ILNews

Court to award $290,000 for abuse programs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court Improvement Program has announced it will be giving away up to $290,000 in grants to programs that help families and children involved in cases of neglect or abuse. The grants are funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children & Families. Applications are due July 1.

“This is an excellent opportunity for Juvenile Courts and other child welfare stakeholders to apply for funding for innovative programs to help abused and neglected children in their counties,” Angela Reid-Brown, administrator of the Court Improvement Program, said in a statement.

Individual grant awards are usually no larger than $25,000 to $35,000 and are intended to support program needs from Oct. 1, 2010, to Sept. 30, 2011. All grant funds must be used by Nov. 15, 2011.

There is also a match requirement. These grants from the Court Improvement Program can constitute up to 75 percent of the total cost of the project. The additional 25 percent or more of program budgets – from in cash or in-kind sources – must be from non-federal resources.

The following types of programs are eligible to receive the recently announced grants:

- CHINS and TPR mediation and facilitation programs

- CHINS mental health programs

- CHINS drug court programs

- CHINS and TPR training programs

- CHINS and TPR-related educational brochures, guides, and pamphlets

- Videoconferencing equipment for CHINS and TPR cases

- Court recording technology for CHINS and TPR cases

- Adopting and implementing court performance measures for CHINS and TPR cases

- Other projects that will further the goals of the Court Improvement Program.

The Indiana Supreme Court and members of the Court Improvement Program’s executive committee oversee how grants are distributed. The Division of State Court Administration serves as the fiscal administrator of the federal grants and the Indiana Judicial Center administers the program.

For these grants, a team will review applications and make their recommendations to the Court Improvement Program’s executive committee, which makes the final decision.

The executive committee will be looking for how realistic and measurable the applicants’ goals are, whether there is overlap between proposed programs and existing programs funded by Court Improvement Program grants, and other qualifications outlined in the application.

Applications sent via e-mail are due to Reid-Brown, arbrown@courts.state.in.us, by 4 p.m. (EDT) July 1. An original signed application should also be mailed to the Indiana Judicial Center, Attention: Angela Reid-Brown, 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 900, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

For more information about the Court Improvement Program or for help in filling out the application, contact Reid-Brown at (317) 232-1313 or via e-mail.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT