Notices regarding the solicitation “Research and Evaluation on 

Policing”

April 3, 2019: On March 20, 2019, NIJ hosted a webinar which included an overview and 

discussion on this funding opportunity. The slides and transcript from this webinar have been 

added to the end of this solicitation document.

February 25, 2019: The link to the DOJ Grants Financial Management Online Training under 

“Financial Management and System of Internal Controls” was updated.

February 19, 2019: Information regarding submission of information pertaining to disclosure and 

justification for DOJ High Risk Grantees was redacted.

The original solicitation document begins on the next page.
U.S. Department of Justice OMB No. 1121-0329 

Office of Justice Programs Approval Expires 11/30/2020 

National Institute of Justice 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), National Institute of 

Justice (NIJ) is seeking applications for funding for research projects employing randomized 

control trials (RCTs) to develop evidence-based knowledge in policing. This program furthers 

the Department’s mission by sponsoring research to provide objective, independent, evidencebased knowledge and tools to meet the challenges of policing, particularly at the State, local, 

and tribal levels.

Research and Evaluation on Policing 

Applications Due: May 7, 2019 

Eligibility 

In general, NIJ is authorized to make grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative 

agreements with, States (including territories), units of local government, federally recognized 

Indian tribal governments that perform law enforcement functions (as determined by the 

Secretary of the Interior),1

 nonprofit and for-profit organizations (including tribal nonprofit and 

for-profit organizations), institutions of higher education (including tribal institutions of higher 

education), and certain qualified individuals. Foreign governments, foreign organizations, and 

foreign colleges and universities are not eligible to apply. 

All recipients and subrecipients (including any for-profit organization) must forgo any profit or 

management fee. 

NIJ welcomes applications under which two or more entities would carry out the federal award; 

however, only one entity may be the applicant. Any others must be proposed as subrecipients 

(subgrantees)2. The applicant must be the entity that would have primary responsibility for 

carrying out the award, including administering funding, managing the entire project, and 

monitoring and appropriately managing any subawards (“subgrants”). 

Under this solicitation, any particular applicant entity may submit more than one application, as 

long as each application proposes a different project in response to the solicitation. Also, an 

entity may be proposed as a subrecipient (subgrantee) in more than one application. 

NIJ may elect to fund applications submitted under this FY 2019 solicitation in future fiscal 

years, dependent on, among other considerations, the merit of the applications and on the 

availability of appropriations. 

 

1 A determination by the Secretary of the Interior is not required for tribes to which federal recognition was extended 

by virtue of Public Law 115-121, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2017. 

2

 For additional information on subawards, see "Budget and Associated Documentation" under Section D. Application 

and Submission Information. 
2 

NIJ-2019-15543 

Deadline 

Applicants must register with Grants.gov at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html

prior to submitting an application. All applications are due by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on 

May 7, 2019. 

To be considered timely, an application must be submitted by the application deadline using 

Grants.gov, and the applicant must have received a validation message from Grants.gov that 

indicates successful and timely submission. OJP urges applicants to submit applications at least 

72 hours prior to the application due date, to allow time for the applicant to receive validation 

messages or rejection notifications from Grants.gov, and to correct in a timely fashion any 

problems that may have caused a rejection notification. 

OJP encourages all applicants to read this Important Notice: Applying for Grants in Grants.gov.

For additional information, see How to Apply in Section D. Application and Submission

Information. 

Contact Information 

For technical assistance with submitting an application, contact the Grants.gov Customer 

Support Hotline at 800-518-4726, 606-545-5035, at 

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support.html, or via email to support@grants.gov. The

Grants.gov Support Hotline operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except on federal holidays. 

An applicant that experiences unforeseen Grants.gov technical issues beyond its control that 

prevent it from submitting its application by the deadline may email the NIJ contact identified 

below within 24 hours after the application deadline to request approval to submit its 

application. Additional information on reporting technical issues appears under Experiencing 

Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues in the How to Apply section. 

For assistance with any other requirements of this solicitation, contact the National Criminal 

Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Response Center: toll-free at 1-800-851-3420; via TTY at 

301-240-6310 (hearing impaired only); email grants@ncjrs.gov; fax to 301-240-5830; or web

chat at https://webcontact.ncjrs.gov/ncjchat/chat.jsp. The NCJRS Response Center hours of

operation are 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to

8:00 p.m. eastern time on the solicitation close date. General information on applying for NIJ

awards can be found at www.nij.gov/funding/Pages/welcome.aspx. Answers to frequently asked

questions that may assist applicants are posted at www.nij.gov/funding/Pages/faqs.aspx.

Grants.gov number assigned to this solicitation: NIJ-2019-15543 

Release date: February 7, 2019
3

NIJ-2019-15543

Contents

A. Program Description.............................................................................................................. 4

Overview ................................................................................................................................ 4

Program-Specific Information ................................................................................................. 4

Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly Products ........................................ 8

B. Federal Award Information..................................................................................................... 9

Type of Award .......................................................................................................................10

Financial Management and System of Internal Controls........................................................10

Budget Information ................................................................................................................11

Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement.................................................................................11

Pre-agreement Costs (also known as Pre-award Costs) .......................................................12

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver...............................12

Prior Approval, Planning, and Reporting of Conference/Meeting/Training Costs ...................13

Costs Associated with Language Assistance (if applicable)...................................................13

C. Eligibility Information.............................................................................................................13

D. Application and Submission Information...............................................................................13

What an Application Should Include ......................................................................................13

How to Apply .........................................................................................................................28

E. Application Review Information.............................................................................................33

Review Criteria ......................................................................................................................33

Review Process.....................................................................................................................34

F. Federal Award Administration Information ............................................................................36

Federal Award Notices ..........................................................................................................36

Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements ............................................37

General Information about Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements..............................38

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s) ...................................................................................39

H. Other Information..................................................................................................................39

Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552 and 5 U.S.C. 552a) ....................39

Provide Feedback to OJP......................................................................................................39

Application Checklist .............................................................................................................41
4

NIJ-2019-15543

Research and Evaluation on Policing

(CFDA No. 16.560)

A. Program Description

Overview

With this solicitation, NIJ seeks applications for funding for investigator-initiated, randomized 

controlled trial (RCT) studies of approaches to the challenges of policing in the United States 

that address the strategic priorities and objectives identified in NIJ’s Policing Strategic Research 

Plan, 2017-2022. Applicants are required to identify the strategic priority and relevant 

objective(s) that their proposal addresses on the title page of their application’s program 

narrative. Applications that do not address the priorities and objectives of NIJ’s Policing 

Strategic Research Plan 2017-2022 will not be considered for funding. Among other areas of 

interest, NIJ is interested in RCT studies examining the approaches to the challenges of policing 

in rural communities.

This solicitation supports the U.S. Department of Justice priorities to reduce crime, protect, and 

support law enforcement, and to support prosecutors.

Applications proposing research involving partnerships with criminal justice or other agencies, 

are to include a strong letter of support, signed by an appropriate decision-making authority 

from each proposed partnering agency. A letter of support must include the partnering agency’s 

acknowledgement that de-identified data provided through this project will be archived by the 

awardee in the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) at the conclusion of the 

award (see Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly Products, below). If 

selected for award, applicants will be expected to have a formal agreement in place with 

partnering agencies by January 1, 2020. That agreement must include provisions to meet the 

data archiving requirements of the award. In rare circumstances, for example, where a law may 

place restrictions on the archiving of agency data, NIJ may agree to a successful applicant

creating and archiving an appropriate synthetic dataset. Those circumstances will be rare, 

decided by NIJ on a case-by-case basis, and will require extensive documentation and 

justification for exceptions to be made.

In addition, in the case of partnerships that will involve the use of federal award funds by 

multiple partnering agencies to carry out the proposed project, only one entity/partnering agency 

may be the applicant (as is the case with any application submitted in response to this 

solicitation); any others must be proposed as subrecipients.

Statutory Authority: Any awards under this solicitation would be made under statutory 

authority provided by a full-year appropriations act for FY 2019. As of the writing of this 

solicitation, the Department of Justice is operating under a short-term "Continuing Resolution"; 

no full-year appropriation for the Department has been enacted for FY 2019.

Program-Specific Information

Randomized control trials (RCTs) are a powerful tool for developing scientific evidence about 

what works. Of the 61 policing programs reported to be effective or promising in
5

NIJ-2019-15543

CrimeSolutions.gov, only eight were evaluated with an RCT. This solicitation is intended to 

remedy that dearth by supporting RCT studies of a policing practice, strategy, program (to 

include training and education, recruitment, retention, and workforce development), or forensic 

innovation that address the strategic priorities and objectives identified in NIJ’s Policing 

Strategic Research Plan, 2017-2022.

The NIJ Policing Strategic Research Plan, 2017 – 2022 identifies three strategic priorities:

I. Promote and Support Research to Optimize Workforce Development for Officers and 

Civilian Personnel.

This strategic priority represents NIJ’s commitment to support research that will identify 

challenges and promote promising practices that will advance the policing workforce. This 

includes both sworn, and civilian personnel, and those in support agencies including 

publicly-funded forensic crime laboratories, medical examiner and coroner offices, and 

police forensic units; to include crime scene personnel and medicolegal death investigators. 

Research areas under this strategic priority include but are not limited to:

 Recruitment, retention, and workforce development; 

 Training and education, including the composition of an evidence-based curricula; 

and

 Training technologies designed to enhance performance.

II. Promote and Support Research on Policing Practices. 

This strategic priority supports NIJ’s efforts that focus on advancing policing practices and 

strategies deployed by police organizations. Research areas under this strategic priority 

include but are not limited to:

 Person- or place-based practices and strategies intended to deter, disrupt, or prevent 

crime; 

 Patrol practices; 

 The application and timeliness of data and outputs from forensic science 

examinations, technologies, and innovations to support police investigations and 

systems-based strategies;3

 System and organizational characteristics that advance police performance; 

 Officer decision-making practices; 

 

3 While NIJ has supported research on the impact of forensic innovations on court outcomes and on methods to 

improve forensic processing efficiencies, the actual impact of forensic innovations on police-practices and outcomes 

has received relatively less attention. See NIJ Understanding the Impact of the Forensic Sciences on the Criminal 

Justice System. https://www.nij.gov/topics/forensics/Pages/social-science.aspx; NIJ Research and Evaluation in 

Publicly Funded Forensic Laboratories. https://www.nij.gov/topics/forensics/lab-operations/pages/public-labsresearch-solicitation.aspx.
6

NIJ-2019-15543

 The adoption of technology that assists in organizational performance; and

 Partnerships among police organizations or between police practitioners and 

researchers.

III. Promote and Support Research on the Relationship between Policing and 

Communities.

This strategic priority furthers NIJ’s commitment to support research to enhance policecommunity relationships. Research areas under this strategic priority include but are not 

limited to:

 Police-community engagement strategies; 

 Emerging technologies to enhance police-citizen communications;

 Strategies that strengthen trust and confidence between police and community 

residents; and

 Individual and community characteristics that affect the delivery of policing services.

General Guidance

Applicants should provide a compelling justification that the policing practice, strategy, program, 

or forensic innovation is suitable for evaluation, and that the initiatives associated with it are 

promising. Evidence supporting the selected policing strategy, practice, or program should meet 

at least one of the following criteria:

 Referenced in NIJ’s web-based clearinghouse of strategies, programs, and practices,4

Crimesolutions.gov, as promising or effective;

 Cited in empirical literature on policing;

 Implemented abroad and logically applied to U.S. populations.

NIJ will consider single- and multi-site evaluations of policing practices, strategies, or programs. 

In both instances, sufficient power and the generation of generalizable knowledge are 

imperative. If a multi-site evaluation is proposed, applicants should submit research designs that 

include both pooled and site-specific outcome analyses. In addition, applicants should account 

for any program deviations in the outcome analysis. Applications should include Memoranda of 

Understanding (MOUs) or letters-of-support from participating police agencies.

RCT Evaluation Considerations

A strong RCT design should include low sample attrition, sufficient sample size, close 

adherence to random assignment, valid outcome measures, and statistical analyses. Taking 

RCT costs into consideration, applicants may want to consider studies using privacy-protected 

 

4 Other web-based sources of program evaluations could include George Mason University’s Center for Evidencebased Crime Policy; the Campbell Collaboration; the MacArthur Foundation; or, the Arnold Foundation.
7

NIJ-2019-15543

administrative data that are already being collected, or implementing an intervention into a 

program already funded.

Applicants are strongly encouraged to include the following information in the Project Narrative 

of their application:

1. A description of the policing intervention program model with fidelity benchmarks of 

implementation activities. Applicants should describe likely model adaptions that may be 

needed at proposed evaluation sites. A discussion of how these adaptations may impact 

model fidelity should be included. If a multi-site evaluation is proposed, applicants should 

indicate how consistent implementation fidelity will be achieved.

2. An explanation of the theory of change behind the model activities. Applicants should 

clearly describe how proposed project activities contribute to the expected policing 

outcomes, such as crime reductions or officer performance. The narrative should identify 

the data to be collected, the availability of the data, and how the data will be used to 

measure activities and outcomes.

3. The logic model of the evaluation. The logic model should include the randomization 

plan that will outline how the participants will be identified and randomized into either the 

treatment group(s) or control group(s). The randomization plan should also include a 

description of the treatment condition relative to the existing business-as-usual practice 

assigned to the control group.

4. A power analysis. Applicants should connect the power analysis to anticipated effect 

sizes necessary to detect a difference in the treatment and control groups based on the 

services the control group will receive. If a multi-site evaluation is proposed, applicants 

should include pooled and site-specific calculations in their power analysis.

5. A discussion of plausible sources of contamination in the evaluation design and 

proposed methods to mitigate contamination.

6. A robust site description. At a minimum, this should include a description of all training 

and technical assistance (TTA) the site(s) has/have received, or will receive during the 

course of the evaluation, and the vendor supplying the TTA.

Encouraging Program Investments in Economically-Distressed Communities (Qualified 

Opportunity Zones)

Under this program, OJP will, as appropriate, give priority consideration in award decisions to 

applications that propose projects that directly benefit federally designated Qualified Opportunity 

Zones (QOZ).5In order to assist NIJ in considering this factor, applicants should include 

information in the application that specifies how the project will generate information about 

enhancing public safety in the specified QOZs. For resources on QOZs, and for a current list of 

designated QOZs, see the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s resource webpage, accessible at 

https://www.cdfifund.gov/pages/opportunity-zones.aspx.

 

5 See Public Law 115-97, Title I, Subtitle C, Part IX, Subpart B, Sec. 13823.
8

NIJ-2019-15543

Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly Products

The ultimate goal of this solicitation is to develop evidence-based knowledge to advance police 

operations and practices to deliver policing services to communities more effectively and 

efficiently at the State, local, and tribal levels.

