (205) 242–4347

State: Alaska

Location: Anchorage Law Library

Contact: Ms. Cynthia S. Petumenos, State

Law Librarian, Alaska Court Libraries, 303

K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, (907)

264–0583

State: Arizona

Location: State Law Library

Contact: Ms. Sharon Womack, Director,

Department of Library & Archives, State

Capitol, 1700 West Washington, Phoenix,

Arizona 85007, (602) 542–4035

State: Arkansas

Location: Administrative Office of the Courts

Contact: Mr. James D. Gingerich, Director,

Supreme Court of Arkansas,

Administrative Office of the Courts, Justice

Building, 625 Marshall, Little Rock,

Arkansas 72201–1078, (501) 376–6655

State: California

Location: Administrative Office of the Courts

Contact: Mr. William C. Vickrey, State Court

Administrator, Administrative Office of the

Courts, 303 Second Street, South Tower,

San Francisco, California 94107, (415) 396–

9100

State: Colorado

Location: Supreme Court Library

Contact: Ms. Frances Campbell, Supreme

Court Law Librarian, Colorado State

Judicial Building, 2 East 14th Avenue,

Denver, Colorado 80203, (303) 837–3720

State: Connecticut

Location: State Library

Contact: Mr. Richard Akeroyd, State

Librarian, 231 Capital Avenue, Hartford,

Connecticut 06106, (203) 566–4301

State: Delaware

Location: Administrative Office of the Courts

Contact: Mr. Michael E. McLaughlin, Deputy

Director, Administrative Office of the

Courts, Carvel State Office Building, 820

North French Street, 11th Floor, P.O. Box

8911, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, (302)

571–2480

State: District of Columbia

Location: Executive Office, District of

Columbia Courts

Contact: Mr. Ulysses Hammond, Executive

Officer, Courts of the District of Columbia,

500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20001, (202) 879–1700

State: Florida

Location: Administrative Office of the Courts

Contact: Mr. Kenneth Palmer, State Court

Administrator, Florida State Courts

System, Supreme Court Building,

Tallahassee, Florida 32399–1900, (904)

488–8621

State: Georgia

Location: Administrative Office of the Courts

Contact: Mr. Robert L. Doss, Jr., Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, The

Judicial Council of Georgia, 244

Washington Street, S.W., Suite 550,

Atlanta, Georgia 30334, (404) 656–5171

State: Hawaii

Location: Supreme Court Library

Contact: Ms. Ann Koto, Acting Law

Librarian, Supreme Court Law Library,

P.O. Box 2560, Honolulu, Hawaii 96804,

(808) 548–4605

State: Idaho

Location: AOC Judicial Education Library/

State Law Library in Boise

Contact: Ms. Laura Pershing, State Law

Librarian, Idaho State Law Library,

Supreme Court Building, 451 West State

Street, Boise, Idaho 83720, (208) 334–3316

State: Illinois

Location: Supreme Court Library

Contact: Ms. Brenda I. Larison, Supreme

Court Library, Supreme Court Building,

Springfield, Illinois 62701–1791, (217)

782–2424

State: Indiana

Location: Supreme Court Library

Contact: Ms. Constance Matts, Supreme

Court Librarian, Supreme Court Library,

State House, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204,

(317) 232–2557

State: Iowa

Location: Administrative Office of the Court

Contact: Mr. Jerry K. Beatty, Executive

Director, Judicial Education & Planning,

Administrative Office of the Courts, State

Capital Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319,

(515) 281–8279

State: Kansas

Location: Supreme Court Library

Contact: Mr. Fred Knecht, Law Librarian,

Kansas Supreme Court Library, 301 West

10th Street, Topeka, Kansas 66614, (913)

