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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT