Solicitation for Drug Court Research.

Series: NIJ Solicitation
Published: September 1995
23 pages
48,329 bytes

Message from the Director of the National Institute
of Justice 

One of the most distinctive features of the Crime
Act of 1994 is encouragement of innovation in
approaches to reducing crime. The Act's support for
drug court programs and for associated research and
evaluation reflects an important commitment to
testing new ways of processing substance-abusing
offenders and their cases by the judicial system. 

This solicitation announces NIJ's call for
proposals to evaluate drug court programs sponsored
by the Act and for research that will focus on
implementation and process issues, identifying and
delineating such factors as program goals, target
populations, and performance measures. 

Thanks in part to the Crime Act, the number of
treatment drug courts will continue to grow, and as
they do so will the promise they hold not only for
reducing criminal activity, but especially for
reducing substance abuse, for relieving the great
pressure on correctional facilities that is
attributable to drug-related offending, and for
freeing up space in these facilities for more
serious, violent offenders. 

Drug courts are a grass-roots phenomenon, begun at
the local level without Federal direction.
Subsequently, through the Crime Act, the Federal
Government has played a role in helping to focus
attention on them and in providing support for
sustaining and expanding them. The studies
generated through this solicitation will provide
essential information about whether and to what
extent drug courts "work" and will generate a
knowledge base that jurisdictions nationwide can
tap to create new programs or refine existing ones.

We at NIJ look forward to working with the
researchers as they conduct their studies, with
every confidence that the results will add
measurably to the understanding of this important
innovation that has expanded our response to the
problems of drugs and crime. 

Jeremy Travis

Solicitation for the Drug Court Research and
Evaluation Program

I. Introduction

This solicitation addresses the research and
evaluation requirements related to the Drug Court
section (Part V, Title V) of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) will support
research on the development of drug court
typologies and the determinants of drug court
success. It will also support several impact
evaluations of existing drug courts. This is the
first announcement of a planned multiyear
evaluation strategy. This year, up to $1 million
will be available. The research sponsored by these
grants will let Congress and the public know which
policies and programs appear to work and which need
to be improved.

II. Background 

Federal discretionary grants will be made available
under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 (Part V, Title V) to assist States,
State courts, local courts, units of local
government, and Indian tribal governments with drug
court programs.1 This situation presents the Nation
with an unprecedented opportunity to respond to the
pattern of behavior that brings substance abusers
into repeated contact with the criminal justice
system.

Past research on criminal offenders has shown that
substance abuse tends to increase criminal
behavior--both property crimes and violent crimes.
However, research has also shown that substance
abuse treatment can be effective in reducing
substance abuse and criminal activity while the
client is in treatment and for some time
thereafter.2 

This Federal support comes at a time when many
State and local criminal courts are inundated with
felony drug cases. Increased law enforcement
efforts against drug sellers and users, increased
severity of legislated penalties and sentencing
laws for drug sales and possession, and more
stringent plea bargaining have resulted in
substantial backlogs of felony drug caseloads,
severely crowded jails and prisons, and overloaded
probation departments. Dockets overloaded with drug
cases have fewer resources to adjudicate more
serious (e.g., violent) felonies. These conditions
have prompted a number of jurisdictions to develop
treatment-oriented drug courts, as well as programs
to expedite drug cases.

U.S. Department of Justice involvement in the 1994
Act. The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs (OJP) Drug Court Office will
administer the Drug Court Grants Program, working
with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). OJP
has defined a drug court, for the purposes of
Federal grants, as a specially designed court
calendar or docket whose purpose is to:

o Reduce recidivism and substance abuse among
nonviolent adult and juvenile substance abusing
offenders. 

o Increase the likelihood of their successful
rehabilitation through early, continuous, and
judicially supervised treatment; mandatory periodic
drug testing; the use of graduated sanctions; and
other rehabilitation services.3

Through its grant program, OJP will assist drug
court programs that, among other things, address
the following requirements:

o Exclude violent offenders from program
participation.

o Certify that drug court participants receive
early and continuing judicial supervision.

o Include a long-term strategy and detailed
implementation plan that includes provisions for
integrated administration of services and
sanctions.

o Maintain programmatic offender management for
each participant, including mandatory periodic
testing, substance abuse treatment, and a continuum
of other care and aftercare services.

o Maintain diversion, probation, or supervised
release programs that involve the possibility of
prosecution, confinement, or incarceration for
noncompliance with program requirements or failure
to show satisfactory progress.

o Conduct a required implementation and process
evaluation.4

Need for research. The drug court legislation and
many drug court programs operate under several
premises, the validity of which can be tested
through research:

o Treatment is most effective when it is begun as
soon as possible after arrest so that the defendant
is still experiencing disruption in drug use and
suspension of normal patterns of prearrest
behavior.

o Early and continuing judicial supervision (i.e.,
the active, ongoing role of the judge in following
and motivating treatment progress) is crucial.

o The nonadversarial nature of the proceedings
(e.g., cooperation and coordination among the
defense, prosecutor and judge) contributes to the
success of the drug court. 

o Drug addiction is a chronic relapsing disease
that requires a comprehensive and integrated
continuum of both therapeutic interventions and
other supportive services.

o Enforcement of certain and swift sanctions for
noncompliance with program requirements or failure
to show satisfactory progress is crucial to program
credibility and successful outcomes. 

o A continuum of graduated sanctions, used in
combinations that best fit each individual
situation, produce more positive outcomes than the
use of one type of sanction applied to all
participants (e.g., gradually increasing
surveillance through court appearances and
substance abuse testing, confinement in
detoxification or residential treatment,
imprisonment, and prosecution of the offense that
was originally deferred upon entrance to the
program).5

III. Solicitation Overview 

NIJ is soliciting proposals for research and
evaluation that document and assess activity
supported by the 1994 Crime Act and that are also
useful to both drug court programs and OJP in its
implementation of the Act. This research and
evaluation activity will be closely coordinated
with OJP and with BJA. These agencies have been
assigned administrative, monitoring, and reporting
responsibilities for program activities.

Despite the increasing number of drug courts,
little research and evaluation has focused on these
courts.6 One of NIJ's responses to this need was to
convene a workshop to assist in shaping a
long-range strategy for research and evaluation on
drug courts. The opening workshop brought together
researchers, practitioners, and policymakers from a
variety of disciplines involved in drug court
issues. A broad range of research and evaluation
topics and potential methodologies emerged from the
workshop discussions. Topics highlighted in the
workshop are incorporated into this solicitation.
Workshop discussions on research methodology
stressed the need for innovation, particularly
among qualitative measures. 

Over time, as the programmatic experience and the
accompanying research knowledge unfold, the results
of this initial workshop will be supplemented, and
perhaps even redirected, by various new findings,
recommendations, and research results.

This solicitation will make available several
independent awards. One award of up to $200,000
will be offered for a study to examine treatment
drug court typologies. This study should also
include an assessment of critical
process/implementation issues as well as
determinants of success for treatment drug courts.
Up to $800,000 will be offered for funding two to
three process and impact evaluations of existing
drug courts (programs must have received Federal
support from the Title V, Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994).

Funding levels for this solicitation are estimated
and may be reduced or increased at any time. The
following two sections discuss the areas of
interest to NIJ.

IV. Drug Court Typologies and Determinants of
Success Study 

A training assistance study is needed to delineate
clear treatment drug court typologies and describe
any related issues that surfaced during program
implementation. Researchers should look at existing
drug courts whether federally funded or not. 

Among other things, treatment drug court typologies
should indicate the differences between drug court
goals, objectives, and performance measures;
specified target populations and their expected
performance levels; and levels of funding for
program operations. 

Further, this training assistance study should
collect and assess existing treatment drug court
research data, as well as investigate factors that
appear to be related to the success of existing
treatment drug courts. Researchers should look at
existing drug courts whether federally funded or
not. 

Information from the OJP Drug Court Project Office
and Clearinghouse can provide researchers with an
overview of many of the existing courts and can
point researchers toward courts that may have
innovative or promising practices that will aid
them in determining levels of success.

This assistance effort or study, funded with OJP
grants, will aid drug courts in gaining access to
pertinent data on drug court typologies that are
similar to their own. The information collected
about drug court typologies should also point to
treatment drug courts that may have the strongest
potential for future evaluations. In addition, this
study will help drug courts implement the "best
practices" that appear most likely to increase
their chances for success.

V. Experimental Impact Evaluation

Funding for two to three process and impact
evaluations is to be offered for existing drug
court programs (programs must have received Federal
support from the Title V, Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 funds). Each proposal
may request funds to evaluate more than one
treatment drug court.

Use of a randomized experiment, to examine one or
more issues, is a required part of the overall
study design. Applicants must provide written proof
that the courts selected understand what the
randomized experimental design entails and agree to
cooperate with the required procedures.

The study design should also incorporate multiple
methodologies. Drug court programs are often very
complex, encompassing many different criminal
justice offices and outside agencies (e.g.,
treatment providers). Researchers are therefore
encouraged to use qualitative data collection
strategies in addition to quantitative techniques.
Through strategies such as case studies and
ethnography, qualitative courtroom interactions and
the perspectives of participants can be measured
from lockup through treatment and aftercare. Such
information can yield valuable contextual
information. 

Data sources. Implicit in this solicitation is the
need for collaboration between drug court
professionals and researchers to define problems,
design informed solutions, and assess their
effects. Grant recipients are required to actively
participate in this NIJ evaluation as a condition
of OJP treatment drug court funding. Further,
because OJP grant recipients are required to
collect and assess program implementation and
process data from all components of their drug
court to the fullest extent possible, the recipient
of this NIJ award should be able to conduct a much
more detailed evaluation than the existing funding
level would ordinarily permit.

Focus issues. All study designs should address the
extent to which the drug court program's goals and
objectives reduce criminal recidivism. NIJ is also
particularly interested in research that will
address whether pretrial or posttrial program
structures are most effective; whether a single
judge or some other system, such as a group of
rotating judges, appears to produce more promising
outcomes; and how treatment drug court programs
affect detention practices.

Funding limits and the nature of each program will
prevent researchers from addressing all of the
additional key issues listed below. Nevertheless,
studies should derive their focus from among these
issues, to the extent possible. 

Participant processing/tracking issues

o What is the target population and how was it
selected? Describe the public safety risk presented
by the population, type and level of drug
involvement, and screening process used. 

o What procedures and management information
systems are used for monitoring participants
(including compliance with various program
components and incentives and sanctions received)? 

o What are the similarities and differences among
offenders who participate in the program and those
who do not?

Programmatic issues 

o Is the drug court, including the treatment and
ancillary service components, being implemented as
originally intended? 

o In order to function, drug courts must foster and
maintain a variety of cooperative arrangements and
partnerships (e.g., among court, criminal justice,
treatment, and ancillary service professionals).
How are these partnerships being formed, how do
they operate, and what contributions do they make?

o What sanctions and court incentives are used by
the drug court judge and staff? How are they used?

o What impact does the drug court have on the
larger court system and other court dockets (such
as preventing return, diverting cases, or slowing
other dockets)? 

o How are the traditional roles of defenders,
prosecutors, judges, and other participants and
their working group relationships changed as a
result of work in a drug court?

o To what extent does the early and continuing
judicial supervision role in case handling (e.g.,
amount of direct conversation with the offender,
use of sanctions and incentives, leadership
charisma) affect offender outcomes?

o How much progress have offenders made toward
meeting program goals and objectives as measured by
reduced criminal activity and increased social
functioning (e.g., jobs and education)? 

o How do participants and staff, as well as the
surrounding community, perceive the effectiveness
of the drug court program?

Resource issues 

o What are the funding sources, inkind services,
and strategies used by drug courts and
treatment/ancillary service providers?

o Do benefits of operating the drug court program
appear to outweigh the costs? How is this being
judged? What are the relative costs and savings of
different approaches and components?

Substance abuse/treatment issues. NIJ is currently
planning a separate solicitation that will focus on
substance abuse and treatment issues in greater
detail. NIJ acknowledges the importance of
addressing drug court substance abuse and treatment
issues, but existing funds are not sufficient to
adequately address this area. Therefore, applicants
for this solicitation will not be expected to
address these issues.

VI. Dissemination of Study Findings

NIJ is interested in rapid, innovative methods to
disseminate the results of research and evaluations
as well as those that are more traditional. The
Institute will be actively pursuing strategies to
facilitate the dissemination of findings produced
as a result of this solicitation.

VII. Application Requirements

This section presents general application
information, recommendations to proposal writers,
and requirements for grant recipients. The
application form, SF 424, is included at the end of
this document. Proposals not conforming to the
application procedures will not be considered.
Award period. In general, NIJ limits its grants and
cooperative agreements to a maximum period of 24
months. However, longer budget periods may be
considered.

Award amount. Several awards totaling up to $1
million will be made available for this NIJ
research and evaluation solicitation. 

Due date. Ten (10) copies of fully executed
proposals should be sent to:
Drug Court Research and Evaluation Program
National Institute of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20531

Completed proposals must be received at NIJ by
close of business on November 30, 1995. Extension
of this deadline will not be permitted.

Contact. The National Criminal Justice Reference
Service (NCJRS), 800-851-3420, can provide copies
of this solicitation and general background
information concerning drug courts. The OJP Drug Court
Clearinghouse, 202-885-3440, can also provide
background information concerning drug courts. The
OJP Drug Court Project Office, 202-616-5001, can
provide the names of treatment drug courts that
this Office has funded to date. The NIJ drug courts
program manager, Laurie Bright, 202-616-3624, can
provide assistance with substantive questions that
applicants may have in responding to this proposal.