Final Research Report. Any recipient of an award under this solicitation will be expected to 

submit a final research report. Additional information on the final research report requirement for 

the solicitation is posted on the Post Award Reporting Requirements Page on NIJ’s website.

Required Data Sets and Associated Files and Documentation. Any recipient of an award under 

this solicitation will be expected to submit to the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data 

(NACJD) all data sets that result in whole or in part from the work funded by the award, along 

with associated files and any documentation necessary for future efforts by others to reproduce 

the project’s findings and/or to extend the scientific value of the data set through secondary 

analysis. For more information, see Program Narrative in Section D. Application and 

Submission Information.

In addition to these deliverables (and the required reports and data on performance measures 

described in Section F. Federal Award Administration Information), NIJ expects scholarly 

products to result from each award under this solicitation, taking the form of one or more 

published, peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles, and/or (if appropriate) law review journal 

articles, book chapter(s) or book(s) in the academic press, technological prototypes, patented 

inventions, or similar scientific products.

The Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly Products are directly related to the 

performance measures that demonstrate the results of the work completed.

Performance Measures

OJP will require each successful applicant to submit regular performance data that demonstrate 

the results of the work carried out under the award (see “General Information about PostFederal Award Reporting Requirements” in Section F. Federal Award Administration 

Information). 

Applicants should visit OJP’s performance measurement page at www.ojp.gov/performance for 

an overview of performance measurement activities at OJP.

The application should demonstrate the applicant’s understanding of the performance data 

reporting requirements for this grant program and detail how the applicant will gather the 

required data should it receive funding. 

Please note that applicants are not required to submit performance data with the application. 

Performance measures information is included as an alert that successful applicants will be 

required to submit performance data as part of the reporting requirements under an award.
9 

NIJ-2019-15543 

Objective Performance Measure(s) Data Recipient Provides

Conduct research in 

social and behavioral 

sciences having clear 

implications for criminal 

justice policy and 

practice in the United 

States. 

Conduct research in 

science, technology, 

engineering, and/or 

mathematics having clear 

implications for criminal 

justice policy and 

practice in the United 

States.

1.Relevance to the needs of the field as 

measured by whether the project’s 

substantive scope did not deviate from the 

funded project or any subsequent agencyapproved modifications to the scope.

2.Quality of the research as demonstrated by 

the scholarly products that result in whole 

or in part from work funded under the NIJ 

award, such as published, peer-reviewed, 

scientific journal articles, and/or (as 

appropriate for the funded project) law 

review journal articles, book chapter(s) or 

book(s) in the academic press, 

technological prototypes, patented 

inventions, or similar scientific products.

3.Quality of management as measured by 

such factors as whether significant project 

milestones were achieved, reporting and 

other deadlines were met, and costs 

remained within approved limits.

1.Quarterly financial 

reports, semi-annual and 

final progress reports, 

and products of the work 

performed under the NIJ 

award (including, at 

minimum, a final 

research report).

If applicable, an annual 

audit report

2.List of citation(s) to all 

scholarly products that 

resulted in whole or in 

part from work funded 

under the NIJ award.

3.If applicable, each data

set that resulted in whole 

or in part from work 

funded under the NIJ 

award.

Evaluation Research 

Applications that include evaluation research should consider the feasibility of including 

cost/benefit analysis. In cases where evaluations find that interventions have produced the 

intended benefit, cost/benefit analysis provides valuable and practical information for 

practitioners and policymakers that aids decision-making. Evaluation research projects may also 

address a wide range of research questions beyond those focused on the effectiveness or 

impact of an intervention. 

Applicants are encouraged to review evidence rating criteria at 

https://www.crimesolutions.gov/about_starttofinish.aspx for further information on high-quality 

evaluation design elements. 

B. Federal Award Information 

NIJ anticipates at least $3 million will be available to fund multiple grant awards of which up to 

$500,000 will be available for relevant research involving federally recognized tribes (or tribally 

based organizations). Successful applicants will be expected to complete the work proposed 

within a five-year period of performance. 

To allow time for (among other things) any necessary post-award review and financial clearance 

by OJP of the proposed budget and for any associated responses or other action(s) that may be 

required of the recipient, applicants should propose an award start date of January 1, 2020. 
10

NIJ-2019-15543 

If the applicant is proposing a project that reasonably could be conducted in discrete phases, 

with each phase resulting in completion of one or more significant, defined milestones, then NIJ 

strongly recommends that the applicant structure the application—specifically including the 

narrative, expected scholarly products, timelines/milestones, and budget detail worksheet and 

budget narrative—to clearly define each phase. (This is particularly the case if the applicant 

proposes a project that will exceed—in cost or the length of the period of performance—the 

amount or length of time anticipated for an individual award (or awards) under this solicitation.) 

Given limitations on the availability to NIJ of funds for awards for research, development, and 

evaluation, this information will assist NIJ in considering whether partial funding of applications 

would be productive. (If, in FY 2019, NIJ elects to fund only certain phases of a proposed 

project, the expected scholarly products from the partial-funding award may, in some cases, 

vary from those described above.) 

NIJ’s decisions regarding future funding for applications only partially funded in FY 2019, will 

consider, among other factors, the availability of appropriations, when the program or project 

was last competed, OJP’s strategic priorities, and OJP’s assessment of both the management 

of the award (for example, timeliness and quality of progress reports), and the progress of the 

work funded under the award. 

All awards are subject to the availability of appropriated funds and to any modifications or 

additional requirements that may be imposed by law. 

Type of Award 

NIJ expects to make any award under this solicitation in the form of a grant. See 

Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements, under Section F. Federal 

Award Administration Information, for a brief discussion of important statutes, regulations, 

and award conditions that apply to many (or in some cases, all) OJP grants. 

Please note: Any recipient of an award under this solicitation will be required to comply with 

DOJ regulations on confidentiality and protection of human subjects. See “Requirements 

related to Research” under “Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements – FY 2018 Awards” in the OJP Funding Resource 

Center at https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm. 

Financial Management and System of Internal Controls 

Award recipients and subrecipients (including recipients or subrecipients that are pass-through 

entities6) must, as described in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements7 as set out at 2 C.F.R. 

200.303: 

(a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that 

provides reasonable assurance that [the recipient (and any subrecipient)] is 

managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, 

and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls 

should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the 

 

6 For purposes of this solicitation, the phrase “pass-through entity” includes any recipient or subrecipient that provides 

a subaward (“subgrant”) to carry out part of the funded award or program.

7 The "Part 200 Uniform Requirements” means the DOJ regulation at 2 C.F.R Part 2800, which adopts (with certain 

modifications) the provisions of 2 C.F.R. Part 200. 
11

NIJ-2019-15543 

Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and 

the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of 

Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 

(b) Comply with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the

Federal awards.

(c) Evaluate and monitor [the recipient’s (and any subrecipient’s)] compliance with

statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards.

(d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including

noncompliance identified in audit findings.

(e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable

information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through

entity designates as sensitive or [the recipient (or any subrecipient)] considers

sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, state, local, and tribal laws regarding

privacy and obligations of confidentiality.

To help ensure that applicants understand applicable administrative requirements and cost 

principles, OJP encourages prospective applicants to enroll, at no charge, in the DOJ Grants 

Financial Management Online Training, available at https://onlinegfmt.training.ojp.gov/. (This 

training is required for all OJP recipients.) 

Also, applicants should be aware that OJP collects information from applicants on their financial 

management and systems of internal controls (among other information) which is used to make 

award decisions. Under Section D. Application and Submission Information, applicants may 

access and review the OJP Financial Management and System of Internal Controls 

Questionnaire (https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/FinancialCapability.pdf) that OJP 

requires all applicants (other than an individual applying in his/her personal capacity) to 

download, complete, and submit as part of the application. 

Budget Information 

What will not be funded: 

 Applications primarily to purchase equipment, materials, or supplies. (A budget may

include these items if they are necessary to conduct research, development,

demonstration, evaluation, or analysis.)

 Applications that are not responsive to this specific solicitation.

 Applications that do not propose the use of a randomized controlled trial.

Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement 

See “Cofunding” paragraph under item 4 (“Budget and Associated Documentation”) under What 

an Application Should Include in Section D. Application and Submission Information. 
12

NIJ-2019-15543 

Pre-agreement Costs (also known as Pre-award Costs) 

Pre-agreement costs are costs incurred by the applicant prior to the start date of the period of 

performance of the federal award. 

OJP does not typically approve pre-agreement costs; an applicant must request and obtain the 

prior written approval of OJP for all such costs. All such costs incurred prior to award and prior 

to approval of the costs are incurred at the sole risk of the applicant. (Generally, no applicant 

should incur project costs before submitting an application requesting federal funding for those 

costs.) Should there be extenuating circumstances that make it appropriate for OJP to consider 

approving pre-agreement costs, the applicant may contact the point of contact listed on the title 

page of this solicitation for the requirements concerning written requests for approval. If 

approved in advance by OJP, award funds may be used for pre-agreement costs, consistent 

with the recipient’s approved budget and applicable cost principles. See the section on “Costs 

Requiring Prior Approval” in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide at 

https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/index.htm for more information. 

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver 

With respect to any award of more than $250,000 made under this solicitation, a recipient may 

not use federal funds to pay total cash compensation (salary plus cash bonuses) to any 

employee of the recipient at a rate that exceeds 110 percent of the maximum annual salary 

payable to a member of the Federal Government’s Senior Executive Service (SES) at an 

agency with a Certified SES Performance Appraisal System for that year.8 The 2019 salary 

table for SES employees is available at the Office of Personnel Management website at 

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salarytables/19Tables/exec/html/ES.aspx. Note: A recipient may compensate an employee at a 

greater rate, provided the amount in excess of this compensation limitation is paid with nonfederal funds. (Non-federal funds used for any such additional compensation will not be 

considered matching funds, where match requirements apply.) If only a portion of an 

employee’s time is charged to an OJP award, the maximum allowable compensation is equal to 

the percentage of time worked times the maximum salary limitation. 

The Director of the National Institute of Justice may exercise discretion to waive, on an 

individual basis, this limitation on compensation rates allowable under an award. An applicant 

that requests a waiver should include a detailed justification in the budget narrative of its 

application. An applicant that does not submit a waiver request and justification with its 

application should anticipate that OJP will require the applicant to adjust and resubmit the 

budget. 

The justification should address, in the context of the work the individual would do under the 

award, the particular qualifications and expertise of the individual, the uniqueness of a service 

the individual will provide, the individual’s specific knowledge of the proposed program or 

project, and a statement that explains whether and how the individual’s salary under the award 

would be commensurate with the regular and customary rate for an individual with his/her 

qualifications and expertise, and for the work he/she would do under the award. 

 

8

 OJP does not apply this limitation on the use of award funds to the nonprofit organizations listed in Appendix VIII to 

2 C.F.R. Part 200. 
13

NIJ-2019-15543 

Prior Approval, Planning, and Reporting of Conference/Meeting/Training Costs 

OJP strongly encourages every applicant that proposes to use award funds for any conference-, 

meeting-, or training-related activity (or similar event) to review carefully—before submitting an 

application—the OJP policy and guidance on approval, planning, and reporting of such events, 

available at www.ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/PostawardRequirements/chapter3.10a.htm. OJP 

policy and guidance (1) encourage minimization of conference, meeting, and training costs; (2) 

require prior written approval (which may affect project timelines) of most conference, meeting, 

and training costs for cooperative agreement recipients and of some conference, meeting, and 

training costs for grant recipients; and (3) set cost limits, which include a general prohibition of 

all food and beverage costs. 

Costs Associated with Language Assistance (if applicable) 

If an applicant proposes a program or activity that would deliver services or benefits to 

individuals, the costs of taking reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to those services 

or benefits for individuals with limited English proficiency may be allowable. Reasonable steps 

to provide meaningful access to services or benefits may include interpretation or translation 

services, where appropriate. 

For additional information, see the "Civil Rights Compliance" section under “Overview of Legal 

Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements – FY 2018 

Awards” in the OJP Funding Resource Center at https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm. 

C. Eligibility Information 

For eligibility information, see title page. 

For information on cost sharing or match requirements, see “What an Application Should 

Include” in Section D. Application and Submission Information.

D. Application and Submission Information 

What an Application Should Include 

This section describes in detail what an application should include. An applicant should 

anticipate that if it fails to submit an application that contains all of the specified elements, it may 

negatively affect the review of its application; and, should a decision be made to make an 

award, it may result in the inclusion of award conditions that preclude the recipient from 

accessing or using award funds until the recipient satisfies the conditions and OJP makes the 

funds available. 

Moreover, an applicant should anticipate that an application that OJP determines is

nonresponsive to the scope of the solicitation, or that OJP determines does not include the 

application elements that NIJ has designated to be critical, will neither proceed to peer review 

nor receive further consideration. For this solicitation, NIJ has designated the following 

application elements as critical: Program Narrative, Budget Detail Worksheet, Budget Narrative, 

and resumes/curriculum vitae of key personnel. (For purposes of this solicitation, “key 

personnel” means the principal investigator, and any and all co-principal investigators.) 
14

NIJ-2019-15543 

NOTE: OJP has combined the Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative in a single 

document collectively referred to as the Budget Detail Worksheet. See “Budget Information and 

Associated Documentation” below for more information about the Budget Detail Worksheet and 

where it can be accessed. 

OJP strongly recommends that applicants use appropriately descriptive file names (e.g., 

“Program Narrative,” “Budget Detail Worksheet,” “Timelines,” “Memoranda of Understanding,” 

“Resumes”) for all attachments. Also, OJP recommends that applicants include resumes in a 

single file. 

Please review the “Note on File Names and File Types” under How to Apply to be sure 

applications are submitted in permitted formats. 

1. Information to Complete the Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) 

The SF-424 is a required standard form used as a cover sheet for submission of preapplications, applications, and related information. Grants.gov and OJP’s Grants 

Management System (GMS) take information from the applicant’s profile to populate the 

fields on this form. When selecting "type of applicant," if the applicant is a for-profit entity, 

select "For-Profit Organization" or "Small Business" (as applicable). 

To avoid processing delays, an applicant must include an accurate legal name on its SF424. On the SF-424, current OJP award recipients, when completing the field for “Legal 

Name” (box 8a), should use the same legal name that appears on the prior year award 

document (which is also the legal name stored in OJP’s financial system.) Also, current 

recipients should enter the Employer Identification Number (EIN) in box 8b exactly as it 

appears on the prior year award document. An applicant with a current, active award(s) 

must ensure that its GMS profile is current. If the profile is not current, the applicant should 

submit a Grant Adjustment Notice updating the information on its GMS profile prior to 

applying under this solicitation. 

A new applicant entity should enter its official legal name in box 8a, its address in box 8d, its 

EIN in box 8b, and its Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number in box 8c of the 

SF-424. A new applicant entity should attach official legal documents to the application (e.g., 

articles of incorporation, 501(c)(3) status documentation, organizational letterhead) to 

confirm the legal name, address, and EIN entered into the SF-424. OJP will use the System 

for Award Management (SAM) to confirm the legal name and DUNS number entered in the 

SF-424; therefore, an applicant should ensure that the information entered in the SF-424 

matches its current registration in SAM. See the How to Apply section for more information 

on SAM and DUNS numbers. 

Intergovernmental Review: This solicitation ("funding opportunity") is not subject to 

Executive Order 12372. (In completing the SF-424, an applicant is to answer question 19 by 

selecting the response that the “Program is not covered by E.O. 12372.”)

2. Project Abstract 

The project abstract is a very important part of the application, and serves as an introduction 

to the proposed project. NIJ uses the project abstract for a number of purposes, including 

assignment of the application to an appropriate review panel. If the application is funded, the 

project abstract typically will become public information and be used to describe the project. 
15

NIJ-2019-15543 

Applications should include a high-quality project abstract that summarizes the proposed 

project in 250-400 words. Project abstracts not submitted in the template below should be—

 Written for a general public audience. 

 Submitted as a separate attachment with “Project Abstract” as part of its file name. 

 Single-spaced, using the form’s standard 12-point font (with 1-inch margins). 

As a separate attachment, the project abstract will not count against the page limit for the 

program narrative. 

Project abstracts should follow the detailed template (including the detailed instructions as to 

content) available at www.nij.gov/funding/documents/nij-project-abstract-template.pdf.

3. Program Narrative 

The program narrative section of the application should not exceed 30 double-spaced pages 

in 12-point font with 1-inch margins. If included in the main body of the program narrative, 

tables, charts, figures, and other illustrations count toward the 30-page limit for the narrative 

section. The project abstract, table of contents, appendices, and government forms do not 

count toward the 30-page limit. 

If the program narrative fails to comply with these length-related restrictions, NIJ may 

consider such noncompliance in peer review and in final award decisions. 

The following sections should be included as part of the program narrative.9

Program Narrative Guidelines: 

a. Title Page (not counted against the 30-page program narrative limit).

The title page should include the title of the project, submission date, funding 

opportunity number, and the name and complete contact information (that is, 

address, telephone number, and e-mail address) for both the applicant and the 

principal investigator. 

b. Resubmit Response (if applicable) (not counted against the 30-page program 

narrative limit). 

If an applicant is resubmitting an application presented previously to NIJ, but not 

funded, the applicant should indicate this. A statement should be provided, no more 

than two pages, addressing: (1) the title, submission date, and NIJ-assigned 

 

9 As noted earlier, if the proposed program or project reasonably could be conducted in discrete phases, with each 

phase resulting in completion of one or more significant, defined milestones, then NIJ strongly recommends that the 

applicant structure the application – specifically including the narrative, expected scholarly products, 

timelines/milestones, and budget detail worksheet and budget narrative – to set out each phase clearly. (In 

appropriate cases, the expected scholarly product(s) from a particular phase may vary from those described above.) 

See generally “Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly Products” under “Program-Specific 

Information,” above. 
16

NIJ-2019-15543 

application number of the previous application, and (2) a brief summary of revisions 

to the application, including responses to previous feedback received from NIJ. 

c. Table of Contents and Figures (not counted against the 30-page program narrative 

limit). 

d. Main Body.

The main body of the program narrative should describe the proposed project in 

depth. The following sections should be included as part of the program narrative: 

 Statement of the Problem and Research Questions. The statement of the 

problem should address the need for research in this area. Applicants should 

discuss current gaps in data, research, and knowledge, including those for 

particular justice sectors, for certain populations, and to answer questions 

relevant to current policy and practice needs and public interests. As part of this 

discussion, applicants should present a review of previous literature and discuss 

previous research related to these problems. 

This section should also identify the proposed research questions and discuss 

the purpose, goals, and objectives of the proposed project. 

 Project Design and Implementation. Applicants should provide a detailed 

description of the strategies to implement this research project and address the 

research questions. Design elements should follow directly from the research 

project’s goals and objectives and address the program-specific information 

noted on page 4. Applicants should describe the research methodology in detail 

and demonstrate the validity and usefulness of the data they will collect. 

Applicants should consider the rigor and soundness of the methodology and 

analytical and technical approaches for the proposed research and address the 

feasibility of the proposed project and potential challenges or problems in 

carrying out the activities. 

 Potential Impact. Applicants should describe the potential impact of the research 

and how it may inform or improve criminal or juvenile justice-related policy, 

practice, or theory in the United States. 

The discussion of impact should include a discussion of the deliverables, 

including planned scholarly products indicated in the program-specific 

information on page 4 and a plan for dissemination to appropriate audiences. 

Applicants should identify plans to produce or make available to broader 

interested practitioners and policy makers in a form that is designed to be readily 

accessible and useful to them. 

 Capabilities/Competencies. This section should describe the experience and 

capability of the applicant organization, key staff, and any proposed subgrantees 

(including consultants) that the applicant will use to implement and manage this 

effort and the federal funds under this award, highlighting any previous 

experience implementing projects of similar scope, design, and magnitude. 

Applicants should address: 
17

NIJ-2019-15543 

o Experience and capacity to work with the proposed data sources in the 

conduct of similar research efforts. 

o Experience and capacity to design and implement rigorous research and data 

analysis projects. 

o Experience producing and disseminating meaningful deliverables. 

Applicants should also outline the management plan and organization that connects 

to the goals and objectives of the project. 

e. Appendices (not counted against the 30-page program narrative limit) include: 

 Bibliography/references. 

 Any tools/instruments, questionnaires, tables/charts/graphs, or maps pertaining 

to the proposed project that are supplemental to such items included in the main 

body of the narrative. 

 Curriculum vitae or resume of the principal investigator and any and all coprincipal investigators. In addition, curriculum vitae, resume, or biographical 

sketches of all other individuals (regardless of “investigator” status) who will be 

significantly involved in substantive aspects of the proposed project (including, 

for example, individuals such as statisticians used to conduct proposed data 

analysis). 

 To assist OJP in assessing actual or apparent conflicts of interest (including such 

conflicts on the part of prospective reviewers of the application), a complete list of 

the individuals named or otherwise identified anywhere in the application 

(including in the budget or in any other attachment) who will or may work (or 

advise or consult) on the proposed research, development, or evaluation project. 

This applies to all such individuals, including, for example, individuals who are or 

would be employees of the applicant or employees of any proposed subrecipient 

entity, any individuals who themselves may be a subrecipient, and individuals 

who may (or will) work without compensation (such as advisory board members). 

This appendix to the program narrative is to include, for each listed individual: 

name, title, employer, any other potentially-pertinent organizational affiliation(s), 

and the individual's proposed roles and responsibilities in carrying out the 

proposed project. If the application identifies any specific entities or organizations 

(other than the applicant) that will or may work (or advise or consult) on the 

proposed project, without also naming any associated individuals, the name of 

each such organization also should be included on this list. Applicants should 

use the “Proposed Project Staff, Affiliation, and Roles” form available at

https://www.nij.gov/funding/documents/nij-project-staff-template.xlsx to provide 

this list. 

If the application (including the budget) identifies any proposed non-competitive 

agreements that are or may be considered procurement "contracts" (rather than 

subawards) for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements the 
18

NIJ-2019-15543

applicant also must list the entities with which the applicant proposes to 

contract. Applicants should provide this list as a separate sheet entitled 

"Proposed non-competitive procurement contracts."

For information on distinctions — for purposes of federal grants administrative 

requirements — between subawards and procurement contracts under awards, 

see “Budget and Associated Documentation,” below.

 Proposed project timeline and expected milestones.

 Human Subjects Protection paperwork (documentation and forms related to 

Institutional Review Board (IRB) review). (See

nij.gov/funding/humansubjects/Pages/welcome.aspx). Note: Final IRB approval 

is not required at the time an application is submitted.

 Privacy Certificate (for further guidance go to

nij.gov/funding/humansubjects/pages/confidentiality.aspx).

 List of any previous and current NIJ awards to the applicant and investigator(s), 

including the NIJ-assigned award numbers and a brief description of any 

scholarly products that resulted in whole or in part from work funded under the 

NIJ award(s). (See “Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly 

Products” under “Program-Specific Information,” above, for definition of “scholarly 

products.”)

 List of other agencies, organizations, or funding sources to which this application

has been submitted (if applicable).

 Applicants proposing to use incentives or stipends payments as part of their 

research project design, must submit an incentive or stipend approval request, as 

a separate document, according to the requirements set forth at 

https://www.nij.gov/funding/Pages/research-participant-costs-andincentives.aspx.

 Data archiving plan. Applicants should anticipate that NIJ will require (through 

special award conditions, that data sets resulting in whole or in part from projects 

funded under this solicitation be submitted for archiving with the NACJD (See

www.nij.gov/funding/data-resources-program/applying/Pages/data-archivingstrategies.aspx).

Applications should include as an appendix a brief plan – labeled “Data Archiving 

Plan” – to comply with data archiving requirements. The plan should provide brief 

details about proposed data management and archiving, including submission to

NIJ (through NACJD) of all files and documentation necessary to allow for 

future efforts by others to reproduce the project’s findings and/or to extend the 

scientific value of the data set through secondary analysis. Pertinent files and 

documentation include, among other things, qualitative and quantitative data

produced, instrumentation and data collection forms, codebook(s), any 

specialized programming code necessary to reproduce all constructed measures 

and the original data analysis, description of necessary de-identification 
19

NIJ-2019-15543

procedures, and (when required) a copy of the privacy certificate and informed 

consent protocols.

The plan should be one or two pages in length and include the level of effort 

associated with meeting archiving requirements.

Note that required data sets are to be submitted on or before the end of the 

period of performance.

 Letters of cooperation/support or administrative agreements from organizations 

collaborating in the project, such as law enforcement and correctional agencies 

(if applicable).

4. Budget and Associated Documentation

The Budget Detail Worksheet and the Budget Narrative are now combined in a single 

document collectively referred to as the Budget Detail Worksheet. The Budget Detail 

Worksheet is a user-friendly, fillable, Microsoft Excel-based document designed to calculate 

totals. Additionally, the Excel workbook contains worksheets for multiple budget years that 

can be completed as necessary. All applicants should use the Excel version when 

completing the proposed budget in an application, except in cases where the 

applicant does not have access to Microsoft Excel or experiences technical 

difficulties. If an applicant does not have access to Microsoft Excel or experiences 

technical difficulties with the Excel version, then the applicant should use the 508-compliant 

accessible Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) version.

Both versions of the Budget Detail Worksheet can be accessed at 

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Forms/BudgetDetailWorksheet.htm.

a. Budget Detail Worksheet

The Budget Detail Worksheet should provide the detailed computation for each budget 

line item, listing the total cost of each and showing how it was calculated by the 

applicant. For example, costs for personnel should show the annual salary rate and the 

percentage of time devoted to the project for each employee paid with grant funds. The 

Budget Detail Worksheet should present a complete itemization of all proposed costs.

For questions pertaining to budget and examples of allowable and unallowable costs, 

see the DOJ Grants Financial Guide at https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/index.htm.

b. Budget Narrative

The budget narrative should thoroughly and clearly describe every category of expense 

listed in the Budget Detail Worksheet. OJP expects proposed budgets to be complete,

cost effective, and allowable (e.g., reasonable, allocable, and necessary for project 

activities).

An applicant should demonstrate in its budget narrative how it will maximize cost 

effectiveness of award expenditures. Budget narratives should generally describe cost 

effectiveness in relation to potential alternatives and the goals of the project. For 

example, a budget narrative should detail why planned in-person meetings are 
20

NIJ-2019-15543

necessary, or how technology and collaboration with outside organizations could be 

used to reduce costs, without compromising quality.

The budget narrative should be mathematically sound and correspond clearly with the 

information and figures provided in the Budget Detail Worksheet. The narrative should 

explain how the applicant estimated and calculated all costs, and how those costs are 

necessary to the completion of the proposed project. The narrative may include tables 

for clarification purposes, but need not be in a spreadsheet format. As with the Budget 

Detail Worksheet, the budget narrative should describe costs by year.

c. Cofunding

An award made by NIJ under this solicitation may account for up to 100 percent of the 

total cost of the project. The application should indicate whether it is feasible for the

applicant to contribute cash, facilities, or services as non-federal support for the project. 

The application should identify generally any such contributions that the applicant 

expects to make and the proposed budget should indicate in detail which items, if any, 

will be supported with non-federal contributions.

For additional match information, see the Cost Sharing or Match Requirement section 

under Section B. Federal Award Information.

If a successful application proposes a voluntary match amount, and OJP approves the 

budget, the total match amount incorporated into the approved budget becomes 

mandatory and subject to audit.

d. Information on Proposed Subawards (if any), as well as on Proposed Procurement 

Contracts (if any)

Applicants for OJP awards typically may propose to make subawards. Applicants also 

may propose to enter into procurement contracts under the award. 

Whether an action – for federal grants administrative purposes – is a subaward or 

procurement contract is a critical distinction as significantly different rules apply to 

subawards and procurement contracts. If a recipient enters into an agreement that is a 

subaward of an OJP award, specific rules apply – many of which are set by federal 

statutes and DOJ regulations; others by award conditions. These rules place particular 

responsibilities on an OJP recipient for any subawards the OJP recipient may make. The 

rules determine much of what the written subaward agreement itself must require or 

provide. The rules also determine much of what an OJP recipient must do both before 

and after it makes a subaward. If a recipient enters into an agreement that is a 

procurement contract under an OJP award, a substantially different set of federal rules 

applies.

OJP has developed the following guidance documents to help clarify the differences 

between subawards and procurement contracts under an OJP award and outline the 

compliance and reporting requirements for each. This information can be accessed 

online at https://ojp.gov/training/training.htm.

 Subawards under OJP Awards and Procurement Contracts under Awards: A 

Toolkit for OJP Recipients.
21

NIJ-2019-15543

 Checklist to Determine Subrecipient or Contractor Classification.

 Sole Source Justification Fact Sheet and Sole Source Review Checklist.

In general, the central question is the relationship between what the third-party will do 

under its agreement with the recipient and what the recipient has committed (to OJP) to 

do under its award to further a public purpose (e.g., services the recipient will provide, 

products it will develop or modify, research or evaluation it will conduct). If a third party 

will provide some of the services the recipient has committed (to OJP) to provide, will 

develop or modify all or part of a product the recipient has committed (to OJP) to 

develop or modify, or will conduct part of the research or evaluation the recipient has 

committed (to OJP) to conduct, OJP will consider the agreement with the third party a 

subaward for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements.

