Frequently Asked Questions

Yes, provided they otherwise meet the definition of a full-time “prosecutor” or “public defender” under the statute (and the solicitation and guidelines).

No.

Loans purchased or sold by the original holder are eligible for payment, assuming the other conditions of the statute (and the solicitation and guidelines) are met. The requester must submit proof that the original loan qualified under the JRJ statute.

No. The statute clearly provides only for "direct payments on behalf of a borrower to the holder of [the qualifying] loan." SAAs should issue their checks only by direct payment to the lenders, in accordance with the statute.

Yes. A state may use an applicant’s salary instead of gross or net income. Page 6 of the JRJ solicitation, under “State Compliance with Statutory Requirements” reads: “States may use their own discretion in identifying a methodology that best identifies a person’s ability to repay their loans; however, at a minimum, this plan should include an assessment of the following…” As this language suggests, states are given discretion and flexibility to identify the appropriate factors to determine “the least ability to repay.” BJA is relying on these agencies to apply their knowledge and expertise to determine such formula. In the future, should a best practice be determined, BJA will provide additional guidance on the “least ability to repay.”

A state should defer to its own state law definitions of the term, or otherwise use its discretion in defining this term.

A state may, but is not required to do so, and should use its discretion in making this determination.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance does not provide legal advice on possible tax obligations resulting from receipt of JRJ benefits. The following is provided for informational purposes only. Beneficiaries of JRJ Student Loan Repayment Program benefits remain personally responsible for, and should consult with their tax advisors for advice on, any tax obligations resulting from benefits paid on their behalf.

As a courtesy to JRJ beneficiaries and state administering agencies, BJA has requested information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that may be helpful to beneficiaries and JRJ state administering agencies (SAAs) in determining tax consequences of JRJ benefits. The IRS provided a response to that request and a copy of both the inquiry and response are available on our website.

The statute defines “public defender” to mean an attorney who—

1. is continually licensed to practice law; and
2. is --
   1. a full-time employee of a State or unit of local government who provides legal representation to indigent persons in criminal or juvenile delinquency cases (including supervision, education, or training of other persons providing such representation);
   2. a full-time employee of a nonprofit organization operating under a contract with a State or unit of local government, who devotes substantially all of the employee’s full-time employment to providing legal representation to indigent persons in criminal or juvenile delinquency cases (including supervision, education, or training of other persons providing such representation); or
   3. employed as a full-time Federal defender attorney in a defender organization established pursuant to subsection (g) of section 3006A of Title 18, that provides legal representation to indigent persons in criminal or juvenile delinquency cases. (Emphasis added).

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, of which the John R. Justice statute is an amendment, defines (in relevant part) “unit of local government” at 42 U.S.C. 3791(a)(3)(D) to mean “for the purposes of assistance eligibility, any agency of the government of the District of Columbia or the Federal Government that performs law enforcement functions in and for—(i) the District of Columbia.” Therefore, for purposes of the John R. Justice Loan Repayment Program (JRJLRP), as an entity providing a law enforcement function in the District of Columbia (public criminal defense legal services), PDS should be considered a “unit of local government,” and otherwise eligible employees of PDS should be considered for eligibility as beneficiaries if they are full-time employees of PDS who also provide “legal representation to indigent persons in criminal or juvenile delinquency cases (including supervision, education, or training of other persons providing such representation.”

States will be able to access their award via a draw down, not in a lump sum.

The JRJ statute authorizes a program by which direct payments are made to the holder of a qualifying loan on behalf of an eligible beneficiary (borrower) who is not in default on a loan for which the person seeks forgiveness. The term “default” is understood to have the same definition as it does under the applicable provisions of the beneficiary’s loan agreement with his/her lender. Therefore, in reviewing applications, SAAs should confirm that the lender does not consider the applicant to be in a “default” status. Any individual who is considered by their lender to be in “default” status at the application stage should not be selected for JRJ benefits.

During the course of the service agreement, SAAs should require periodic certifications by the beneficiary (borrower) and/or lender to ensure that the beneficiary (borrower) is not, and has not been, in a “default” status and therefore has maintained his/her eligibility for JRJ benefits. The terms of the qualifying loan will control: if “past due,” “deferment,” “forbearance” or another similar status is not the equivalent of a “default” under the terms of the qualifying loan, then neither will it disqualify the person from eligibility under the JRJ statute. Beneficiaries are required, under the terms of the service obligation agreement, to notify their SAA of a “default” status. Failure to do so will be considered a breach of the service obligation agreement. SAAs should notify their BJA grant managers upon notice of a beneficiary in “default” status.

Ordinarily, the effective date of the beneficiary’s obligation to remain employed for 3 years as a qualifying “prosecutor” or “public defender” begins on the date that the beneficiary first enters into duty (as such qualifying “prosecutor” or “public defender”) after executing the service obligation agreement. The effective date of any service agreement subsequently entered into by the beneficiary (pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §3797cc-21(e) (“Additional agreements”)) will be the day following the expiration of the prior service obligation. Beneficiaries may not credit any service as a public defender or prosecutor prior to execution of the agreement toward the service obligation.

Through the first 3 years of the program, JRJ beneficiaries have been subject only to one JRJSLRP Service Agreement, executed at the time that the JRJ beneficiary first entered into the JRJ program. BJA is aware that, in certain cases, some JRJ beneficiaries have been asked to, and have subsequently signed, additional JRJSLRP Service Agreements even though the date of said execution occurred within the original 3-year term of the JRJ beneficiary’s obligation of service. Such subsequent “agreements” should not be understood to extend the original term of the service obligation, but rather serve as a reaffirmation and acknowledgement of the original signed agreement and its terms and conditions. State JRJ administering agencies are now required to use Appendix D to the John R. Justice program application guidance (“John R. Justice Student Loan Repayment Program (JRJSLRP) Service Agreement Acknowledgment of Benefit” form) as evidence of such reaffirmation and acknowledgment.

Pursuant to the statute (42 USC 3797cc-21(e)(2)), the period of any new term of service obligation would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Beginning in fiscal year 2013, any JRJ beneficiary who enters into a JRJSLRP Service Agreement – Secondary Term of Service (Appendix C to the JRJSLRP program application guidance) (i.e., an additional year or years of service after the original 3-year term has been satisfied), will agree to extend the beneficiary’s term of service obligation by the period of time expressed therein, in exchange for the receipt of additional JRJ benefits.

In the event of a breach of the service obligation agreement, a principal sum equal to the amount that the beneficiary is required to repay to the Department of Justice “shall be recoverable by the Federal Government” from the beneficiary (or the beneficiary’s estate, if applicable) by such methods as provided by law for the recovery of amounts owed to the Federal Government. The foregoing should not be understood to preclude the Federal Government from recovering any interest that may be owed in the collection of a debt.