VIII. Recommendations to Grant Writers

Over the past 4 years, Institute staff have
reviewed approximately 1,500 grant applications. On
the basis of those reviews and inquiries from
applicants, the Institute offers the following
recommendations to help potential applicants
present workable, understandable proposals. Many of
these recommendations were adopted from materials
provided to NIJ by the State Justice Institute,
especially for applicants new to NIJ. Others
reflect standard NIJ requirements.

The author(s) of the proposal should be clearly
identified. Proposals that are incorrectly
collated, incomplete, or handwritten will be judged
as submitted or, at NIJ's discretion, will be
returned without a deadline extension. No additions
to the original submission are allowed. The
Institute suggests that applicants make certain
that they address the questions and issues set
forth below when preparing an application. 

1. What is the subject or problem you wish to
address? Describe the subject or problem and how it
affects law enforcement and the public. Discuss how
your approach will improve the situation or advance
the state of the art of knowledge, and explain why
it is the most appropriate approach to take. Give
appropriate citations to the research literature.
The source of statistics or research findings cited
to support a statement or position should be 
included in a reference list.

2. What do you want to do? Explain the goal(s) of
the project in simple, straightforward terms. The
goals should describe the intended consequences or
expected overall effect of the proposed project,
rather than the tasks or activities to be
conducted. To the greatest extent possible,
applicants should avoid a specialized vocabulary
that is not readily understood by the general
public. Technical jargon does not enhance an
application.

3. How will you do it? Describe the methodology
carefully so that what you propose to do and how
you would do it are clear. All proposed tasks
should be set forth so that a reviewer can see a
logical progression of tasks and relate those tasks
directly to the accomplishment of the project's
goal(s). When in doubt about whether to provide a
more detailed explanation or to assume a particular
level of knowledge or expertise on the part of the
reviewers, err on the side of caution and provide
the additional information. A description of
project tasks will also help identify necessary
budget items. All staff positions and project costs
should relate directly to the tasks described. The
Institute encourages applicants to attach letters
of cooperation and support from agencies that will
be involved in or directly affected by the proposed
project. 

4. What should you include in a grant application
for a program evaluation? An evaluation should
determine whether the proposed program, training,
procedure, service, or technology accomplished the
objectives it was designed to meet. Applicants
seeking support for a proposed evaluation should
describe the criteria that will be used to evaluate
the project's effectiveness and identify program
elements that will require further modification.
The description in the application should include
how the evaluation will be conducted, when it will
occur during the project period, who will conduct
it, and what specific measures will be used. In
most instances, the evaluation should be conducted
by persons not connected with the implementation of
the procedure, training, service, or technique, or
the administration of the project. 

5. How will others learn about your findings?
Include a plan to disseminate the results of the
research or evaluation beyond the jurisdictions and
individuals directly affected by the project. The
plan should identify the specific methods that will
be used to inform the field about the project such
as the publication of journal articles or the
distribution of key materials. Expectations
regarding products are discussed more fully in the
following section, "Requirements for Award
Recipients." A statement that a report or research
findings "will be made available to" the field is
not sufficient. The specific means of distribution
or dissemination as well as the types of recipients
should be identified. Reproduction and
dissemination costs are allowable budget items. 

Applicants must concisely describe the interim and
final products and address each product's purpose,
audience, and usefulness to the field. This
discussion should identify the principal criminal
justice constituency or type of agency for which
each product is intended and describe how the
constituent group or agency would be expected to
use the product or report. Successful proposals
will clearly identify the nature of the grant
products that can reasonably be expected if the
project is funded. In addition, a schedule of
delivery dates of all products should be
delineated.

6. What are the specific costs involved? The budget
application should be presented clearly. Major
budget categories such as personnel, benefits,
travel, supplies, equipment, and indirect costs
should be identified separately. The components of
"Other" or "Miscellaneous" items should be
specified in the application budget narrative and
should not include set-asides 
for undefined contingencies. 

7. How much detail should be included in the budget
narrative? The budget narrative should list all
planned expenditures and detail the salaries,
materials, and cost assumptions used to estimate
project costs. The narrative and cost estimates
should be presented under the following standard
budget categories: personnel, fringe benefits,
travel, equipment, supplies, contracts, other, and
indirect costs. For multiyear projects, applicants
must include the full amount of NIJ funding for the
entire life of the project. This amount should be
reflected in item 15g on Form 424 and line 6k on
424A. When appropriate, grant applications should
include justification of consultants and a full
explanation of daily rates for any consultants
proposed. To avoid common shortcomings of
application budget narratives, include the
following information: 

o Personnel estimates that accurately provide the
amount of time to be spent by personnel involved
with the project and the total associated costs,
including current salaries for the designated
personnel (e.g., Project Director, 50 percent of 1
year's annual salary of $50,000 = $25,000). If
salary costs are computed using an hourly or daily
rate, the annual salary and number of hours or days
in a work-year should be shown.

o Estimates for supplies and expenses supported by
a complete description of the supplies to be used,
nature and extent of printing to be done,
anticipated telephone charges and other common
expenditures, with the basis for computing the
estimates included (e.g., 100 reports x 75 pages
each x $0.05/page = $375.00). Supply and expense
estimates offered simply as "based on experience"
are not sufficient.

8. What travel regulations apply to the budget
estimates? Transportation costs and per diem rates
must comply with the policies of the applicant
organization, and a copy of the applicant's travel
policy should be submitted as an appendix to the
application. If the applicant does not have a
travel policy established in writing, then travel
rates must be consistent with those established by
the Federal Government. The budget narrative should
state which regulations are in force for the
project and should include the estimated fare, the
number of persons traveling, the number of trips to
be taken, and the length of stay. The estimated
costs of travel, lodging, ground transportation,
and other subsistence should be listed separately.
When combined, the subtotals for these categories
should equal the estimate listed on the budget
form. 

9. Which forms should be used? A copy of Standard
Form SF 424, Application for Federal Assistance,
plus instructions, appears in the back of this
solicitation. Please follow the instructions
carefully and include all parts and pages. In
addition to SF 424, recent requirements involve
certification regarding (1) lobbying; (2)
debarment, suspension, and other responsibility
matters; and (3) drug-free workplace requirements.
The certification form that is attached to SF 424
should be signed by the appropriate official and
included in the grant application. 

10. What technical materials should be included in
the application? 

o A one-page abstract of the full proposal,
highlighting the project's purpose, methods,
activities, and when known, the location(s) of
field research. 

o A program narrative, which is the technical
portion of the proposal. It should include a clear,
concise statement of the problem, goals, and
objectives of the project, and related questions to
be explored. A discussion of the relationship of
the proposed work to the existing literature is
expected.

o A statement of the project's anticipated
contribution to criminal justice policy and
practice. It is important that applicants briefly
cite those particular issues and concerns of
present-day criminal justice policy that stimulate
the proposed line of inquiry and suggest what their
own investigation would contribute to current
knowledge.

o A detailed statement of the proposed research or
study design and analytical methodologies. The
proposed data sources, data collection strategies,
variables and issues to be examined, and procedures
of analysis to be employed should be delineated
carefully and completely. When appropriate,
experimental designs are encouraged because of
their potential relevance to policymaking and the
strength of the evidence they can produce.

o The organization and management plan to conduct
the study. A list of major milestones of events,
activities, and products and a timetable for
completion that indicates the time commitments to
individual project tasks should be included. All
grant activities, including writing of the final
report, should be completed within the duration of
the award period.

o The applicant's curriculum vitae should summarize
education, research experience, and bibliographic
information related to the proposed work. 

11. Use of grant funds. Grant funds may be used to
purchase or lease equipment essential to
accomplishing the objectives of the project. The
budget narrative must list such equipment and
explain why the equipment is necessary. Funds may
not be used for operating programs, writing texts
or handbooks, training, etc.

12. To what extent may indirect costs be included
in the budget estimates? It is the policy of the
Institute that all costs should be budgeted
directly; however, if an applicant has an indirect
cost rate that has been approved by a Federal
agency within the past 2 years, an indirect cost
recovery estimate may be included in the budget. A
copy of the approved rate agreement should be
submitted as an appendix to the application. If an
applicant does not have an approved rate agreement,
the applicant should contact the Office of the
Comptroller, Office of Justice Programs, 202-307-
0623, to obtain information about preparing an
indirect cost rate proposal.

13. What, if any, matching funds are required?
Units of State and local governments (not including
publicly supported institutions of higher
education) are encouraged to contribute a match
(cash, non-cash, or both) of requested funds. Other
applicants also are encouraged to seek matching
contributions from other Federal agencies or
private foundations to assist in meeting the costs
of the project. 

14. Should other funding sources be listed?
Applicants are expected to identify all other
Federal, local, or private sources of support,
including other NIJ programs, to which this or a
closely related proposal has been or will be
submitted. This information permits NIJ to consider
the joint funding potential and limits the
possibility of inadvertent duplicate funding.
Applicants may submit more than one proposal to
NIJ, but the same proposal cannot be submitted in
more than one program area.

15. What is the deadline? November 30, 1995.

16. Is there a page limit? The Institute has
established a limit of 30 double-spaced pages for
all normal grant applications. This page limit does
not include references, budget narrative,
curriculum vitae, or necessary appendices.
Applications for small grants ($1,000-$50,000) are
limited to 15 double-spaced pages. NIJ does not
wish to create elaborate regulations regarding type
fonts, margins, and spacing. Applicants are
cautioned, however, that obvious attempts to
stretch interpretations of the Institute's limits
have, in the past, caused proposal reviewers to
regard such efforts unfavorably. 

17. What is the page order? The following order is
mandatory. Omission can result in rejection of the
application:

1. SF 424

2. Names and affiliations of all key persons from
applicant and subcontractor(s), advisors,
consultants, and Advisory Board members.

3. Abstract

4. Table of Contents

5. Budget narrative

6. Assurances and Certifications, etc.

7. Negotiated rate agreement

8. Program narrative

9. References

10. Resumes of key personnel

18. What does the review process entail? After all
applications for a competition are received, NIJ
will convene a series of peer review panels of law
enforcement and related professionals and
researchers. NIJ will assign proposals to peer
panels that it deems most appropriate. Panel
members read each proposal and meet to assess the
technical merits and policy relevance of the
proposed research. Panel assessments of the
proposals, together with assessments by NIJ staff,
are submitted to the Director, who has sole and
final authority over approval and awards. The
review normally takes 60 to 90 days, depending on
the number of applications received. Each applicant
receives written comments from the peer review
panel concerning the strengths and weaknesses of
the proposal. These comments may include
suggestions for how a revised or subsequent
application to NIJ might be improved. 

19. What are the criteria for an award? The
essential question asked of each applicant is, "If
this study is successful, how will it further the
purpose of Title I of the Crime Act, the Public
Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of
1994, or improve law enforcement policies or
operations?" Four criteria are applied in the
evaluation process:
 
o Impact of the proposed project. 

o Feasibility of the approach to the issue,
including technical merit and practical
considerations.

o Originality of the approach, including creativity
of the proposal and capability of the research
staff.

o Economy of the approach. Applicants bear the
responsibility of demonstrating to the panel that
the proposed study addresses the critical issues of
the topic area and that the study findings could
ultimately contribute to a practical application in
law enforcement. Reviewers will assess applicants'
awareness of related research or studies and their
ability to direct the research or study toward
answering questions of policy or improving the
state of law enforcement operations.

Technical merit is judged by the likelihood that
the study design will produce convincing findings.
Reviewers take into account the logic and timing of
the research or study plan, the validity and
reliability of measures proposed, the
appropriateness of statistical methods to be used,
and each applicant's awareness of factors that
might dilute the credibility of the findings.
Impact is judged by the scope of the proposed
approach and by the utility of the proposed
products. Reviewers consider each applicant's
understanding of the process of innovation in the
targeted criminal justice agency or setting and
knowledge of prior uses of criminal justice
research by the proposed criminal justice
constituency. Appropriateness of products in terms
of proposed content and format is also considered. 

Applicants' qualifications are evaluated both in
terms of the depth of experience and the relevance
of that experience to the proposed research or
study. Costs are evaluated in terms of the
reasonableness of each item and the utility of the
project to the Institute's program. 

20. Are there any other considerations in selecting
applications for an award? Projects should have a
national or regional impact or have potential
relevance to a number of jurisdictions. Because of
the broad national mandate of the National
Institute of Justice, projects that address the
unique concerns of a single jurisdiction should be
fully justified. 

The applicant's performance on previous or current
NIJ grants will also be taken into consideration in
making funding decisions.

21. Who is eligible to apply? NIJ awards grants to,
or enters into cooperative agreements with,
educational institutions, nonprofit organizations,
public agencies, individuals, and profit making
organizations that are willing to waive their fees.
Where appropriate, special eligibility criteria are
indicated in the separate solicitations. 

22. Does NIJ accept resubmission of proposals? The
Institute will accept resubmission of a previously
submitted proposal. The applicant should indicate
for Question 8, Form 424, that the application is a
revision. The applicant should include this
information in the abstract. Finally, the applicant
should prepare a one-page response to the earlier
panel review (to follow the abstract) including (1)
the title, submission date, and NIJ-assigned
application number of the previous proposal, and
(2) a brief summary of responses to the review
and/or revisions to the proposal.