296–3257

State: Kentucky

Location: State Law Library

Contact: Ms. Sallie Howard, State Law

Librarian, State Law Library, State Capital,

Room 200–A, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601,

(502) 564–4848

State: Louisiana

Location: State Law Library

Contact: Ms. Carol Billings, Director,

Louisiana Law Library, 301 Loyola

Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112,

(504) 568–5705

State: Maine

Location: State Law and Legislative

Reference Library

Contact: Ms. Lynn E. Randall, State Law

Librarian, State House Station 43, Augusta,

Maine 04333, (207) 289–1600

State: Maryland

Location: State Law Library

Contact: Mr. Michael S. Miller, Director,

Maryland State Law Library, Court of

Appeal Building, 361 Rowe Boulevard,

Annapolis, Maryland 21401, (301) 974–

3395

State: Massachusetts

Location: Middlesex Law Library

Contact: Ms. Sandra Lindheimer, Librarian,

Middlesex Law Library, Superior Court

House, 40 Thorndike Street, Cambridge,

Massachusetts 02141, (617) 494–4148

State: Michigan

Location: Michigan Judicial Institute

Contact: Mr. Dennis W. Catlin, Executive

Director, Michigan Judicial Institute, 222

Washington Square North, P.O. Box 30205,

Lansing, Michigan 48909, (517) 334–7804

State: Minnesota

Location: State Law Library (Minnesota

Judicial Center)

Contact: Mr. Marvin R. Anderson, State Law

Librarian, Supreme Court of Minnesota, 25

Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota

55155, (612) 297–2084

State: Mississippi

Location: Mississippi Judicial College

Contact: Mr. Rick D. Patt, Staff Attorney,

Mississippi Judicial College, 6th Floor,

3825 Ridgewood, Jackson, Mississippi

39211, (601) 982–6590

State: Montana

Location: State Law Library

Contact: Ms. Judith Meadows, State Law

Librarian, State Law Library of Montana,

Justice Building, 215 North Sanders,

Helena, Montana 59620, (406) 444–3660

State: Nebraska

Location: Administrative Office of the Courts

Contact: Mr. Joseph C. Steele, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Nebraska,

Administrative Office of the Courts, P.O.

Box 98910, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509–8910,

(402) 471–3730
64224 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

State: Nevada

Location: National Judicial College

Contact: Dean V. Robert Payant, National

Judicial College, Judicial College Building,

University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89550,

(702) 784–6747

State: New Jersey

Location: New Jersey State Library

Contact: Mr. Robert L. Bland, Law

Coordinator, State of New Jersey,

Department of Education, State Library,

185 West State Street, CN520, Trenton,

New Jersey 08625, (609) 292–6230

State: New Mexico

Location: Supreme Court Library

Contact: Mr. Thaddeus Bejnar, Librarian,

Supreme Court Library, Post Office Drawer

L, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504, (505) 827–

4850

State: New York

Location: Supreme Court Library

Contact: Ms. Susan M. Wood, Esq., Principal

Law Librarian, New York State Supreme

Court Law Library, Onondaga County

Court House, Syracuse, New York 13202,

(315) 435–2063

State: North Carolina

Location: Supreme Court Library

Contact: Ms. Lousie Stafford, Librarian, North

Carolina Supreme Court Library, P.O. Box

26806 (by courier), 500 Justice Building, 2

East Morgan Street, Raleigh, North Carolina

27601, (919) 733–3425

State: North Dakota

Location: Supreme Court Library

Contact: Ms. Marcella Kramer, Assistant Law

Librarian, Supreme Court Law Library, 600

East Boulevard Avenue, 2nd Floor, Judicial

Wing, Bismarck, North Dakota 58505–

0530, (701) 224–2229

State: Northern Mariana Islands

Location: Supreme Court of the Northern

Mariana Islands

Contact: Mr. Honorable Jose S. Delta Cruz,

Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the

Northern Mariana Islands, P.O. Box 2165,

Saipan, MP 96950, (670) 234–5275

State: Ohio

Location: Supreme Court Library

Contact: Mr. Paul S. Fu, Law Librarian,

Supreme Court Law Library, Supreme

Court of Ohio, 30 East Broad Street,

Columbus, Ohio 43266–0419, (614) 466–

2044

State: Oklahoma

Location: Administrative Office of the Courts

Contact: Mr. Howard W. Conyers, Director,

Administrative Office of the Courts, 1915

North Stiles, Suite, 305, Oklahoma City,

Oklahoma 73105, (405) 521–2450

State: Oregon

Location: Administrative Office of the Courts

Contact: Ms. Kingsley Click, State Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Oregon,