This will be true even if the recipient, for internal or other non-federal purposes, labels or 

treats its agreement as a procurement, a contract, or a procurement contract. Neither 

the title nor the structure of an agreement determines whether the agreement -- for 

purposes of federal grants administrative requirements -- is a subaward or is instead a 

procurement contract under an award. The substance of the relationship should be given 

greater consideration than the form of agreement between the recipient and the outside 

entity.

1. Information on proposed subawards

A recipient of an OJP award may not make subawards ("subgrants") unless the 

recipient has specific federal authorization to do so. Unless an applicable statute or 

DOJ regulation specifically authorizes (or requires) subawards, a recipient must have

authorization from OJP before it may make a subaward.

A particular subaward may be authorized by OJP because the recipient included a 

sufficiently-detailed description and justification of the proposed subaward in the 

Program Narrative, Budget Detail Worksheet, and Budget Narrative as approved by 

OJP. If, however, a particular subaward is not authorized by federal statute or 

regulation, and is not approved by OJP, the recipient will be required, post-award, to 

request and obtain written authorization from OJP before it may make the subaward.

If an applicant proposes to make one or more subawards to carry out the federal 

award and program, the applicant should-- (1) identify (if known) the proposed 

subrecipient(s), (2) describe in detail what each subrecipient will do to carry out the 

federal award and federal program, and (3) provide a justification for the 

subaward(s), with details on pertinent matters such as special qualifications and 

areas of expertise. Pertinent information on subawards should appear not only in the 

Program Narrative, but also in the Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative.
22

NIJ-2019-15543

2. Information on proposed procurement contracts (with specific justification for 

proposed noncompetitive contracts over $250,000)10

Unlike a recipient contemplating a subaward, a recipient of an OJP award generally 

does not need specific prior federal authorization to enter into an agreement that --

for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements -- is considered a 

procurement contract, provided that (1) the recipient uses its own documented 

procurement procedures and (2) those procedures conform to applicable federal law, 

including the Procurement Standards of the (DOJ) Part 200 Uniform Requirements 

(as set out at 2 C.F.R. 200.317 - 200.326). The Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget 

Narrative should identify proposed procurement contracts. (As discussed above, 

subawards must be identified and described separately from procurement contracts.) 

The Procurement Standards in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements, however, reflect 

a general expectation that agreements that (for purposes of federal grants 

administrative requirements) constitute procurement “contracts” under awards will be 

entered into on the basis of full and open competition. All noncompetitive (sole 

source) procurement contracts must meet the OJP requirements outlined at 

https://ojp.gov/training/subawards-procurement.htm. If a proposed procurement 

contract would exceed the simplified acquisition threshold -- currently, $250,000 -- a 

recipient of an OJP award may not proceed without competition unless and until the 

recipient receives specific advance authorization from OJP to use a non-competitive 

approach for the procurement. An applicant that (at the time of its application) 

intends – without competition – to enter into a procurement contract that would 

exceed $250,000 should include a detailed justification that explains to OJP why, in 

the particular circumstances, it is appropriate to proceed without competition.

If the applicant receives an award, sole source procurements that do not exceed the 

Simplified Acquisition Threshold (currently $250,000) must have written justification 

for the noncompetitive procurement action maintained in the procurement file. If a 

procurement file does not have the documentation that meets the criteria outlined in 

2 C.F.R. 200, the procurement expenditures may not be allowable. Sole source 

procurement over the $250,000 Simplified Acquisition Threshold must have prior 

approval from OJP using a Sole Source Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN). Written 

documentation justifying the noncompetitive procurement must be submitted with the 

GAN and maintained in the procurement file.

e. Pre-Agreement Costs

For information on preagreement costs, see Section B. Federal Award Information.

5. Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable)

Indirect costs may be charged to an award only if:

 

10 Consistent with the provisions of Office of Management and Budget memorandum, OMB M-18-18, dated June 20, 

2018, and entitled, “Implementing Statutory Changes to the Micro-Purchase and the Simplified Acquisition

Thresholds for Financial Assistance,” DOJ will allow recipients (and any subrecipients) of awards made under this 

solicitation to use a simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000 and a micro-purchase threshold of $10,000, for 

federal grants administrative purposes.
23

NIJ-2019-15543

(a) The recipient has a current (unexpired), federally approved indirect cost rate; or

(b) The recipient is eligible to use, and elects to use, the “de minimis” indirect cost rate

described in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements, as set out at 2 C.F.R. 200.414(f).

An applicant with a current (unexpired) federally-approved indirect cost rate is to attach a 

copy of the indirect cost rate agreement to the application. An applicant that does not have a

current federally-approved rate may request one through its cognizant federal agency, which 

will review all documentation and approve a rate for the applicant entity, or, if the applicant’s 

accounting system permits, applicants may propose to allocate costs in the direct cost 

categories.

For assistance with identifying the appropriate cognizant federal agency for indirect costs, 

please contact the Office of the Chief Financial Officer Customer Service Center at 1-800-

458-0786 or at ask.ocfo@usdoj.gov. If DOJ is the cognizant federal agency, an applicant 

may obtain information needed to submit an indirect cost rate proposal at 

https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/IndirectCosts.pdf.

Certain OJP recipients have the option of electing to use the “de minimis” indirect cost rate. 

An applicant that is eligible to use the “de minimis” rate that wishes to use the "de minimis" 

rate should attach written documentation to the application that advises OJP of both-- (1) the 

applicant’s eligibility to use the “de minimis” rate, and (2) its election to do so. If an eligible 

applicant elects the “de minimis” rate, costs must be consistently charged as either indirect 

or direct costs, but may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The "de 

minimis" rate may no longer be used once an approved federally-negotiated indirect cost 

rate is in place. (No entity that ever has had a federally-approved negotiated indirect cost 

rate is eligible to use the "de minimis" rate.) For the “de minimis” rate requirements 

(including information on eligibility to elect to use the rate), see the Part 200 Uniform 

Requirements, at 2 C.F.R. 200.414(f).

6. Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable)

A tribe, tribal organization, or third party that proposes to provide direct services or 

assistance to residents on tribal lands should include in its application a resolution, letter, 

affidavit, or other documentation, as appropriate, that demonstrates (as a legal matter) that 

the applicant has the requisite authorization from the tribe(s) to implement the proposed 

project on tribal lands. In those instances when an organization or consortium of tribes 

applies for an award on behalf of a tribe or multiple specific tribes, the application should 

include appropriate legal documentation, as described above, from all tribes that would

receive services or assistance under the award. A consortium of tribes for which existing 

consortium bylaws allow action without support from all tribes in the consortium (i.e., without 

an authorizing resolution or comparable legal documentation from each tribal governing 

body) may submit, instead, a copy of its consortium bylaws with the application.

7. Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire (including 

applicant disclosure of high-risk status)

Every OJP applicant (other than an individual applying in his or her personal capacity) is 

required to download, complete, and submit the OJP Financial Management and System of 

Internal Controls Questionnaire (Questionnaire) at 

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/FinancialCapability.pdf as part of its application. 
24

NIJ-2019-15543

The Questionnaire helps OJP assess the financial management and internal control 

systems, and the associated potential risks of an applicant as part of the pre-award risk 

assessment process.

The Questionnaire should only be completed by financial staff most familiar with the 

applicant's systems, policies, and procedures in order to ensure that the correct responses 

are recorded and submitted to OJP. The responses on the Questionnaire directly impact the 

pre-award risk assessment and should accurately reflect the applicant’s financial 

management and internal control system at the time of the application. The pre-award risk 

assessment is only one of multiple factors and criteria used in determining funding.

However, a pre-award risk assessment that indicates that an applicant poses a higher risk to 

OJP may affect the funding decision and/or result in additional reporting requirements, 

monitoring, special conditions, withholding of award funds, or other additional award 

requirements.

Among other things, the form requires each applicant to disclose whether it currently is 

designated “high risk” by a federal grant-making agency outside of DOJ. For purposes of 

this disclosure, high risk includes any status under which a federal awarding agency 

provides additional oversight due to the applicant’s past performance, or other programmatic 

or financial concerns with the applicant. If an applicant is designated high risk by another 

federal awarding agency, the applicant must provide the following information:

 The federal awarding agency that currently designates the applicant high risk.

 The date the applicant was designated high risk.

 The high-risk point of contact at that federal awarding agency (name, phone number, 

and email address).

 The reasons for the high-risk status, as set out by the federal awarding agency.

OJP seeks this information to help ensure appropriate federal oversight of OJP awards. An 

applicant that is considered “high-risk” by another federal awarding agency is not 

automatically disqualified from receiving an OJP award. OJP may, however, consider the 

information in award decisions, and may impose additional OJP oversight of any award 

under this solicitation (including through the conditions that accompany the award 

document).

8. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

Each applicant must complete and submit this information. An applicant that expends any 

funds for lobbying activities is to provide all of the information requested on the form 

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) posted at

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Disclosure.pdf. An applicant that does not expend 

any funds for lobbying activities is to enter “N/A” in the text boxes for item 10 (“a. Name and 

Address of Lobbying Registrant” and “b. Individuals Performing Services”).
25

NIJ-2019-15543 

9. Additional Attachments

a. Applicant disclosure of pending applications11

Each applicant is to disclose whether it has (or is proposed as a subrecipient under) any 

pending applications for federally-funded grants or cooperative agreements that (1) 

include requests for funding to support the same project being proposed in the 

application under this solicitation, and (2) would cover the identical cost items outlined in 

the budget submitted to OJP under this solicitation. The applicant is to disclose both 

applications made directly to federal awarding agencies, and also applications for 

subawards of federal funds (e.g., applications to State agencies that will subaward 

(“subgrant”) federal funds). 

OJP seeks this information to help avoid inappropriate duplication of funding. Leveraging 

multiple funding sources in a complementary manner to implement comprehensive 

programs or projects is encouraged and is not seen as inappropriate duplication. 

Each applicant that has one or more pending applications as described above is to 

provide the following information about pending applications submitted within the last 12 

months: 

 The federal or State funding agency. 

 The solicitation name/project name. 

 The point of contact information at the applicable federal or State funding 

agency. 

SAMPLE

Federal or State 

Funding Agency 

Solicitation 

Name/Project 

Name

Name/Phone/E-mail for Point of Contact 

at Federal or State Funding Agency

DOJ/Office of 

Community Oriented 

Policing Services 

(COPS Office)

COPS Hiring 

Program

Jane Doe, 202/000-0000;

jane.doe@usdoj.gov

Health and Human 

Services/ Substance 

Abuse and Mental 

Health Services 

Administration

Drug-Free 

Communities 

Mentoring 

Program/North 

County Youth 

Mentoring 

Program

John Doe, 202/000-0000; john.doe@hhs.gov

Each applicant should include the table as a separate attachment to its application. The 

file should be named “Disclosure of Pending Applications.” The applicant’s Legal Name 

on the application must match the entity named on the disclosure of pending 

applications statement. 

 

11 Typically, the applicant is not the principal investigator. Rather, the applicant, most frequently, is the institution, 

organization, or company in which the principal investigator is employed. 
26

NIJ-2019-15543 

Any applicant that does not have any pending applications as described above is to

submit, as a separate attachment, a statement to this effect: “[Applicant Name on SF424] does not have (and is not proposed as a subrecipient under) any pending 

applications submitted within the last 12 months for federally-funded grants or 

cooperative agreements or for subawards under federal grants or cooperative 

agreements) that request funding to support the same project being proposed in this 

application to OJP and that would cover the identical cost items outlined in the budget 

submitted as part of this application.”

b. Applicant Disclosure and Justification – DOJ High Risk Grantees12 (if applicable) 

An applicant that is designated as a DOJ High Risk Grantee is to submit , as a 

separate attachment to its application, information that OJP will use, among other 

pertinent information, to determine whether it will consider or select the application for an 

award under this solicitation. The file should be named “DOJ High Risk Grantee 

Applicant Disclosure and Justification.” (See, also, “Review Process,” below, under 

Section E. Application Review Information, for a brief discussion of how such information 

may considered in the application review process.) 

OJP constantly seeks to optimize its investments in criminal- and juvenile justicefocused programs and activities, increase program effectiveness, and maximize the 

return – and program impact – from limited programmatic resources. Therefore, OJP 

may remove from consideration or not select for award a “DOJ High Risk Grantee” 

applicant that is determined to pose a substantial risk of program implementation failure. 

In making such determinations, OJP will consider one or more of the following factors: 

the applicant’s lack of sufficient progress in addressing required corrective actions 

necessary for removal of the DOJ High Risk Grantee designation; the nature and 

severity of the issues leading to or accompanying the applicant’s DOJ High Risk Grantee 

designation; or the applicant’s expected ability to manage grant funds and achieve grant 

goals and objectives. 

In this attachment, the applicant is to provide any additional information or justification –

especially with regard to corrective actions yet to be implemented (as of the application 

date) – that may help demonstrate how the applicant has addressed or otherwise 

mitigated such uncorrected matters, such that any negative impact on the proposed 

program and its implementation would be immaterial or would be significantly reduced or 

eliminated. (To the extent that the applicant believes that any of the information provided 

pursuant to this disclosure may be confidential in nature, the applicant should specifically 

identify it.) 

c. Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity 

When an application proposes research (including research and development) and/or 

evaluation, the applicant must demonstrate research/evaluation independence and 

integrity, including appropriate safeguards, before it may receive award funds. The 

 

12 A “DOJ High Risk Grantee” is a recipient that has received a DOJ High-Risk designation based on a documented 

history of unsatisfactory performance, financial instability, management system or other internal control deficiencies, 

or noncompliance with award terms and conditions on prior awards, or that is otherwise not responsible. 
27

NIJ-2019-15543 

applicant must demonstrate independence and integrity regarding both this proposed 

research and/or evaluation, and any current or prior related projects. 

Each application should include an attachment that addresses both i. and ii. below. 

i. For purposes of this solicitation, each applicant is to document research and 

evaluation independence and integrity by including one of the following two items: 

a. A specific assurance that the applicant has reviewed its application to identify 

any actual or potential apparent conflicts of interest (including through review of 

pertinent information on the principal investigator, any co-principal investigators, 

and any subrecipients), and that the applicant has identified no such conflicts of 

interest – whether personal or financial or organizational (including on the part of 

the applicant entity or on the part of staff, investigators, or subrecipients) – that 

could affect the independence or integrity of the research, including the design, 

conduct, and reporting of the research. 