IX. Requirements for Award Recipients

Required Products

Each project is expected to generate tangible
products of maximum benefit to criminal justice
professionals, researchers, and policymakers. In
particular, NIJ strongly encourages documents that
provide information of practical utility to law
enforcement officials; prosecutors; judges;
corrections officers; victims services providers;
and Federal, State, county, and local elected
officials. 

Products should include: 

o A summary of approximately 2,500 words
highlighting the findings of the research and the
policy issues those findings will inform. The
material should be written in a style that will be
accessible to policy officials and practitioners
and suitable for possible publication as an NIJ
Research in Brief. An NIJ editorial style guide is
sent to each project director at the time of the
award.

o A full technical report, including a discussion
of the research question, review of the literature,
description of project methodology, detailed review
of project findings, and conclusions and policy
recommendations. 

o Clean copies of all automated data sets developed
during the research and full documentation prepared
in accordance with the instructions in the NIJ data
resources manual. 

o Brief project summaries for NIJ use in preparing
annual reports to the President and the Congress.

As appropriate, additional products such as case
studies and interim and final reports (e.g.,
articles, manuals, or training materials) may be
specified in the proposal or negotiated at the time
of the award. 

Public Release of Automated Data Sets

The National Institute of Justice is committed to
ensuring the public availability of research data
and to this end established its Data Resources
Program in 1984. All NIJ award recipients who
collect data are required to submit a
machine-readable copy of the data and appropriate
documentation to NIJ prior to the conclusion of the
project. The data and materials are reviewed for
completeness. NIJ staff then create
machine-readable data sets, prepare user's guides,
and distribute data and documentation to other
researchers in the field. A variety of formats are
acceptable; however, the data and materials must
conform with requirements detailed in Depositing
Data With the Data Resources Program of the
National Institute of Justice: A Handbook. A copy
of this handbook is sent to each project director
at the time of the award. For further information
about NIJ's Data Resources Program, contact 
Dr. James Trudeau, 202-307-1355. 

Standards of Performance by Recipients 

NIJ expects individuals and institutions receiving
its support to work diligently and professionally
toward completing a high-quality research or study
product. Besides this general expectation, the
Institute imposes specific requirements to ensure
that proper financial and administrative controls
are applied to the project. Financial and general
reporting requirements are detailed in Financial
and Administrative Guide for Grants, a publication
of the Office of Justice Programs. This guideline
manual is sent to recipient institutions with the
award documents. Project directors and recipient
financial administrators should pay particular
attention to the regulations in this document. 

Program Monitoring 

Award recipients and principal investigators assume
certain responsibilities as part of their
participation in government-sponsored research and
evaluation. NIJ's monitoring activities are
intended to help grantees meet these
responsibilities. They are based on good
communication and open dialogue, with collegiality
and mutual respect. Some of the elements of this
dialogue are:

o Communication with NIJ in the early stages of the
grant, as the elements of the proposal's design and
methodology are developed and operationalized.

o Timely communication with NIJ regarding any
developments that might affect the project's
compliance with the schedules, milestones, and
products set forth in the proposal. (See statement
on Timeliness, below.)

o Communication with other NIJ grantees conducting
related research projects. An annual "cluster
conference" should be anticipated and should be
budgeted for by applicants at a cost of $1,000 for
each year of the grant.

o Consideration of communication with the field
through electronic media to make available interim
reports and data sets, and other grant products as
appropriate.

o Providing NIJ on request with brief descriptions
of the project in interim stages at such time as
the Institute may need this information to meet its
reporting requirements to the Congress. NIJ will
give as much advance notification of these requests
as possible, but will expect a timely response from
grantees when requests are made.

o Providing NIJ with copies of presentations made
at conferences, meetings, and elsewhere based in
whole or in part on the work of the project.

o Providing NIJ with prepublication copies of
articles based on the project appearing in
professional journals or the media, either during
the life of the grant or after.

o Other reporting requirements (Progress Reports,
Final Reports, and other grant products) are
spelled out elsewhere in this solicitation.
Financial reporting requirements will be described
in the grant award documents received by successful
applicants.

Communications 

NIJ Program Managers should be kept informed of
research progress. Written progress reports are
required on a quarterly basis. All awards use
standard quarterly reporting periods (January 1
through March 31, April 1 through June 30, and so
forth) regardless of the project's start date.
Progress reports will inform the monitor which
tasks have been completed and whether significant
delays or departures from the original workplan are
expected. 