Supreme Court Building, Salem, Oregon

97310, (503) 378–6046

State: Pennsylvania

Location: State Library of Pennsylvania

Contact: Ms. Betty Lutz, Head, Acquisitions

Section, State Library of Pennsylvania,

Technical Services, G46 Forum Building,

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105, (717)

787–4440

State: Puerto Rico

Location: Office of Court Administration

Contact: Mr. Alfredo Rivera-Mendoza, Esq.,

Director, Area of Planning and

Management, Office of Court

Administration, P.O. Box 917, Hato Rey,

Puerto Rico 00919

State: Rhode Island

Location: Roger Williams Law School Library

Contact: Ms. Gail Winson, Director, Roger

Williams Law School, 10 Metacom Ave.,

Bristol, RI 02809–5171, (401) 254–4546

State: South Carolina

Location: Coleman Karesh Law Library

(University of South Carolina School of

Law)

Contact: Mr. Bruce S. Johnson, Law

Librarian, Associate, Professor of Law,

Coleman Karesh Law Library, U.S.C. Law

Center, University of South Carolina,

Columbia, South Carolina 29208, (803)

777–5944

State: Tennessee

Location: Tennessee State Law Library

Contact: Ms. Donna C. Wair, Librarian,

Tennessee State Law Library, Supreme

Court Building, 401 Seventh Avenue N,

Nashville, Tennessee 37243–0609, (615)

741–2016

State: Texas

Location: State Law Library

Contact: Ms. Kay Schleuter, Director, State

Law Library, P.O. Box 12367, Austin,

Texas 78711, (512) 463–1722

State: U.S. Virgin Islands

Location: Library of the Territorial Court of

the Virgin Islands (St. Thomas)

Contact: Librarian, The Library, Territorial

Court of the Virgin Islands, Post Office Box

70, Charlotte Amalie, St Thomas, U.S.

Virgin Islands 00804

State: Utah

Location: Utah State Judicial Administration

Library

Contact: Ms. Jennifer Bullock, Librarian, Utah

State Judicial, Administration Library, 230

South 500 East, Suite 300, Salt Lake City,

Utah 84102, (801) 533–6371

State: Vermont

Location: Supreme Court of Vermont

Contact: Mr. Thomas J. Lehner, Court

Administrator, Supreme Court of Vermont,

111 State Street, c/o Pavilion Office

Building, Montpelier, Vermont 05602,

(802) 828–3278

State: Virginia

Location: Administrative Office of the Courts

Contact: Mr. Robert N. Baldwin, Executive

Secretary, Supreme Court of Virginia,

Administrative Offices, 100 North Ninth

Street, Third Floor, Richmond, Virginia

23219, (804) 786–6455

State: Washington

Location: Washington State Law Library

Contact: Ms. Deborah Norwood, State Law

Librarian, Washington State Law Library,

Temple of Justice, Mail Stop AV–02,

Olympia, Washington 98504–0502, (206)

357–2146

State: West Virginia

Location: Administrative Office of the Courts

Contact: Mr. Richard H. Rosswurm, Deputy

Administrative Director for Judicial

Education, West Virginia Supreme, Court

of Appeals, State Capitol, Capitol E–400,

Charleston, West Virginia 25305, (304)

348–0145

State: Wisconsin

Location: State Law Library

Contact: Ms. Marcia Koslov, State Law

Librarian, State Law Library, 310E State

Capitol, P.O. Box 7881, Madison,

Wisconsin 53707, (608) 266–1424

State: Wyoming

Location: Wyoming State Law Library

Contact: Ms. Kathy Carlson, Law Librarian,

Wyoming State Law Library, Supreme

Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming

82002, (307) 777–7509

National: American Judicature Society

Contact: Ms. Clara Wells, Assistant for

Information and Library Services, 25 East

Washington Street, Suite 1600, Chicago,

Illinois 60602, (312) 558–6900

National: National Center for State Courts

Contact: Ms. Peggy Rogers, Acquisitions/

Serials Librarian, 300 Newport Avenue,

Williamsburg, Virginia 23187–8798, (804)

253–2000

National: Michigan State University

Contact: Dr. John K. Hudzik, Project Director,

Judicial Education, Reference, Information

and Technical Transfer Project (JERITT),

Michigan State University, 560 Baker Hall,

East Lansing, Michigan 48824, (517) 353–

8603

Appendix III—Illustrative List of Model

Curricula

The following list includes examples of

curricula that have been developed with

support from SJI, and that might be—or in

some cases have been—successfully adapted

for State-based education programs for judges

and other court personnel. A list of all SJIsupported education projects is available

from the Institute. Please also check with the

JERITT project (517/353–8603) and with your

State SJI-designated Library (see Appendix II)

for information on other curricula that may

be appropriate for your State’s needs.

‘‘Manual for Judicial Writing Workshop for

Trial Judges’’ (University of Georgia/

Colorado Judicial Department: SJI–87–018/

019)

‘‘Judicial Education Curriculum: Teaching

Guides on Court Security, and Jury

Management and Impanelment’’ (Institute

for Court Management/National Center for

State Courts: SJI–88–053)

‘‘Caseflow Management Principles and

Practices’’ (Institute for Court

Management/National Center for State

Courts: SJI–87–056)

‘‘Adjudication of Farm Credit Issues’’ (Rural

Justice Center: SJI–87–059)

‘‘A National Program for Reporting on the

Courts and the Law’’ (American Judicature

Society: SJI–88–014)

‘‘Model Judicial Mediation Training

Program’’ (American Arbitration

Association: SJI–88–078)

‘‘Domestic Violence: A Curriculum for Rural

Courts’’ from ‘‘A Project to Improve Access

to Rural Courts for Victims of Domestic

Violence’’ (Rural Justice Center: SJI–88–

081)

‘‘Career Writing Program for Appellate

Judges’’ (American Academy of Judicial

Education: SJI–88–086–P92–1)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64225

‘‘Judges Media Relations Seminar’’ from ‘‘A

Statewide Program for Improving Media

and Judicial Relations’’ (Minnesota

Supreme Court: SJI–89–024)

‘‘Minding the Courts into the Twentieth

Century’’ (Michigan Judicial Institute: SJI–

89–029)

‘‘Innovative Juvenile and Family Court

Training’’ (Youth Law Center: SJI–87–060,

SJI–89–039)

‘‘Troubled Families, Troubled Judges’’

(Brandeis University: SJI–89–071)

‘‘Judicial Settlement Manual’’ from ‘‘Judicial

Settlement: Development of a New Course

Module, Film, and Instructional Manual’’

(National Judicial College: SJI–89–089)

‘‘Judicial Training Materials on Spousal

Support’’, ‘‘Family Violence: Effective

Judicial Intervention’’; ‘‘Judicial Training

Materials on Child Custody and Visitation’’

from ‘‘Enhancing Gender Fairness in the

State Courts’’ (Women Judges’ Fund for

Justice: SJI–89–062)

‘‘Introduction to the Jurisprudence of

Victims’ Rights’’ from ‘‘Victim Rights and

the Judiciary: A Training and

Implementation Project’’ (National

Organization for Victim Assistance: SJI–

89–083)

‘‘Fundamental Skills Training Curriculum for

Juvenile Probation Officers’’ (National

Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges: (SJI–90–017)

‘‘Pre-Bench Training for New Judges’’

(American Judicature Society‘ SJI–90–028)

‘‘A Manual for Workshops on Processing

Felony Dispositions in Limited Jurisdiction

Courts’’ (National Center for State Courts:

SJI–90–052)

‘‘The Crucial Nature of Attitudes and Values

in Judicial Education’’ (National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges: SJI–90–

058)

‘‘Policy Alternatives and Current Court

Practices in the Special Problem Areas of

Jurisdiction Over the Family’’ from

‘‘Juvenile and Family Court Key Issues

Curriculum Enhancement Project’’

(National Council of Juvenile and Family

Court Judges: SJI–90–066)

‘‘Gender Fairness Faculty Development

Workshops’’ (National Judicial College:

SJI–90–077)

‘‘A Unified Orientation and Mentoring

Program for New Judges of All Arizona

Trial Courts’’ (Arizona Supreme Court: SJI–

90–078)

‘‘National Guardianship Monitoring

Program’’ from ‘‘AARP Volunteers: A

Resource for State Guardianship Services’’

(Association for the Advancement of

Retired Persons: SJI–91–013)