OR

b. A specific description of actual or potential apparent conflicts of interest that the 

applicant has identified – including through review of pertinent information on the 

principal investigator, any co-principal investigators, and any subrecipients – that 

could affect the independence or integrity of the research, including the design, 

conduct, or reporting of the research. These conflicts may be personal (e.g., on 

the part of investigators or other staff), financial, or organizational (related to the 

applicant or any subrecipient entity). Some examples of potential investigator (or 

other personal) conflict situations are those in which an investigator would be in a 

position to evaluate a spouse’s work product (actual conflict), or an investigator 

would be in a position to evaluate the work of a former or current colleague 

(potential apparent conflict). With regard to potential organizational conflicts of 

interest, as one example, generally an organization would not be given an award 

to evaluate a project, if that organization had itself provided substantial prior 

technical assistance to that specific project or a location implementing the project 

(whether funded by OJP or other sources), because the organization in such an 

instance might appear to be evaluating the effectiveness of its own prior work. 

The key is whether a reasonable person understanding all of the facts would be 

able to have confidence that the results of any research or evaluation project are 

objective and reliable. Any outside personal or financial interest that casts doubt 

on that objectivity and reliability of an evaluation or research product is a problem 

and must be disclosed. 

ii. In addition, for purposes of this solicitation, each applicant is to address possible 

mitigation of research integrity concerns by including, at a minimum, one of the 

following two items: 

a. If an applicant reasonably believes that no actual or potential apparent conflicts 

of interest (personal, financial, or organizational) exist, then the applicant should 

provide a brief narrative explanation of how and why it reached that conclusion. 

The applicant also is to include an explanation of the specific processes and 

procedures that the applicant has in place, or will put in place, to identify and 

prevent (or, at the very least, mitigate) any such conflicts of interest pertinent to 
28

NIJ-2019-15543 

the funded project during the period of performance. Documentation that may be 

helpful in this regard may include organizational codes of ethics/conduct and 

policies regarding organizational, personal, and financial conflicts of interest. 

There is no guarantee that the plan, if any, will be accepted as proposed. 

OR

b. If the applicant has identified actual or potential apparent conflicts of interest 

(personal, financial, or organizational) that could affect the independence and 

integrity of the research, including the design, conduct, or reporting of the 

research, the applicant is to provide a specific and robust mitigation plan to 

address each of those conflicts. At a minimum, the applicant is expected to 

explain the specific processes and procedures that the applicant has in place, or 

will put in place, to identify and eliminate (or, at the very least, mitigate) any such 

conflicts of interest pertinent to the funded project during the period of 

performance. Documentation that may be helpful in this regard may include 

organizational codes of ethics/conduct and policies regarding organizational, 

personal, and financial conflicts of interest. There is no guarantee that the plan, if 

any, will be accepted as proposed. 

OJP will assess research and evaluation independence and integrity based on 

considerations such as the adequacy of the applicant’s efforts to identify factors that 

could affect the objectivity or integrity of the proposed staff and/or the applicant entity 

(and any subrecipients) in carrying out the research, development, or evaluation activity; 

and the adequacy of the applicant’s existing or proposed remedies to control any such 

factors. 

d. Documentation of Anticipated Benefit to Qualified Opportunity Zones (if 

applicable) 

As is mentioned above, OJP will give priority consideration in award decisions to 

applications that propose projects that will generate information about enhancing public 

safety federally designated Qualified Opportunity Zones (QOZ). Each applicant 

proposing a project it anticipates will generate information about enhancing public 

safety in one or more QOZs should provide a sufficient narrative explanation in order for 

OJP to identify clearly the public safety benefit the applicant anticipates that information 

generated under its project will have on a specified QOZ(s). The attachment(s) should 

be clearly labeled as addressing QOZs. The applicant may also include tables, charts, 

graphs, or other relevant illustrations that may be useful in comprehending the manner 

in which the proposed project is anticipated to benefit a QOZ(s). 

How to Apply 

Applicants must register in and submit applications through Grants.gov, a primary source to find 

federal funding opportunities and apply for funding. Find complete instructions on how to 

register and submit an application at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support.html. 

Applicants that experience technical difficulties during this process should call the Grants.gov 

Customer Support Hotline at 800-518-4726 or 606–545–5035, which operates 24 hours a day, 7 

days a week, except on federal holidays. 
29

NIJ-2019-15543

Registering with Grants.gov is a one-time process; however, processing delays may occur,

and it can take several weeks for first-time registrants to receive confirmation of registration 

and a user password. OJP encourages applicants to register several weeks before the 

application submission deadline. In addition, OJP urges applicants to submit applications at 

least 72 hours prior to the application due date, in order to allow time for the applicant to receive 

validation messages or rejection notifications from Grants.gov, and to correct in a timely fashion

any problems that may have caused a rejection notification.

OJP strongly encourages all prospective applicants to sign up for Grants.gov email notifications

regarding this solicitation at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/manage-subscriptions.html. If 

this solicitation is cancelled or modified, individuals who sign up with Grants.gov for updates will 

be automatically notified.

Browser Information: Grants.gov was built to be compatible with Internet Explorer. For 

technical assistance with Google Chrome, or another browser, contact Grants.gov Customer 

Support.

Note on Attachments. Grants.gov has two categories of files for attachments: “mandatory” and

“optional.” OJP receives all files attached in both categories. Attachments are also labeled to 

describe the file being attached (e.g., Project Narrative, Budget Narrative, Other, etc.) Please 

ensure that all required documents are attached in the correct Grants.gov category and are 

labeled correctly. Do not embed “mandatory” attachments within another file.

An applicant must use the Add Attachment button to attach a file to its application. Do not click 

the paperclip icon to attach files. This action will not attach the files to the application. After 

adding an attachment, select the View Attachment button to confirm you attached the correct 

file. To remove the file, select the Delete Attachment button. 

An application can be checked for errors via the Check Application button on the Forms tab of 

the Manage Workspace page. The button is active if the set of forms in the workspace matches 

those required in the application package. If you receive a Cross-Form Errors message after 

clicking the Check Application button, refer to the Cross-Form Errors help article for more 

detailed information about this validation error.

Note on File Names and File Types: Grants.gov only permits the use of certain specific

characters in file names of attachments. Valid file names may include only the characters shown 

in the table below. Grants.gov rejects any application that includes an attachment(s) with a file 

name that contains any characters not shown in the table below. Grants.gov forwards

successfully-submitted applications to the OJP Grants Management System (GMS).
30

NIJ-2019-15543 

Characters

Upper case (A – Z)

Lower case (a – z)

Underscore (__)

Hyphen ( - )

Space

Period (.)

Special Characters Special Characters Special Characters

Parenthesis ( ) Curly braces { } Square brackets [ ]

Ampersand (&)* Tilde (~) Exclamation point (!)

Comma ( , ) Semicolon ( ; ) Apostrophe ( ‘ )

At sign (@) Number sign (#) Dollar sign ($)

Percent sign (%) Plus sign (+) Equal sign (=)

*When using the ampersand (&) in XML, applicants must use the “&” format.

GMS does not accept executable file types as application attachments. These disallowed 

file types include, but are not limited to, the following extensions: “.com,” “.bat,” “.exe,” “.vbs,”

“.cfg,” “.dat,” “.db,” “.dbf,” “.dll,” “.ini,” “.log,” “.ora,” “.sys,” and “.zip.” GMS may reject applications 

with files that use these extensions. It is important to allow time to change the type of file(s) if 

the application is rejected. 

All applicants are required to complete the following steps:

Unique Entity Identifier (DUNS Number) and System for Award Management (SAM)

Every applicant entity must comply with all applicable System for Award Management (SAM) 

and unique entity identifier (currently, a Data Universal Numbering System [DUNS] number) 

requirements. SAM is the repository for certain standard information about federal financial 

assistance applicants, recipients, and subrecipients. A DUNS number is a unique nine-digit 

identification number provided by the commercial company Dun and Bradstreet. More detailed 

information about SAM and the DUNS number is in the numbered sections below. 

If an applicant entity has not fully complied with the applicable SAM and unique identifier 

requirements by the time OJP makes award decisions, OJP may determine that the applicant is 

not qualified to receive an award and may use that determination as a basis for making the 

award to a different applicant. 

Applying as an Individual 

An individual who wishes to apply in his/her personal capacity should search Grants.gov for 

funding opportunities for which individuals are eligible to apply. Use the Funding Opportunity 

Number (FON) to register. (An applicant applying as an individual must comply with all 

applicable Grants.gov individual registration requirements.)

Enter the FON at https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/IndCPRegister to complete the registration 

form and create a username and password for Grants.gov. (An applicant applying as an 

individual should complete all steps except 1, 2, and 4.) 

Registration and Submission Steps 

1. Acquire a unique entity identifier (currently, a DUNS number). In general, the Office of 

Management and Budget requires every applicant for a federal award (other than an 

individual) to include a "unique entity identifier" in each application, including an application 

for a supplemental award. Currently, a DUNS number is the required unique entity identifier. 
31

NIJ-2019-15543 

This unique entity identifier is used for tracking purposes, and to validate address and point 

of contact information for applicants, recipients, and subrecipients. It will be used throughout 

the life cycle of an OJP award. Obtaining a DUNS number is a free, one-time activity. Call 

Dun and Bradstreet at 866–705–5711 to obtain a DUNS number or apply online at 

https://www.dnb.com. A DUNS number is usually received within 2 business days. 

2. Acquire or maintain registration with SAM. Any applicant for an OJP award creating a 

new entity registration (or updating or renewing a registration) in SAM.gov must submit an 

original, signed notarized letter appointing the authorized Entity Administrator within thirty 

(30) days of the registration activation. Notarized letters must be submitted via U.S. 

Postal Service Mail. Read the Alert at sam.gov/SAM/ to learn more about what is required 

in the notarized letter, and read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) at 

www.gsa.gov/samupdate to learn more about this process change. All applicants for OJP 

awards (other than individuals) must maintain current registrations in the SAM database. 

Applicants will need the authorizing official of the organization and an Employer 

Identification Number (EIN). Information about SAM registration procedures can be 

accessed at sam.gov/SAM/.

An application cannot be successfully submitted in Grants.gov until Grants.gov receives the 

SAM registration information. Once the SAM registration/renewal is complete, the 

information transfer from SAM to Grants.gov can take as long as 48 hours. OJP 

recommends that the applicant register or renew registration with SAM as early as possible.

3. Acquire an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) and a Grants.gov 

username and password. Complete the AOR profile on Grants.gov and create a username 

and password. An applicant entity’s "unique entity identifier" (DUNS number) must be used 

to complete this step. For more information about the registration process for organizations 

and other entities, go to https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/organizationregistration.html. Individuals registering with Grants.gov should go to 

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/registration.html.

4. Acquire confirmation for the AOR from the E-Business Point of Contact (E-Biz POC). 

The E-Biz POC at the applicant organization must log into Grants.gov to “confirm” the 

applicant organization’s AOR. The E-Biz POC will need the Marketing Partner Identification 

Number (MPIN) password obtained when registering with SAM to complete this step. Note 

that an organization can have more than one AOR.

5. Search for the funding opportunity on Grants.gov. Use the following identifying 

information when searching for the funding opportunity on Grants.gov. The Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for this solicitation is 16.560 and the funding 

opportunity number is NIJ-2019-15543. 

6. Access Funding Opportunity and Application Package from Grants.gov. Select “Apply 

for Grants” under the “Applicants” column. Enter your email address to be notified of any 

changes to the opportunity package before the closing date. Click the Workspace icon to 

use Grants.gov Workspace.

7. Submit a valid application consistent with this solicitation by following the directions 

in Grants.gov. To preview the application prior to (or after) submitting, go to the View 

Application tab in Workspace. For additional information, review the View Application Tab

help article and Attachments Tab help article. 
32

NIJ-2019-15543 

Within 24-48 hours after submitting the electronic application, the applicant should receive 

two notifications from Grants.gov. The first will confirm the receipt of the application. The 

second will state whether the application has been validated and successfully submitted, or 

whether it has been rejected due to errors, with an explanation. It is possible to first receive 

a message indicating that the application is received, and then receive a rejection notice a 

few minutes or hours later. Submitting an application well ahead of the deadline provides 

time to correct the problem(s) that caused the rejection. Important: OJP urges each 

applicant to submit its application at least 72 hours prior to the application due date, to 

allow time to receive validation messages or rejection notifications from Grants.gov, and to 

correct in a timely fashion any problems that may have caused a rejection notification. 

Applications must be successfully submitted through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. eastern time 

on May 7, 2019.

Go to https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/organization-registration.html for further 

details on DUNS numbers, SAM, and Grants.gov registration steps and timeframes. 

Note: Application Versions 

If an applicant submits multiple versions of the same application, OJP will review only the most 

recent system-validated version submitted. 

Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues 

An applicant that experiences unforeseen Grants.gov technical issues beyond its control that 

prevent it from submitting its application by the deadline must contact the Grants.gov Customer 

Support Hotline at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support.html or the SAM Help Desk

(Federal Service Desk) at https://www.fsd.gov/fsd-gov/home.do to report the technical issue and 

receive a tracking number. The applicant must e-mail the NIJ contact identified in the Contact 

Information section on the title page within 24 hours after the application deadline to request 

approval to submit its application after the deadline. The applicant’s e-mail must describe the 

technical difficulties, and must include a timeline of the applicant’s submission efforts, the 

complete grant application, the applicant’s DUNS number, and any Grants.gov Help Desk or 

SAM tracking number(s). 

Note: OJP does not automatically approve requests to submit a late application. After 

OJP reviews the applicant’s request, and contacts the Grants.gov or SAM Help Desks to verify 

the reported technical issues, OJP will inform the applicant whether the request to submit a late 

application has been approved or denied. If OJP determines that the untimely application 

submission was due to the applicant’s failure to follow all required procedures, OJP will deny the 

applicant’s request to submit its application. 

The following conditions generally are insufficient to justify late submissions: 

 Failure to register in SAM or Grants.gov in sufficient time (SAM registration and renewal 

can take as long as 10 business days to complete. The information transfer from SAM to 

Grants.gov can take up to 48 hours.) 

 Failure to follow Grants.gov instructions on how to register and apply as posted on its 

website. 
33

NIJ-2019-15543 

 Failure to follow each instruction in the OJP solicitation. 

 Technical issues with the applicant’s computer or information technology environment, 

such as issues with firewalls or browser incompatibility. 

Notifications regarding known technical problems with Grants.gov, if any, are posted at 

the top of the OJP Funding Resource Center at https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm.

E. Application Review Information 

Review Criteria 

Applications that meet basic minimum requirements will be evaluated by peer reviewers using 

the following review criteria. Each individual criterion is assigned a different weight based on the 

percentage value listed. For example, the first criterion, Statement of the Problem, is worth 20 

percent of the score in the assessment of the application’s technical merit. 

Statement of the Problem and Research Questions (Understanding of the problem, research 

questions, and their importance) – 20% 

1. Demonstrated understanding of the problem. 

2. Demonstrated importance of research questions, goals and objectives, including 

alignment with the aims of the solicitation. 

3. Demonstrated awareness of the state of current research. 

Project Design and Implementation (Quality and technical merit) – 50% 

1. Soundness of methods and analytic and technical approach to addressing the stated 

aim(s) of the proposed project. 

2. Feasibility of proposed project. 

3. Awareness of potential pitfalls of proposed project design and feasibility of proposed 

actions to minimize and/or mitigate them. 

4. Feasibility of completing the deliverables noted in the solicitation. 

Potential Impact – 20% 

Potential for a significant scientific or technical advance(s) that will improve criminal/juvenile 

justice in the United States, such as: 

 Potential for significantly improved understanding of the stated criminal/juvenile justice 

problem. 

 Potential for innovative solution to address (all or a significant part of) the stated 

criminal/juvenile justice problem. 
34

NIJ-2019-15543 

Capabilities/Competencies (Capabilities, demonstrated productivity, and experience of the 

applicant organization and proposed project staff) – 10% 

1. Qualifications and experience of proposed project staff (that is, the principal investigator, 

any and all co-principal investigators, and all other individuals (and organizations) 

identified in the application (regardless of “investigator” status) who will be significantly 

involved in substantive aspects of the proposed project). 

2. Demonstrated ability of the applicant organization to implement the proposed strategies 

and manage the effort. 

3. Relationship between the capabilities/competencies of the proposed project staff 

(including the applicant organization) and the scope and strategies of the proposed 

project. 

Budget

In addition, peer reviewers will consider and may comment on the following additional items in 

the context of scientific and technical merit. 

1. Total cost of the project relative to the perceived benefit (cost effectiveness). 

2. Appropriateness of the budget relative to the level of effort. 

3. Use of existing resources to conserve costs. 

4. Alignment of the proposed budget with proposed project activities. 

5. Proposed plan (if any) to produce or to make available to broader interested audiences, 

such as criminal/juvenile justice practitioners or policymakers, summary information from 

the planned scholarly products of the project. 

Plan for Dissemination to Broader Audiences (if applicable to the proposed project) 

Peer reviewers may comment—in the context of scientific and technical merit—on the proposed 

plan (if any) to produce or to make available to broader interested audiences, such as 

criminal/juvenile justice practitioners or policymakers, summary information from the planned 

scholarly products of the project. 

Review Process 

OJP is committed to ensuring a fair and open process for making awards. NIJ reviews the 

application to make sure that the information presented is reasonable, understandable, 

measurable, and achievable, as well as consistent with the solicitation. 

Peer reviewers will review the applications submitted under this solicitation that meet basic 

minimum requirements. For purposes of assessing whether an application meets basic 

minimum requirements and should proceed to further consideration, OJP screens applications 

for compliance with those requirements. Although specific requirements may vary, the following 

are common requirements applicable to all solicitations for funding under OJP programs: 
35

NIJ-2019-15543 

 The application must be submitted by an eligible type of applicant. 

 The application must request funding within programmatic funding constraints (if 

applicable). 

 The application must be responsive to the scope of the solicitation. 

 The application must include all items designated as “critical elements.”

 The application, if submitted by an applicant that is a DOJ High Risk Grantee,13 or is 

designated “high risk” by a federal grant-making agency outside of DOJ, must not 

have been determined by the Director/Administrator to pose a substantial risk of 

program implementation failure, based on 1) the applicant’s lack of sufficient 

progress in addressing required corrective actions necessary for removal of the DOJ 

High Risk Grantee (or non-DOJ high risk) designation, 2) the nature and severity of 

the issues leading to or accompanying the DOJ High Risk Grantee (or non-DOJ high 

risk) designation, and/or 3) the applicant’s expected ability to manage grant funds 

and achieve grant goals and objectives. 

For a list of the critical elements for this solicitation, see “What an Application Should Include” 

under Section D. Application and Submission Information. 

Peer review panels will evaluate, score, and rate applications that meet basic minimum 

requirements. NIJ may use internal peer reviewers, external peer reviewers, or a combination, 

to assess applications on technical merit using the solicitation’s review criteria. An internal 

reviewer is a current DOJ employee who is well-versed or has expertise in the subject matter of 

this solicitation. An external peer reviewer is an expert in the subject matter of a given 

solicitation who is not a current DOJ employee. Peer reviewers’ ratings and any resulting 

recommendations are advisory only, although reviewer views are considered carefully. 

Other important considerations for NIJ include geographic diversity, strategic priorities 

(specifically including, but not limited to, demonstrable potential enhancement to public safety in 

one or more federally designated Qualified Opportunity Zones), and available funding, as well 

as the planned scholarly products and the extent to which the Budget Detail Worksheet and 

Budget Narrative accurately explain project costs that are reasonable, necessary, and otherwise 

allowable under federal law and applicable federal cost principles. 

Pursuant to the Part 200 Uniform Requirements, before award decisions are made, OJP also 

reviews information related to the degree of risk posed by applicants. Among other things to 

help assess whether an applicant that has one or more prior federal awards has a satisfactory 

record with respect to performance, integrity, and business ethics, OJP checks whether the 

applicant is listed in SAM as excluded from receiving a federal award. In addition, if OJP 

anticipates that an award will exceed $250,000 in federal funds, OJP also must review and 

consider any information about the applicant that appears in the non-public segment of the 

integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently, the Federal Awardee 

Performance and Integrity Information System; "FAPIIS"). 

 

13 See “Applicant Disclosure and Justification – DOJ High Risk Grantees” under “What an Application Should 

Include,” above, for a definition of “DOJ High Risk Grantee.”
36

NIJ-2019-15543 

Important note on FAPIIS: An applicant, at its option, may review and comment on any 

information about itself that currently appears in FAPIIS and was entered by a federal awarding 

agency. OJP will consider any such comments by the applicant, in addition to the other 

information in FAPIIS, in its assessment of the risk posed by the applicant. 

The evaluation of risks goes beyond information in SAM, however. OJP itself has in place a 

framework for evaluating risks posed by applicants for competitive awards. OJP takes into 

account information pertinent to matters such as —

1. Applicant financial stability and fiscal integrity. 

2. Quality of the applicant’s management systems, and applicant’s ability to meet 

prescribed management standards, including those outlined in the DOJ Grants Financial 

Guide. 

3. Applicant’s history of performance under OJP and other DOJ awards (including scholarly 

products, and compliance with reporting requirements and award conditions), as well as 

awards from other federal agencies. 

4. Reports and findings from audits of the applicant, including audits under the Part 200 

Uniform Requirements. 

5. Applicant's ability to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements, and to effectively 

implement other award requirements. 

Note on applicants with a “high risk” designation: Risks associated with DOJ High Risk 

Grantees, or applicants designated as “high risk” by a federal grant-making agency outside of 

DOJ, are taken into account during the review process, and each applicant with such “high risk” 

designations will be considered for funding on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature 

and severity of the issues that led to the DOJ High Risk Grantee (or non-DOJ high risk) 

designation, status of progress in addressing corrective actions, and expected ability to manage 

grant funds and achieve grant goals and objectives. A “high risk” designated applicant is to 

submit disclosure and justification documentation consistent with the requirements specified, 

above, under “What an Application Should Include” in Section D. Application and Submission 

Information. 

All final award decisions will be made by the Director of the National Institute of Justice, who 

may take into account not only peer review ratings and NIJ recommendations, but also other 

factors as indicated in this section. 

F. Federal Award Administration Information 

Federal Award Notices

Award notifications will be made by September 30, 2019. OJP sends award notifications by 

email through GMS to the individuals listed in the application as the point of contact and the 

authorizing official (E-Biz POC and AOR). The email notification includes detailed instructions 

on how to access and view the award documents, and steps to take in GMS to start the award 

acceptance process. GMS automatically issues the notifications at 9:00 p.m. eastern time on 

the award date. 
37

NIJ-2019-15543 

For each successful applicant, an individual with the necessary authority to bind the applicant 

will be required to login; execute a set of legal certifications and a set of legal assurances; 

designate a financial point of contact; thoroughly review the award, including all award 

conditions; and sign and accept the award. The award acceptance process requires a physical 

signature on the award document by the authorized representative. The fully-executed award 

document must then be scanned and submitted to OJP. 

Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements 

If selected for funding, in addition to implementing the funded project consistent with the OJPapproved application, the recipient must comply with all award conditions, as well as all 

applicable requirements of federal statutes and regulations (including applicable requirements 

referred to in the assurances and certifications executed in connection with award acceptance). 

OJP strongly encourages prospective applicants to review information on post-award legal 

requirements and common OJP award conditions prior to submitting an application. 

Applicants should consult the “Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements – FY 2018 Awards,” available in the OJP Funding 

Resource Center at https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm. In addition, applicants should examine the 

following two legal documents, as each successful applicant must execute both documents 

before it may receive any award funds. (An applicant is not required to submit these documents 

as part of an application.) 

 Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility 

Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements. 

 Certified Standard Assurances. 

The webpages accessible through the “Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to 

OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements – FY 2018 Awards” are intended to give applicants 

for OJP awards a general overview of important statutes, regulations, and award conditions that 

apply to many (or in some cases, all) OJP grants and cooperative agreements awarded in FY 

2019. Individual OJP awards typically also will include additional award conditions. Those 

additional conditions may relate to the particular statute, program, or solicitation under which the 

award is made; to the substance of the funded application; to the recipient's performance under 

other federal awards; to the recipient's legal status (e.g., as a for-profit entity); or to other 

pertinent considerations. 

As stated above, NIJ expects that it will make any award under this solicitation in the form of a 

cooperative agreement. Cooperative agreements include a condition in the award document 

that sets out the nature of the “substantial federal involvement” in carrying out the award and 

program. Generally stated, under OJP cooperative agreement awards, responsibility for the 

day-to-day conduct of the funded project rests with the recipient. OJP, however, may have 

substantial involvement in matters such as substantive coordination of technical efforts and site 

selection, as well as review and approval of project work plans, research designs, data 

collection instruments, and major project-generated materials. In addition, OJP often indicates in 

the award terms and conditions that it may redirect the project if necessary. 
38

NIJ-2019-15543 

In addition to an award condition that sets out the nature of the anticipated “substantial federal 

involvement” in the award, cooperative agreements awarded by OJP include an award condition 

the requires specific reporting in connection with conferences, meetings, retreats, seminars, 

symposium, training activities, or similar events funded under the award. 

Awards under this solicitation will include a condition (the specific terms of which will govern the 

award) related to verification of employment eligibility. The condition will, generally speaking, 

require the recipient (and any subrecipient) that accepts the award to verify the employment 

eligibility of any individual hired under the award, consonant with 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(1). 

Awards under this solicitation will include a condition (the specific terms of which will govern the 

award) related to competition requirements set forth at 2 C.F.R. § 200.319. The condition will, 

generally speaking, prohibit recipients (and any subrecipients) from procuring goods and 

services with award funds by means of any competition that disadvantages or excludes vendors 

on the basis of their having (or their having had) a prior or existing contractual relationship with 

the federal government. 

General Information about Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements 

In addition to the deliverables and expected scholarly products described in Section A. Program 

Description, any recipient of an award under this solicitation will be required to submit the 

following reports and data. 

Required reports. Recipients typically must submit quarterly financial reports, semi-annual

progress reports, final financial and progress reports, and, if applicable, an annual audit report in 

accordance with the Part 200 Uniform Requirements or specific award conditions. Applicants 

should anticipate that progress reports will be required to follow the non-budgetary components 

of the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) template/format. General information on 

RPPRs may be found at www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rppr/. Future awards and fund drawdowns 

may be withheld if reports are delinquent. (In appropriate cases, OJP may require additional 

reports.) 

Awards that exceed $500,000 will include an additional condition that, under specific 

circumstances, will require the recipient to report (to FAPIIS) information on civil, criminal, and 

administrative proceedings connected with (or connected to the performance of) either the OJP 

award or any other grant, cooperative agreement, or procurement contract from the federal 

government. Additional information on this reporting requirement appears in the text of the 

award condition posted on the OJP webpage at https://ojp.gov/funding/FAPIIS.htm. 

Data on performance measures. In addition to required reports, an award recipient under this 

solicitation also must provide data that measure the results of the work done under the award. 

To demonstrate program progress and success, as well as to assist DOJ with fulfilling its 

responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), Public 

Law 103-62, and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Public Law 111–352, OJP will require 

any award recipient, post award, to provide performance data listed as part of regular progress 

reporting. Successful applicants will be required to access OJP’s performance measurement 

page at www.ojp.gov/performance for an overview of performance measurement activities at 

OJP. 
39

NIJ-2019-15543 

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s) 

For questions directed to the Federal Awarding Agency, see NCJRS contact information on the 

title page. 

For contact information for Grants.gov, see the title page. 

H. Other Information 

Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552 and 5 U.S.C. 552a) 

All applications submitted to OJP (including all attachments to applications) are subject to the 

federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and to the Privacy Act. By law, DOJ may withhold 

information that is responsive to a request pursuant to FOIA if DOJ determines that the 

responsive information either is protected under the Privacy Act or falls within the scope of one 

of nine statutory exemptions under FOIA. DOJ cannot agree in advance of a request pursuant 

to FOIA not to release some or all portions of an application. 

In its review of records that are responsive to a FOIA request, OJP will withhold information in 

those records that plainly falls within the scope of the Privacy Act or one of the statutory 

exemptions under FOIA. (Some examples include certain types of information in budgets, and 

names and contact information for project staff other than certain key personnel.) In appropriate 

circumstances, OJP will request the views of the applicant/recipient that submitted a responsive 

document. 

For example, if OJP receives a request pursuant to FOIA for an application submitted by a 

nonprofit or for-profit organization or an institution of higher education, or for an application that 

involves research, OJP typically will contact the applicant/recipient that submitted the 

application and ask it to identify -- quite precisely -- any particular information in the application 

that the applicant/recipient believes falls under a FOIA exemption, the specific exemption it 

believes applies, and why. After considering the submission by the applicant/recipient, OJP 

makes an independent assessment regarding withholding information. OJP generally follows a 

similar process for requests pursuant to FOIA for applications that may contain law-enforcement 

sensitive information. 

Provide Feedback to OJP 

To assist OJP in improving its application and award processes, OJP encourages applicants to 

provide feedback on this solicitation, the application submission process, and/or the application 

review process. Provide feedback to OJPSolicitationFeedback@usdoj.gov. 

IMPORTANT: This e-mail is for feedback and suggestions only. OJP does not send replies from 

this mailbox to messages it receives in this mailbox. Any prospective applicant that has specific 

questions on any program or technical aspect of the solicitation must use the appropriate 

telephone number or e-mail listed on the front of this solicitation document to obtain information. 