Timeliness 

Grantees are expected to complete award products
within the timeframes that have been agreed upon by
NIJ and the grantee. 

Publications 

The Institute encourages grantees to prepare their
work for NIJ publication. In cases where grantees
disseminate their findings through a variety of
media, such as professional journals, books, and
conferences, copies of such publications should be
sent to the Program Manager as they become
available, even if they appear well after a
project's expiration. NIJ imposes no restriction on
such publication other than the following
acknowledgment and disclaimer:

This research was supported by grant number
_________ from the National Institute of Justice.
Points of view are those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily represent the position of the U.S.
Department of Justice. 

Data Confidentiality and Human Subjects Protection
Research that examines individual traits and
experiences plays a vital part in expanding our
knowledge about crime control and criminal
behavior. It is essential, however, that
researchers protect subjects from needless risk of
harm or embarrassment and proceed with willing and
informed cooperation. NIJ requires that
investigators protect information identifiable to
research participants. When information is
safeguarded, it is protected by statute from being
used in legal proceedings: 

"[S]uch information and copies thereof shall be
immune from legal process, and shall not, without
the consent of the person furnishing such
information, be admitted as evidence or used for
any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial,
legislative, or administrative proceedings." 42
U.S.C. 3789g(a).

Applicants should file their plans to protect
sensitive information as part of their proposal.
Necessary safeguards are detailed in 28 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 22. A short
"how-to" guideline for developing a privacy and
confidentiality plan can be obtained from NIJ
program managers.

In addition, the Department of Justice has adopted
Human Subjects policies similar to those
established by the Department of Health and Human
Services. In general, these policies exempt
researchers from Institutional Review Board (IRB)
review provided that necessary safeguards of
privacy and confidentiality have been met. However,
the Institute may find in certain instances that
subjects or subject matters are especially
sensitive and may require IRB review. These
exceptions will be decided on an individual basis
during application review. Applicants should read
28 CFR, Part 46, to determine their individual
project requirements. 

Notes

1. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs. 1995. Drug Court Grant Program: Program
Guidelines and Application Information.

2. Wexler, H.K., G.P. Falkin, D.S. Lipton, A.B.
Rosenblum, and L.P. Goodloe. 1988. A Model For
Prison-Based Drug Treatment: An Evaluation of the
"Stay'n Out" Therapeutic Community. Narcotic and
Drug Research, Inc. NIDA Research Grant R18DA03310.

- State of California Department of Alcohol and
Drug Programs and the National Opinion Research
Center. 1994. Evaluating Recovery Services: The
California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment.

3. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs. 1995. Drug Court Grant Program: Program
Guidelines and Application Information.

4. Ibid.
- U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs. 1995. Drug Courts: Proposed Rule. Federal
Register, January 26, NCJ# SL00115.

5. Ibid.

6. Bureau of Justice Assistance Drug Court Resource
Center. Director, Caroline Cooper, 202-885-3440.
Cooperatively run by American University, National
Center for State Courts, and The National
Consortium for Treatment Alternatives To Street
Crime Programs.

References

J.S. Baer and Associates (eds). 1993. Addictive
Behaviors: Across the Life Plan: Prevention,
Treatment, and Policy Issues. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

Finn, Peter, and Andrea K. Newlyn. 1993. Miami's
"Drug Court": A Different Approach. National
Institute of Justice, NCJ 142412.

Goldkamp, John S. 1993. Justice and Treatment
Innovation: The Drug Court Movement. Crime and
Justice Research Institute. National Institute of
Justice and the State Justice Institute, P.O. No.
OJP-94-076M.

Goldkamp, John S., and Doris Weiland. 1993.
Assessing the Impact of Dade County's Felony Drug
Court. Crime and Justice Research Institute.
National Institute of Justice, NCJ 144524.

Goldkamp, John S., and Doris Weiland. 1993.
Assessing the Impact of Dade County's Felony Drug
Court. Crime and Justice Research Institute. The
State Justice Institute with cofunding of the
National Institute of Justice, P.O. No. SJI-91-11J-
E-077.

The Office of the State Courts Administrator,
Florida Supreme Court. Undated. Treatment-Based
Drug Courts . . . A Guide. State Justice Institute.

Tauber, Judge Jeffrey S. 1993. A Judicial Primer on
Unified Drug Courts and Court-Ordered Drug
Rehabilitation Programs. Presentation Paper from
the California Continuing Judicial Studies Program;
Dana Point, CA.

Application forms can be downloaded in the Acrobat 
version of this document or by calling 800-851-3420.