‘‘Medicine, Ethics, and the Law:

Preconception to Birth’’ (Women Judges

Fund for Justice: SJI–89–062, SJI–91–019)

‘‘The Leadership Institute in Judicial

Education’’ and ‘‘The Advanced

Leadership Institute in Judicial Education’’

(Appalachian State University: SJI–91–021)

‘‘Managing Trials Effectively: A Program for

State Trial Judges’’ (National Center for

State Courts/National Judicial College: SJI–

87–066/067, SJI–89–054/055, SJI–91–025/

026)

‘‘Faculty Development Instructional

Program’’ from ‘‘Curriculum Review’’

(National Judicial College: SJI–91–039)

‘‘Legal Institute for Special and Limited

Jurisdiction Judges’’ (National Judicial

College: SJI–89–043, SJI–91–040)

‘‘Managerial Budgeting in the Courts’’;

‘‘Performance Appraisal in the Courts’’;

‘‘Managing Changes in the Courts’’; all

three from ‘‘Broadening Educational

Opportunities for Judges and Other Key

Court Personnel’’ (Institute for Court

Management/National Center for State

Courts: SJI–91–043)

‘‘An Approach to Long-Range Strategic

Planning in the Courts’’ (Center for Public

Policy Studies: SJI–91–045)

‘‘Implementing the Court-Related Needs of

Older People and Persons with Disabilities:

An Instructional Guide’’ (National Judicial

College: SJI–91–054)

‘‘National Judicial Response to Domestic

Violence: Civil and Criminal Curricula’’

(Family Violence Prevention Fund: SJI–87–

061, SJI–89–070, SJI–91–055)

‘‘Access to Justice: The Impartial Jury and the

Justice System’’ and ‘‘When Justice is Up

to You’’ from ‘‘Pre-Juror Education Project’’

(Consortium of Universities of the

Washington Metropolitan Area: SJI–91–

071)

‘‘Judicial Review of Administrative Agency

Decisions’’ (National Judicial College: SJI–

91–080)

‘‘Strengthening Rural Courts of Limited

Jurisdiction’’ and ‘‘Team Training for

Judges and Clerks’’ from ‘‘Rural Limited

Jurisdiction Court Curriculum Project’’

(Rural Justice Center: SJI–90–014, SJI–91–

082)

‘‘Medical/Legal Issues in Juvenile and Family

Courts’’ (National Council for Juvenile and

Family Court Judges: SJI–91–091)

‘‘Good Times, Bad Times: Drugs, Youth, and

the Judiciary’’ (Professional Development

and Training Center, Inc.: SJI–91–095)

‘‘Judicial Response to Stranger and

Nonstranger Rape and Sexual Assault’’

(National Judicial Education Program to

Promote Equality for Women and Men:

SJI–92–003)

‘‘Interbranch Relations Workshop’’ (Ohio

Judicial Conference: SJI–92–079)

‘‘Legal Institute for Non-Law Trained Judges’’

(Arizona Supreme Court: SJI–92–146)

‘‘New Employee Orientation Facilitators

Guide’’ from ‘‘The Minnesota

Comprehensive Curriculum Design and

Training Program for Court Personnel’’

(Minnesota Supreme Court: SJI–92–155)

‘‘Magistrates Correspondence Course’’

(Alaska Court System: SJI–92–156)

‘‘Southwestern Judges’ Conference on

Environmental Law’’ (University of New

Mexico: SJI–92–162)

‘‘Cultural Diversity Awareness in Nebraska

Courts’’ from ‘‘Native American

Alternatives to Incarceration Project’’

(Nebraska Urban Indian Health Coalition:

SJI–93–028)

‘‘A Videotape Training Program in Ethics and

Professional Conduct for Nonjudicial Court

Personnel’’ (American Judicature Society:

SJI–93–068)

‘‘Integrating Trial Management and Caseflow

Management’’ (Justice Management

Institute: SJI–93–214)

‘‘Civil and Criminal Procedural Innovations

for Appellate Courts’’ (National Center for

State Courts: SJI–94–002)

‘‘Comprehensive ADR Curriculum for

Judges’’ (American Bar Association: SJI–

95–002)

BILLING CODE 6820–SC–M
64226 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64227
64228 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64229
64230 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64231
64232 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64233

BILLING CODE 6820–SC–C
64234 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

State Justice Institute

Assurances

The applicant hereby assures and

certifies that it possesses legal authority

to apply for the award, and that if funds

are awarded by the State Justice

Institute pursuant to this application, it

will comply with all applicable

provisions of law and the regulations,

policies, guidelines and requirements of

the Institute as they relate to the

acceptance and use of Institute funds

pursuant to this application. The

applicant further assures and certifies

with respect to this application, that:

1. No person will, on the basis of race, sex,

national origin, disability, color, or creed be

excluded from participation in, denied the

benefits of, or otherwise subjected to

discrimination under any program or activity

supported by Institute funds, and that the

applicant will immediately take any

measures necessary to effectuate this

assurance.

2. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 10706(a),

funds awarded to the applicant by the

Institute will not be used, directly or

indirectly, to influence the issuance,

amendment, or revocation of any Executive

order or similar promulgation by Federal,

State or local agencies, or to influence the

passage or defeat of any legislation or

constitutional amendment by any Federal,

State or local legislative body.

3. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 10706(a)

and 10707(c):

a. It will not contribute or make available

Institute funds, project personnel, or

equipment to any political party or

association, to the campaign of any candidate

for public or party office, or to influence the

passage of defeat of any ballot measure,

initiative, or referendum;

b. No officer or employee of the applicant

will intentionally identify the Institute or the

applicant with any partisan or nonpartisan

political activity or the campaign of any

candidate for public or party office; and,

c. No officer or employee of the applicant

will engage in partisan political activity

while engaged in work supported in whole

or in part by the Institute.

4. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 10706(b),

no funds awarded by the Institute will be

used to support or conduct training programs

for the purpose of advocating particular

nonjudicial public policies or encouraging

nonjudicial political activities.

5. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 10706(d),

no funds awarded by the Institute will be

used to supplant State or local funds

supporting a program or activity; to construct

court facilities or structures, except to

remodel existing facilities or to demonstrate

new architectural or technological

techniques, or to provide temporary facilities

for new personnel or for personnel involved

in a demonstration or experimental program;

or to solely purchase equipment for a court

system.

6. It will provide for an annual fiscal audit

of the project.

7. It will give the Institute, through any

authorized representative, access to and the

right to examine all records, books, papers,

or documents related to the award.

8. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 10708(b)

(as amended), research or statistical

information that is furnished during the

course of the project and that is identifiable

to any specific individual, shall not be used

or revealed for any purpose other than the

purpose for which it was obtained. Such

information and copies thereof shall be

immune from legal process, and shall not be

offered as evidence or used for any purpose

in any action suit, or other judicial,

legislative, or administrative proceeding

without the consent of the person who

furnished the information.

9. All research involving human subjects

will be conducted with the informed consent

of those subjects and in a manner that will

ensure their privacy and freedom from risk

or harm and the protection of persons who

are not subjects of the research but would be

affected by it, unless such procedures and

safeguards would make the research

impractical. In such instances, the Institute

must approve procedures designed by the

grantee to provide human subjects with

relevant information about the research after

their involvement and to minimize or

eliminate risk of harm to those subjects due

to their participation.

10. All products prepared as the result of

the project will be originally-developed

material unless otherwise specifically

provided for in the award documents, and

that material not originally developed that is

included in such projects must be properly

identified, whether the material is in a

verbatim or extensive paraphrase format.

11. No funds will be obligated for

publication or reproduction of a final product

developed with Institute funds without the

written approval of the Institute. The

recipient will submit a final draft of each

such product to the Institute for review and

approval prior to submitting that product for

publication or reproduction.

12. The following statement will be

prominently displayed on all products

prepared as a result of the project:

This [document, film, videotape, etc.] was

developed under a [grant, cooperative

agreement, contract] from the State Justice

Institute. Points of review expressed herein

are those of the [author(s), filmmaker(s), etc.]

and do not necessarily represent the official

position or policies of the State Justice

Institute.

13. The ‘‘SJI’’ log will appear on the front

cover of a written product or in the opening

frames of a video production produced with

SJI funds, unless another placement is

approved in writing by the Institute.