These contacts are provided to help ensure that prospective applicants can directly reach an 

individual who can address specific questions in a timely manner. 

If you are interested in being a reviewer for other OJP grant applications, please e-mail your 

resume to ojpprsupport@usdoj.gov. (Do not send your resume to the OJP Solicitation Feedback 
40

NIJ-2019-15543 

email account.) Note: Neither you nor anyone else from your organization or entity can be a 

peer reviewer in a competition in which you or your organization/entity has submitted an 

application.
41

NIJ-2019-15543 

Application Checklist 

Research and Evaluation on Policing 

This application checklist has been created as an aid in developing an application. 

What an Applicant Should Do: 

Prior to Registering in Grants.gov:

_____ Acquire a DUNS Number (see page 30) 

_____ Acquire or renew registration with SAM (see page 31) 

To Register with Grants.gov: 

_____ Acquire AOR and Grants.gov username/password (see page 31) 

_____ Acquire AOR confirmation from the E-Biz POC (see page 31) 

To Find Funding Opportunity:

_____ Search for the funding opportunity on Grants.gov (see page 31) 

_____ Access Funding Opportunity and Application Package (see page 31) 

_____ Sign up for Grants.gov email notifications (optional) (see page 29) 

_____ Read Important Notice: Applying for Grants in Grants.gov

_____ Read OJP policy and guidance on conference approval, planning, and reporting 

available at ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/PostawardRequirements/chapter3.10a.htm

(see page 13) 

After Application Submission, Receive Grants.gov Email Notifications That: 

_____ (1) application has been received 

_____ (2) application has either been successfully validated or rejected with errors 

(see page 31) 

If no Grants.gov receipt, and validation or error notifications are received: 

_____ Contact NIJ regarding experiencing technical difficulties (see page 2) 

Overview of Post-Award Legal Requirements: 

_____ Review the “Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements – FY 2018 Awards” in the OJP Funding Resource Center at 

https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm. 

Scope Requirement:

_____ The federal amount requested is within the allowable limit(s).

Eligibility Requirement: See cover page. 

What an Application Should Include: 

_____ Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) (see page 14) 

_____ Curriculum vitae or resume (critical element) (see page 14) 

_____ Project Abstract (if applicable) (see page 14) 

_____ Program Narrative (see page 15) 

_____ Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative (see page 19) 

_____ Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable) (see page 19) 

_____ Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable) (see page 23) 

_____ Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire (see page 23) 
42

NIJ-2019-15543

_____ Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) (see page 24)

_____ Additional Attachments 

_____ Applicant Disclosure of Pending Applications (see page 25)

_____ Applicant Disclosure and Justification – DOJ High Risk Grantees (if applicable)

(see page 26)

_____ Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity (see page 26)

_____ Request and Justification for Employee Compensation; Waiver (if applicable)

(see page 13)

_____ Documentation of Anticipated Benefit to federally designated Qualified Opportunity 

Zones (if applicable) (see page 28)
i

Funding Webinar Transcript

On March 20, 2019, NIJ hosted a webinar that provided an overview of this solicitation. 

Following are the transcript and slide presentation from that webinar.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Good afternoon everybody and welcome to today's webinar, 

Research and Evaluation on Policing, hosted by the National Institute of Justice. So at 

this time, I would like to turn it over and introduce you to our presenters, Dr. Brett 

Chapman, Social Science Analyst; Eric Martin, Social Science Analyst with the Office of 

Research and Evaluation; and Dr. Joel Hunt, Senior Computer Scientist with the Officer 

of Science and Technology within the National Institute of Justice.

ERIC MARTIN: Thank you, Mary Jo. My name is Eric Martin and I'm gonna be one of 

the presenters for this webinar. To begin with, we're going to--I'll give you a brief 

overview of what we're going to discuss. One, what this webinar will not cover, but don't 

worry, we're going to give you--point you in the direction to get that information that 

we're not covering. We're going to discuss and present our Review Process & 

Selection Criteria that we use to help inform the NIJ Director of funding decisions. 

We're going to discuss common panel criticisms that my colleagues and I have 

accumulated from the years. There's often some common pitfalls or hurdles that many 

applications need to overcome. And then finally, we're going to wrap it up with some 

new expectations for this solicitation, and that will be followed by a Q&A Session. 

So what is not covered in this webinar? The Expected Deliverables; what will not be 

funded; Recommended Resources for you to view and consume before you apply; and 

the Application Process. But for--if you desire information on those, you can go to the 

transcript of a previous webinar we've just completed, the Research and Evaluation on 

the Administration of Justice solicitation. That's another open and competitive 

solicitation. Right now I encourage you to check it out, the solicitation if you haven’t. But 

at the--appended to the bottom of this solicitation, you'll see the transcripts of the 

webinar and for these topics above it would be the exact same for this solicitation. This 

was determined to do that to give you more time for Q&A and make sure that we 

answer all your questions. So to begin with, the Review and Selection Process for 

proposals. It is important to know the basic and technical requirements for the 

solicitation. There are Basic Minimum Requirements that are deemed critical for an 

application to be evaluated. Meaning that if the application does not have any of these 

components, it cannot be evaluated in peer review or internally with NIJ staff. So every 

application must include a budget detail worksheet. In the past, these were two 

separate documents: the budget narrative or budget justification, however you prefer, 

and the budget detail worksheet. Now, we’ve created a template for you that merges 

those two documents, make it easier, hopefully, for you and our reviewers, to review 

your budget materials. The Program Narrative. This is your--the meat, if you will, of the 

application. This is where you're describing your proposed research, and in the 

solicitation itself, there's a step-by-step guide of what that narrative should contain. The 
ii

resumes or CVs of key personnel. And key personnel, for this solicitation, is determined 

to be any and all principal or co-principal investigators. The CVs have to be included for 

those personnel. Again, if you do not have the above components in your application, it 

will not be deemed as meeting the Basic Minimum Requirements. Also, there are 

Technical Merit Requirements. These--you need to meet these to be deemed 

responsive to the scope of the solicitation. For this solicitation, you must use a

Randomized Controlled Trial, RCT design, and it needs to be responsive or conducting 

research on at least one activity listed under an objective within the NIJ Policing 

Strategic Research Plan. My colleague, Dr. Joel Hunt, will discuss this in greater detail 

later in the webinar. But remember, we need to meet Basic Minimum Requirements, 

include these critical elements of the application, and in the application checklist, at the 

end of your--the solicitation document, these elements are highlighted as critical, and 

then also, you need to be responsive to the scope of work that is out--laid out in the 

program specific section in the solicitation. 

For those applications that meet Basic Minimum Requirements and are deemed 

responsive to the solicitation, they meet the Technical Merit Review, these applications 

will be reviewed via External Peer Review. These include expert researcher and 

practitioner reviewers. We reach out and try to call accomplished researchers and 

police practitioners, and we really try to ensure that there is a diverse and accomplished 

set of reviewers for each application. And then once the External Peer Review is done, 

they're going to submit to NIJ their thoughts on the selection criteria, the strengths and 

weaknesses for each selection criteria. For those of you who have applied before, you 

will receive--whether you are funded or not, you will receive comments from the 

External Peer Review based on their thoughts on the--on your proposal as it relates to 

the selection criteria. This is very useful even if you are funded to look at your project, 

to look at your proposal, and see where enhancements can be made. Just to note, 

especially for those of you who have never applied to NIJ before, we do--we do not 

change substantively anything that the peer review included in those comments, but we 

do try to do some light editing, just to make it more easily understandable, to make it 

more clear, but you're basically seeing comments that are compiled from multiple 

reviewers, and they do talk about high-quality applications in a consensus review 

meeting, and the notes are--of that meeting as well, but there may be some 

redundancies and there may be some conflicting statements, but as I've said to past 

applicants, we deem any information as good information, and we want to give an 

accurate and clear picture of what all the peer reviewers who reviewed your application 

thought. High-quality applications will then go to an Internal Review from NIJ scientific 

staff, like those of us who are presenting today and others. And we will also solicit 

feedback from subject matter experts within the department, and that--the results of that 

review is submitted through our leadership in a series of briefings. NIJ gives sole

authority for funding decisions to the Director. And there's a number of different criteria 

or--information criteria to make that decision both internally and externally. So we 

receive a number of very good proposals every year. And there are a number of 

different factors that go in to the NIJ Director's decision: overall budget; the amount of 

money NIJ expects to spend on this solicitation; administration priorities; congressional 
iii

priorities. So every application is competing against each other, if you will, on the 

solicitation, and to an extent, competing with others for full budgetary consideration, 

given what's allowable, but I just want to, you know, convey a clear picture of everything 

that's going on, when those decisions are made. So the Selection Criteria for this 

solicitation. This is extremely important and you should consult the Selection Criteria 

when you're compiling your application. And this is the scoring formula, if you will, that 

the external peer review will use when they consider your application. So the Statement 

of the Problem and the Research Question, that's worth 20 percent. And, you know, it's 

really important that you convey to any external reviewer of your application and to NIJ 

staff, you know, the importance of the problem, how those research questions are going 

to advance knowledge on that problem, why this needs to be considered. Project 

Design and Implementation, as you can see this is worth 50 percent of the overall 

application scoring process. You know, we're judging here the quality and technical

merit of the research design. Are the methods appropriate for the design? Do--is the 

data available or will it be made available? Does that--the use of that data make sense 

for the method applied here? Is this feasible to accomplish? Will it answer those 

research questions? And, you know, to reiterate, we are looking for Randomized 

Controlled Trials on these--on questions received for this solicitation. But, you know, 

the factors I just mentioned still apply. You need to convince reviewers that, yes, this 

RCT is feasible and it will advance knowledge on this problem. Potential Impact, this is 

20 percent. You know, think of here, what is the ability to change criminal justice

problem based on this research. And as you can see, the Selection Criteria kind of flow 

together. You know, it would be difficult to see where a poorly constructed design could 

have a potential impact. But our reviewers and NIJ staff consider these criteria 

separately but they're definitely interrelated. And then finally, Capabilities and 

Competencies, this is 10 percent of the scoring criteria. We're looking for the 

demonstrated productivity and experience of that applicant organization and the 

proposed staff. We want to ensure that the applicant has the capacity to pull, you know, 

RCT and working with the police agency up. This is a very difficult task. And any 

experience you can show that you--that conveys trust of your ability to execute this on 

time and in budget is--would be a plus. And then finally the Budget and Dissemination 

plans. These are not scored. We really want to ensure that the technical merit and the 

robustness of the research design carries most of the weight. But the Budget and 

Dissemination plans are still important. It is very important that your budget is logical 

and clearly represents the activities that you're proposing and that those activities 

proposed make sense based on your research design. And then also the 

Dissemination plans are critical because we're an applied science agency with the 

federal government. We want to make sure that our research we support is going to 

help influence policy practice and strategies for police practitioners. So, the 

dissemination plan is, you know, very important even though it is not given a numerical 

score. So now I'm going to turn it over to my colleague Dr. Chapman to continue the 

presentation.

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: So some of the critiques that we've seen over the course of 

the years and these reviewed--these criticisms are really--they're fairly consistent that 
iv

we see in applications. One, we may have newer applicants that are not fully aware of 

what is required of them. Some things just get missed in the course of the submission. 

Some things tend to be unclear in the nature of--in the course of the proposals. But here 

are some of the things that we see overall is problematic that will make funding 

decisions difficult for your proposal if these things are found to be the case in your 

particular narrative and application. It's very important that you're clear as to what data 

is going to be collected and what's going to be analyzed. If those things are not clear in 

terms of your analysis plans, your proposal is likely going to be dead on arrival. 

Proposals, they need to demonstrate significance of the work. You need to be aware of 

the pitfalls and limitations. Details, details, details, details, very important. We are well 

aware that 30 pages sometimes prevents you from getting as much in the proposals 

that you want. You kind of have to weight those sections to see where you can get the 

true teeth of what you're going to do in that proposal in 30 pages. You have to 

demonstrate that your work’s going to have some kind of--some kind of impact on 

criminal justice policy and practice. As my colleague said, we're an applied science 

agency, so we want to fund research that has some kind of practical value, in this case, 

the policing profession. Please look at your proposal to make sure they're organized 

well, they're not poorly written, or they lack coherence. And that is a problem with 

some of the poor performing proposals that we see time to time--time to time. Statement 

of the Problem, you need to be clear in how you--what gaps are going to be identified 

and filled in the course of your research and be careful that your literature review is up 

to par. I mean, we see this all the time, the lit reviews are--they're really small and 

they're--they lack detail, and of course as my colleague said, we're going to have people 

who are well aware of the literature and they're going to assess the feasibility of your 

literature review and how complete and concise it is. Research Design, very important. 

As my colleague said at the front end or just a minute ago, 50 percent of your score is 

going to go to the design and we see all the time where research design is not well 

articulated. If it isn't, you will not get considered. They will be probably--your proposal 

will likely fall during the course of the external review and probably would not make it to 

our internal review process because of a poor articulated research design. The 

questions should line up from the literature review. I mean, a lot of this, I'm probably 

not--I'm told--preaching to the choir, you probably noticed but again we see these

problems crop up all the time. A sample size should be supported. Why a hundred or 

five hundred? Why 200 versus 2000? What's that number based on? So you should 

be able to articulate it and I will refer you back to the solicitation. We do have a section 

in the solicitation that refers to a power analysis and you should give that a quick review 

so you're clear of what our expectations are in terms of how you are articulating to us 

your choice of a sample size in your design. Protocol should be feasible. And also, you 

should talk about your comparison groups. We see biased comparison groups that's 

problematic, so you should be clear on your controls, your external groups and how 

you--how you're differentiating them--differentiate them, excuse me, and the reasons for 

them in your proposal. 

Okay. Oftentimes, the design is too ambitions and too complex. And those things will 

be noted as well. Design should be clearly laid out, your sampling strategy should not 
v

be flawed. And again I can't stress important more enough that your quantitative 

analysis or qualitative analysis should not be vague and it should be as clear as 

possible. Capabilities and Competencies, you know, the PIs should have a familiarity 

with the proposed work with the proposed--the analyses that are going to be conducted,

whether it's quantitative or qualitative. Oftentimes, PIs have a limited experience in 

projects, that is not necessarily damning though, because we are--we do have a section 

where we recognize and welcome new researchers. So we, you know, the fact that you 

may not have that experience that's not a flaw--a fatal flaw but again, it can be fixed if 

you are as clear in your proposal as possible. Dissemination plans, and that really 

shouldn't be here but it's here so I'll talk about it anyway. Your plans should link to the 

proposed work. We get proposals oftentimes where it may be, for example, a policing 

solicitation and there's no mention of a police executive research forum, International 

Association of Chiefs of Police, and we're wondering, "Well, how are you going to get 

this out if you're not getting it out to the organizations or associations that can put it out 

to their memberships?" That's not saying if you have, you are required to put it out to a 

particular entity in terms of your dissemination. But dissemination plans should sync up 

with the work, the type of work, the field that you are trying to reach. So my colleague 

Dr. Hunt will talk about the expectations for this new solicitation.

