USC - Grants and contracts

View all text of Chapter 113 [§ 10701 - § 10713]

§ 10705. Grants and contracts

(a) Authority of Institute; purposes of grantsThe Institute is authorized to award grants and enter into cooperative agreements or contracts, in a manner consistent with subsection (b), in order to—

(1) conduct research, demonstrations, or special projects pertaining to the purposes described in this chapter, and provide technical assistance and training in support of tests, demonstrations, and special projects;

(2) serve as a clearinghouse and information center, where not otherwise adequately provided, for the preparation, publication, and dissemination of information regarding State judicial systems;

(3) participate in joint projects with other agencies, including the Federal Judicial Center, with respect to the purposes of this chapter;

(4) evaluate, when appropriate, the programs and projects carried out under this chapter to determine their impact upon the quality of criminal, civil, and juvenile justice and the extent to which they have met or failed to meet the purposes and policies of this chapter;

(5) encourage and assist in the furtherance of judicial education;

(6) 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

(7) be responsible for the certification of national programs that are intended to aid and improve State judicial systems.

(b) Priority in making awards; alternative recipients; approval of applications; receipt and administration of funds; accountabilityThe Institute is empowered to award grants and enter into cooperative agreements or contracts as follows:

(1) The Institute may award grants to or enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with—

(A) State and local courts and their agencies;

(B) national nonprofit organizations controlled by, operating in conjunction with, and serving the judicial branches of State governments; and

(C) national nonprofit organizations for the education and training of judges and support personnel of the judicial branch of State governments.

(2) The Institute may, if the objective can better be served thereby, award grants to or enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with—

(A) other nonprofit organizations with expertise in judicial administration;

(B) institutions of higher education;

(D) private agencies with expertise in judicial administration.

(3) Upon application by an appropriate State or local agency or institution and if the arrangements to be made by such agency or institution will provide services which could not be provided adequately through nongovernmental arrangements, the Institute may award a grant or enter into a cooperative agreement or contract with a unit of State or local government other than a court.

(4) The Institute may enter into contracts with Federal agencies to carry out the purposes of this chapter.

(5) 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.

(c) Permissible uses of fundsFunds available pursuant to grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts awarded under this section may be used—

(1) to assist 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) to support education and training programs for judges and other court personnel, for the performance of their general duties and for specialized functions, and to support national and regional conferences and seminars for the dissemination of information on new developments and innovative techniques;

(3) to conduct research on alternative means for using judicial and nonjudicial personnel in court decisionmaking activities, to implement demonstration programs to test innovative approaches, and to conduct evaluations of their effectiveness;

(4) to support studies of the appropriateness of 1

1 So in original. Probably should be “and”.

efficacy of court organization and financing structures in particular States, and to enable States to implement plans for improved court organization and finance;

(5) to support State court planning and budgeting staffs and to provide technical assistance in resource allocation and service forecasting techniques;

(6) to support studies of the adequacy of court management systems in State and local courts and to implement and evaluate innovative responses to problems of record management, data processing, court personnel management, reporting and transcription of court proceedings, and juror utilization and management;

(7) to collect and compile 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) to conduct studies of the causes of trial and appellate court delay in resolving cases, and to establish and evaluate experimental programs for reducing case processing time;

(9) to develop and test methods for measuring the performance of judges and courts and to conduct experiments in the use of such measures to improve the functioning of such judges and courts;

(10) to support studies of court rules and procedures, discovery devices, and evidentiary standards, to identify problems with the operation of such rules, procedures, devices, and standards, to devise alternative approaches to better reconcile the requirements of due process with the need for swift and certain justice, and to test the utility of those alternative approaches;

(11) to support studies of the outcomes of cases in selected subject matter areas to identify instances in which the substance of justice meted out by the courts diverges from public expectations of fairness, consistency, or equity, to propose alternative approaches to the resolving of cases in problem areas, and to test and evaluate those alternatives;

(12) to support 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) to test and evaluate experimental approaches to providing 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) conduct 2

2 So in original. Probably should be “to conduct”.

not more than 5 projects at an aggregate cost of not to exceed $600,000—

(A) to investigate, and carry out research regarding State judicial decisions relating to child custody litigation involving domestic violence;

(B) to develop training curricula to assist State courts to develop an understanding of, and appropriate responses to, child custody litigation involving domestic violence; and

(C) to disseminate the results of the investigation and research carried out under subparagraph (A), and the curricula developed under subparagraph (B), to State courts; and

(15) to carry out such other programs, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, as may be deemed appropriate by the Institute.

(d) Matching fund requirements

(e) Compliance monitoring and evaluation by Institute

(f) Independent study of financial and technical assistance programs

(Pub. L. 98–620, title II, § 206, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3340; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7321(b)(3), (4), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4466, 4467; Pub. L. 100–702, title VI, §§ 603, 604, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4653; Pub. L. 102–528, §§ 2, 3(2), Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3461, 3462; Pub. L. 102–572, title VIII, §§ 802, 803(b), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4515, 4516.)