14. Except as otherwise provided in the

terms and conditions of an Institute award,

the recipient is free to copyright any books,

publications, or other copyrightable materials

developed in the course of an Institutesupported project, but the Institute shall

reserve a royalty-free, non-exclusive and

irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or

other wise use, and to authorize others to

use, the materials for purposes consistent

with the State Justice Institute Act.

15. It will submit quarterly progress and

financial reports within 30 days of the close

of each calendar quarter during the funding

period (that is, no later than January 30, April

30, July 30, and October 30); that progress

reports will include a narrative description of

project activities during the calendar quarter,

the relationship between those activities and

the task schedule and objectives set forth in

the approved application or an approved

adjustment thereto, any significant problem

areas that have developed and how they will

be resolved, and the activities scheduled

during the next reporting period; and that

financial reports will contain the information

requested on the financial report form

included in the award documents.

16. At the conclusion of the project, title

to all expendable and nonexpendable

personal property purchased with Institute

funds shall vest in the court, organization or

individual that purchased the property if

certification is made to the Institute that the

property will continue to be used for the

authorized purposes of Institute-funded

project or other purposes consistent with the

State Justice Institute Act, as approved by the

Institute. If such certification is not made or

the Institute disapproves such certification,

title to all such property with an aggregate or

individual value of $1,000 or more shall vest

in the institute, which will direct the

disposition of the property.

17. The person signing the application is

authorized to do so on behalf of the applicant

and to obligate the applicant to comply with

the assurances enumerated above.

BILLING CODE 6820–SC–M
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices 64235

BILLING CODE 6820–SC–C
64236 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Notices

Instructions—Form A

1. (a)–(g) Legal Name of Applicant court,

entity or individual; Name of The

Organizational Unit, if any, that will conduct

the project; Complete Address of applicant;

Name and telephone number of a Contact

Person who can provide further information

about this application.

2. (a) State or Local Court includes all

appellate, general jurisdiction, limited

jurisdiction, and special jurisdiction courts.

Agencies of State and local courts include all

governmental offices that are supervised by

or report for administrative purposes to the

chief or presiding justice or judge, or his or

her designee.

(b) National State Court Support

Organization include national non-profit

organizations controlled by, operating in

conjunction with, and serving the State

courts.

(c) National State Court Education/

Training Organizations include national nonprofit organizations for the education and

training of judges and support personnel of

the judicial branch of State government.

(d) College or University includes all

institutions of higher education.

(e) Other Non-profit Organization or

Agency includes those non-profit

organizations and private agencies with

expertise in judicial administration not

included in sub-paragraphs (b)–(d).

(f) Individual means a person not applying

in conjunction with or on behalf of an entity

identified in one of the other categories.

(g) Corporation or Partnership includes forprofit and not-for-profit entities not falling

within one of the other categories.

(h) Other Unit of Government includes any

governmental agency, office, or organization

that is not a State or local court.

3. Employer Identification Number as

assigned by the Internal Revenue Service.

4. (a)–(f) Entity to Receive Funds is the

court or organization that will receive,

administer, and account for any moneys

awarded. For example, if the applicant is a

State or local court, the entity to receive

funds would be the State’s Supreme Court or

its designated agency or council in

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(4). If the

applicant is a special university program, the

responsible entity may be the university’s

structure. Applicants should complete this

block only if the entity that will receive the

funds is different from the applicant.

5. (a)–(e) Circle the letter of the Type of

activities that best characterizes the project.

If project funds will be substantially divided

among two or more activities, circle the

letters for each of those activities.

6. (a) New refers to the first award of State

Justice Institute funds for a particular project,

whether or not the applicant has received

previous awards for different projects from

the Institute.

(b) Supplement refers to the award of

additional funds to permit an existing project

to complete the task originally proposes or to

augment the scope of the project within the

current project period.

(c) Continuation refers to an extension for

an additional funding period.

(d) Ongoing Support refers to an SJI-funded

project for which there is a continuing

important national need.

7. The Title of the Proposed Project shall

reflect the objectives of the activities to be

conducted.

8. The Proposed Start Date of the project

should be the earliest feasible date on which

the applicant will be able to begin project

activities following the date of award. An

explanation should be provided in the

Program Narrative if the proposed start date

is more than 90 days after the estimated

award date set forth in the Application

Review Procedures section of the current

Grant Guideline.

9. Project Duration refers to the number of

months the applicant estimates will be

needed to complete all project tasks after the

proposed start date.

10. (a) Insert the Amount Requested from

the State Justice Institute to conduct the

project.

(b) The Amount of Match is the amount,

if any, to be contributed to the project by the

applicant, by a unit of State or local

governments, by a Federal agency, or by

private sources. See 42 U.S.C. 10705(d).

Cash Match refers to funds directly

contributed by the applicant, a unit of State

or local government, a Federal agency, or

private sources to support the project.

Non-cash Match refers to in-kind

contributions by the applicant, a unit of State

or local government, or private sources to

support the project. The applicant should

describe in detail, both the value it assigns

to in-kind contributions and the basis for

determining that value.

Total Match refers to the sum of the cash

and in-kind contributions to the project.

(c) Total Project Cost represents the sum of

the amount requested from the Institute and

all match contributions to the project.

11. If this application or an application

requesting support for the same project or an

essentially similar project has been

Previously Submitted to another funding

source (Federal or private), the name of the

source, the date of the previous submission,

the amount of funding sought, and the

disposition (if any) should be entered.

12. Enter the number of the applicant’s

Congressional District and the name of the

applicant’s Representative and the number of

the Congressional district(s) in which most of

the project activities will take place and the

name(s) of the Representatives from those

districts. If the project activities are not sitespecific, for example a series of training

workshops that will bring together

participants from around the State, the

country, or from a particular region, enter

Statewide, National, or Regional, as

appropriate, in the space provided.

Instructions—Form B

The State Justice Institute Act requires that:

Each application for funding by a State or

local court shall be approved, consistent with

State law, by the State’s Supreme Court, or

its designated agency or council, which shall

receive, administer, and be accountable for

all funds awarded by the Institute to such

courts. 42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(4).

FORM B should be signed by the Chief

Judge or Chief Justice of the State Supreme

Court, or by the director of the designated

agency or chair of the designated council. If

the designated agency or council differs from

the designee listed in Appendix I to the State

Justice Institute Grant Guideline, evidence of

the new or additional designation should be

attached.

The term ‘‘State Supreme Court’’ refers to

the court of last resort of a State. ‘‘Designated

agency or council’’ refers to the office or

judicial body which is authorized under

State law or by delegation from the State

Supreme Court to approve applications for

funds and to receive, administer shall be

accountable for those funds.

Instructions—Forms C and C1

Applicants may submit the proposed

project budgets either in the tabular format of

Form C or in a spreadsheet format similar to

Form C1. Applicants requesting more than

$100,000 are encouraged to use the

spreadsheet format. If the proposed project

period is for more than 12 months, separate

totals should be submitted for each

succeeding twelve-month period or portion

thereof beyond 12.

In addition to Form C or C1, Applicants

must provide a detailed budget narrative

providing an explanation of the basis for the

estimates in each budget category (See

Guidelines section VII.D). If the applicant is

requesting indirect costs and has an indirect

cost rate that has been approved by a Federal

agency, the basis for that rate together with

a copy of the letter or other official document

stating that it has been approved should be

attached.

If funds from other sources have been

requested either as match or to support other

aspects of the project, the source, current

status of the request, and anticipated

decision date must be provided.

COLUMN HEADINGS: For Budget Form C1

columns should be labeled consecutively by

tasks, e.g., TASK #1, TASK #2, etc. At the end

of each twelve month period or portion

thereof beyond month 12 the following four

columns must be included: SJI FUNDS;

MATCH; OTHER; TOTAL. Entries in these

columns should include the line-item totals

by source of funding per the column

headings.

[FR Doc. 95–30363 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–SC–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Research, Engineering and

Development Challenge 2000

Subcommittee

ACTION: Notice of meeting cancellation.

The FAA is issuing this notice to

advise the public that the December 18

meeting of the Challenge 2000

Subcommittee of the Research,

Engineering and Development Advisory

Committee (60 FR 62288, December 5,

1995) has been cancelled.

For further information contact: Ms.

Nancy Lane, Federal Aviation