Dave Tevelin reflects on his experience developing the State Justice Institute (SJI), a federal funding entity for court systems. He describes the role SJI has played in guiding court reform and innovation since the late 1980’s.
Can you provide some background about the State Justice Institute, the funding organization you directed for almost 20 years?
The State Justice Institute was created in 1987 as a funding source for the courts. Taking some lessons from my work at the U.S. Department of Justice, we designed SJI to fill a void by offering a more stream-lined grant system that was truly merit-based and independent of the political process. SJI was also unique in that we were governed by an independent board of directors of judges. One of the things we tried to do was to be a force for innovation that we didn’t see anybody else trying to do. One of the first things we did was to host a national conference on the future of the courts, pulling together not just judges and lawyers, but scientists, doctors, etc. We asked: what should the courts of 2020 look like? That was a major mind shift. It turned out to be a great springboard for us because we came out of the conference with a thousand good ideas that allowed us to help mold that future.
In building this new entity, what were you looking for when you assembled the team of staff members?
I wanted smart people who were agile thinkers. Fortunately, I had the luxury of not inheriting hide-bound bureaucrats. I could go out and hire my own staff. So I went hunting with a rifle, rather than a shotgun, and singled out the people I knew would bring a lot to the table. Dick Van Duizend – who knew more about the courts than anyone I ever met – agreed to become our deputy director. Kathy Schwartz was one of the first people I asked to work for us. She later became deputy director and still later the head of the violence against women office. She really knew the grant world. Dick and Kathy are incredibly innovative and smart people, but they also shared a sense with me of how we could improve on business as usual. All in all, we had a great mix of people.
What was the benefit of SJI being independent from the executive branch?
I think it was very key to our success, even though we were created by federal law and all of our money came from Congress. It meant that we didn’t have to spin programs to fit a particular political philosophy or cater to the political will of the moment. That was important because the courts were our constituency. They didn’t want to feel that we were ramming some political agenda down their throats.
What do you think were some of the early innovations of SJI?
One was our ability to disseminate information. This was the pre-Internet age, so spreading information and new ideas nationally was not easy. We imposed a grant requirement that every grantee had to produce a written product and distribute it to every chief justice and state court administrator, and at least one library in every state. The idea was to try to get the word out to people who could make a difference. At the time, I think that was a very innovative strategy for a funder.
We also worked to create a better application process. From the very beginning, we required the submission of a brief concept paper – 8 pages max – before the full application stage. Our hope was that this would signal to the courts that we didn’t want them to waste their time or their resources. We wanted them to be partners. We wanted these grants to be benefits to them. The use of the concept paper as a screening mechanism was probably among our better innovations.
What were some of the early growing pains when you began the grants solicitation process?
The concept paper idea I just mentioned almost killed us. I still remember the first round: we received over 300 concept papers. The Board insisted – because they were so invested – on reading every one of them. It was an incredible amount of work, but it served a great purpose. It showed us that there was demand for the work we were doing. That said, we weren’t necessarily blown away by the quality of ideas proposed in the initial round. So we worked with what we had, but required grantees to improve and adapt their proposals to maximize cost-efficiency and deepen the possible impact. For example, if we liked components A, C, and D of a proposal, but not so much B, we asked the court to reshape the idea. Or if there were two competing applicants, we said: ‘work together or we’ll have to choose one of you.’ It was a good way to maximize a limited pot of money. It effectively mandated collaboration between and among agencies that didn’t necessarily have a history of collaboration.
Despite the independent nature of SJI, were there any political challenges that impeded your work?
I suppose one form of a political challenge was that we had a few people on our Board who advocated for a business-as-usual approach to selecting grantees and their funding levels. They basically wanted us to say ‘okay, dole out what the major organizations deserve and let the smaller, newer organizations split the rest.’ This is the way federal money had been distributed in the past. But the SJI staff resisted and the Board ultimately decided that the process must be merit-based. And so it truly became a fund for the best, most innovative proposals.
How did you evaluate whether an applicant court was ‘innovation ready’?
We had criteria, but we knew it when we saw it. One key ingredient was hands-on management to make sure things went smoothly. If there were inadequate supports to implementing the idea, the money would go to waste.
As SJI grew, how did you keep it nimble and innovative?
The funding constraints kept us nimble. The most funding we ever got was $13.5 million; some years, we were lucky to stay alive. So we tried to make every dollar count, which helped focus our mission. The Board was also key. They kept us lean and mean (which felt like starved and surly, at times), but they didn’t want the administrative side of the budget to overwhelm the programmatic side. The board was also very committed to our pledge not to make SJI a huge bureaucracy.
What role did research play in your grant-making?
Especially in our first few years, we funded a lot of research and evaluation projects. This supplied us with some research findings connected to the work being done around the country. Of course, not everything was a success, but that was useful too. We would use those findings and other ideas from the field to spark discussion at our national conference. Based on that research, grantees would then be encouraged to develop new ideas and apply for funding for specific projects that would test and implement them.
How innovative do you think the criminal justice system is?
I think the criminal justice system has gotten much more innovative in recent years. A lot of that is because of federal priorities, followed up by federal money, such as drug courts.
What were some of the hallmark projects that SJI funded that you’re especially proud of?
I really believed that we were only as good as the things we funded. Community courts made us look very good. We provided an evaluation of the Midtown Community Court, which was very important, even if it had failed. Our job was to see what worked and what didn’t – and not to put a gloss on it and say that everything was great. It was very helpful to work with groups like the Center for Court Innovation who had a foot in the court system, but had an outside perspective. Those organizations, unlike the more traditional court systems themselves, could pitch something like collaboration and it sounded attractive. But you can’t bottle this stuff. There have to be the right people in the right place at the right time to have had the kind of successful grants we did.
What advice would you give to a young professional interested in pursuing a similar career path to yours?
Have an open mind about the process, as well as results, and a willingness to work with people inside and outside the system. The justice system is not a silo. It’s part of a bigger government and part of a larger culture. Don’t come in with pre-set ideas. Go where the flow takes you, and let other people shape those ideas with you.