JOEL HUNT: Thank you Dr. Chapman. So some of the things that are new this year in 

terms of this solicitation, and the first two are not unique to this solicitation but we want 

to highlight them since they're new in general. The first thing is the concept of 

Opportunity Zones. For those of you not familiar with Opportunity Zones, they were 

created in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Of 2017. It is a federal program that provides tax 

incentives for investments and new businesses and commercial projects in low-income 

communities. In order to further support Opportunity Zones, this solicitation gives 

priority consideration and award decisions to applications that propose projects that 

directly benefit qualified Opportunity Zones. To see where these qualified or qualified 

Opportunity Zones, some--you'll see them referred to as QOZs. There is a link in the 

solicitation to the webpage that I can't remember who hosts it, but the actual link is in 

our solicitation to see where these zones are. Next is High-risk List. Some of this is 

being handled slightly new this year. Almost all applicants this year are required to fill 

out the financial management and system internal controls questionnaire. As part of 

this questionnaire, the form requires each applicant to disclose whether it is currently 

designated as high-risk by a federal grant-making agency outside of DOJ. The purpose 

of this solicitation, high-risk includes any status under which federal awarding agency 

provides additional oversight due to the applicant's past performance or other 

programmatic or financial concerns with the applicant. If an applicant is designated 

high-risk by another federal or awarding agency, the applicant must provide the 

following information. The federal awarding agency that's currently designating the 

applicant as high-risk, the date the applicant was designated high-risk, the high-risk 

point of contact at the federal awarding agency, their name, phone number, email 

address and the reason for the high-risk status as settled by the federal awarding 

agency. OJP seeks this information to help ensure appropriate federal oversight is 

provided on all OJP awards. Additional information about this is available in the 
vi

solicitation. So things that are much more of a substantive nature. Memorandums of 

understanding or strong letters of support with the appropriate entities. This wasn't

referenced in Dr. Chapman's section though. We've had occasions where we've had 

awards that have been awarded and we've had--the sub-awardees come back to us 

and say that they weren't fully understanding of what they were agreeing to and some of 

the science involved in it and some of the expectations of what would happen within the 

research, and as such, some of those awards were forced to change locations. So in 

order to try to make this smoother, to try to increase the probability of success of these 

awards, we would--we are seeking much stronger either memorandums of 

understanding or letters of support typically in this case from police agencies such that 

the chief is writing a letter of support that clearly states an understanding of what the 

research proposed is and what their role and expectations and responsibilities will be 

before this research--proposed research project. The more detailed that is, the better 

understanding that that they show and understand what their expectations are, the 

better it will be. The archiving plan--the archiving requirements have now changed. 

There is now new requirements that state all data must be archived that is funded 

through NIJ awards. In the past, we've had people come back to us and say that 

they’re unable to due to laws or purchasing agreements or things like that. We do allow 

for some wiggle room in that. However, it's not an expectation that you no longer 

archive anything. There's actually now requirements done in those cases that are 

appropriate synthetic control datasets are generated and then archived. 

The last one, as we've alluded to throughout most of this, this--all applicants for this 

solicitation must propose an RCT design, a Randomized Control Trial design. The 

definition of this is out there. It's very clear what meets the criteria to be considered an 

RCT. We are going to be very picky about this, making sure people do truly adhere to a 

true RCT design. We are not here to tell you at what level you randomize or at what 

point or what unit of analysis. However, you must do an appropriate randomized 

sampling strategy. There must be discussion about the--a clear discussion on the 

controls and how you're going to minimize contamination and you're understanding that 

most likely there will be some level of contamination but how you're going to deal with 

that. What measurements and constructs are going to be created. Are these being 

created to create your randomization off of--how you're going to use them, clear 

statistical analysis plans. We don't necessarily expect you to say that you're going to 

use and generalize order logistic regression versus an ordered logistic regression, 

something like that but we--because you won't know until you have the data but what 

we want you to show that you have an understanding of the type of data you're going to 

collect and the most likely models that you're going to be able to run based on the data 

you collect. Incorporating these things into your application are much more likely to 

lead to a good application. Good.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: As you'll note on the screen right now, the application close 

date is May 7th, 2019, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. It is a good idea to submit your

application at least 72 hours prior to this in case there are any technical difficulties. So 

the next segment of our webinar will be questions and answers. As a reminder, the 
vii

transcript of the presentation and the slides will be posted to the NIJ website. Before 

we actually begin and dive into the questions, which we have only have three right now, 

so, if you have any questions, please go ahead and submit them. What you're looking 

at is a place that you can go to for application support or other general assistance. 

That's National Criminal Justice Reference Service. They are included--information 

about them is included in the solicitation. But it's also listed here. You can reach them 

at ncjrs.gov. They are able to help you with general solicitation support. If you have 

any questions that you think of after the end of this webinar, you would submit those to 

grants@ncjrs.gov. And they will work with Joel, Brett, and Eric to get an answer to you. 

You can reach them at webchat which is listed on the slide here, and again it is listed in 

the solicitation and there's also a toll free number. On the other side, if you're having 

problems, technical problems with submitting your application or uploading anything, 

you will need to reach out to grants.gov. Their information is also included in the 

solicitation and you can also find it here. There's a couple recommended resources 

from NIJ. So there's information about their funding opportunities and funding FAQ’s 

located on the NIJ website. Information such as the budget details worksheet, and all 

that, you can find under the FAQ’s. In addition, if you have questions about financial 

obligation and so forth for your solicitation you can go to the DOJ financial guide, their 

URL is listed here. There are also other funding resources available including the OJP 

Funding Resource Center, and the grants financial management online training. So 

again, these slides will be posted so you can go ahead and refer back to them for those 

URLs. And actually during the question and answer portion I'm going to just rotate 

through these slides so it'll give you an opportunity to go ahead and jot down the URLs. 

So at this time our first question is: “Is equipment and instrument least eligible under this 

grant?”

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: And I would say yes, to the extent that it is linked to the 

proposed research and I should say these three questions came from the same person, 

so I can take them all in the same order. Yes, to the second again, rapid DNA testing to 

the extent that if--that research or the equipment it can be tied to your design in the 

proposed research, it would be eligible. Now, for the third question about whether your 

idea is supported by this grant, or this solicitation, I would refer you back to our policing 

strategic--our strategic research plan under policing. As you will see from those action 

items they are very broad and we did that with purpose. So that if someone had an idea 

that was more specific and it could fit under one of those action items, it will be deemed 

at least in the best way that you could make it, make your case up. It would be relevant 

to and applicable under that particular solicitation. So with respect to your third question 

about whether this particular approach is supported by this research proposal to this 

RFP, I would go back and look at the plan and look for an action item under which your 

proposal or research would fit. So I would start there.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: All right. So while we wait for other questions to be 

submitted, I'm going to go ahead and flip over to the NCJRS slide. You can go ahead 

and write some of that information down. Again, the other thing with NCJRS, there is a

funding newsletter that comes out every Friday that has information about new funding 
viii

opportunities from OJP. And we'll also let you know when items such as the slides and 

transcript for this webinar are posted to the N--to the NIJ website. 

Another question came through. "Since this solicitation has a strong special science

component in relation to the policing and community relation, are submissions that 

incorporate more than one RCT model allowed?"

JOEL HUNT: I see no reason why not, though I would go back to what Dr. Chapman 

said and making sure you're not going too ambitious and too complex such that it's 

making the feasibility unlikely.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: All right. Again, and here are some of the resources 

available from NCJR--I'm sorry, from the National Institute of Justice. We can go ahead 

and have a few minutes to jot these URLs down while we wait to see if any other 

questions come through. If we do not get questions within the next minute or so, we will 

probably end this webinar at that--at that time. Again, if you do have questions after the 

webinar has ended, you can submit those questions to NCJRS at the URL listed both in 

the solicitation and here on the screen, grants@ncjrs.gov. You can also call them toll 

free at 800-851-3420 or you can use their web chat feature.

JOEL HUNT: Oh, I'm going to expand a little bit on the first two questions just for clarity 

that while equipment in leases are eligible to be funded, the bulk of the application 

funding cannot be for equipment purchases or leases, things like that. So if you're 

putting in a $325,000 application and 300,000 of it is for equipment, that would not be 

funded. So it--there has to be at least enough of a budget for the research component 

showing that this is a research award not a--an equipment buy award.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Can MOUs and letters of support from organizations be 

submitted after the deadline or do they need--do they have to be sent together?

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: They should be sent together and this is the reason why we 

do--we are mindful of the fact that sometimes these things take a while to secure from 

police agencies, but on the flipside of that, what we have seen is we get a proposal in 

that is provided with funding to do A and then we come back and a month later the 

department says, "No, we're not going to do that or we can't do that or it's not feasible." 

And then we look at what we funded relative to what the new applicants says they can 

do and oftentimes they're not the same thing. So to avoid that, we would like to have 

those MOUs and letters of support, and letters of support should go beyond "We 

support this project." To my colleague, Dr. Hunt's point, there should--there should be 

some clarity that the chief, the command staff, whoever is writing that letter, is clear of 

what they're granting permission to have done in their department. So I--we encourage 

those letters to come to be submitted in the application package. Excuse me.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: “Can you please repeat the answer to the last question on 

more than one model being allowed?”
ix

JOEL HUNT: Yeah. So we see no reason to restrict your model or how many 

randomizations or how many models are within your application. However, you should 

be mindful of what Dr. Chapman mentioned in proposing applications that are too 

complex and I guess too complex would be the best word, too ambitious such that they 

lose the concept of feasibility in our eyes.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Right. We will give you a minute or so to see if anything else 

comes through. At this time, there are no other questions. All right. It looks like we did 

get another one. “What is the schedule for disbursement?”

JOEL HUNT: So typically award applicants that are given awards are typically notified in 

August, September area. They'll be able to begin accepting the awards in October and 

typically with all of the requirements in terms of setting and getting budget approvals, 

and IRB approvals, and everything like that, awards do not typically start until January 

1st then. There is another question right above that too.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Is overtime pay police operations eligible under this grant?

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: Overtime pay. Okay. So first what I would do is I--when I--we 

don't see these kinds of disbursements being allowed oftentimes. I would first refer the 

question back to the financial guide to see what's allowable. Again, it could be 

sometimes problematic if we see a budget where you have all of this grant money going 

to overtime, essentially paying the officers for their time. And that could be looked on 

not too favorably. So you--I would encourage you to start with the financial guide which 

is accessible on the website and it's right up in front of you if you see it. And then 

seeing what's allowable and look up things like incentives and overtime and see where 

that falls and what's allowable. And then you have to ask yourself, and we always have 

to look at, are you making the best use of the funds? Because again, if you're--we're 

talking about a $500,000 request and just throwing out a crazy number, 300,000 going 

to police overtime, that probably is not the best use of grant funds which come out of 

our tax dollars. So you need to--just to see how that works and what's allowable and 

then see how it--what is feasible and then also determine whether you're making the 

best use of the fund and then go from there.

JOEL HUNT: One of the things we consider is operationally realistic.

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: Yes.

JOEL HUNT: If this can only--this type of research or this type of police work can only 

be done through overtime when it's received through several funds and it can't be on its

own then that's something we take into consideration as to whether or not it's worth 

researching.
x

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: And as Dr. Chapman indicated the URL for the grants--DOJ 

Grants Financial Guide is listed on the slide right now as well as some other resources 

that can help you when you are looking to prepare and submit your application. "Can 

we compare an entire police district as the control group and another district as the 

intervention or do we need to randomize within the same police district?"

JOEL HUNT: So it really is going to depend on what you're looking at. Is it possible to 

do randomization at that level? Yes. Unfortunately, I can't give a yes to your specific 

one because we can't comment on your specific ones. But that is a possibility for a 

research design for randomization component.

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: Right now, I'm following that up with--you are--you are 

randomizing your design. So your design has randomization in it. So whether it's one 

level or another, to my colleague's point, we leave that in your hand. We see an R--

we're asking for RCTs, from what I'm saying you would be proposing an RCT, and that's 

about as much--as far as we can go in telling you how you should go about conducting 

that RCT.

JOEL HUNT: My one point that--thing I would hesitate slightly with the way the question 

is worded, it is those are both singular so how you're going to say that was truly random, 

one is just -two unless you pick two and you flip a coin as to which one is going to be 

control and intervention. All of that better be clearly laid out, and discussions about then

how that randomization plays a role in your overall ability to do statistical analysis and 

come to findings.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: All right. Again, I'm going to put up the NCJRS slide for you,

that way you can write that information down if you like and then I will also move over to 

the grants.gov slide as we wait for some other questions to come through. As a 

reminder, you could sign up for the funding newsletter through NCJRS that comes out 

every Friday. And you would be able to then stay in the loop on what's coming out from 

NIJ as well as the other agencies within the Office of Justice Programs. And then you 

will also receive notice when artifacts from webinars are posted, as well as when 

webinars are coming out. And then this is the information for grants.gov. They do have 

a customer support hotline number that's available 24 hours a day, seven days a week 

except for federal holidays. And you can also email them with technical support. As I 

mentioned earlier, it is recommended that you submit your application at least 72 hours 

in advance. That way if there are technical issues you have time to work through them 

before the deadline. There are very rare instances and when a technical issue--you will 

be granted permission past the deadline based on technical problems. So it's good to 

start early.

JOEL HUNT: Especially if you're a new awardee signing up for some of the things that 

are required it takes time.
xi

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Yes. Look through the solicitation for the required 

information registering with grants.gov and so forth and do that as soon as possible. Do 

not wait until a week before the deadline. In fact that should have been started already. 

And if you haven't started that, do so today as soon as you finish with this call, in that 

way you have that all squared away and you'll be ready. All right. At this time, there are 

no other questions. I think we're going to end this webinar.

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: Well, I would like to thank you for attending. On the behalf of 

the Nation Institute of Justice. Thank you for your interest in this funding opportunity. 

We wish you luck. Should you have any question, I believe any other questions of a 

substantive nature can come through NCJRS. We cannot answer them directly but if 

you ask them, they will be forward to us. We will forward an answer. As crazy as that 

exchange sounds, but that's the way we have to do it. So if you have any substantive

questions about whether something meets the solicitation goals and objectives, you can 

forward your questions to us in that manner. And again, thank you for your time and 

good luck.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Thank you all. You have a great day.
 

 

 

 

Funding Opportunities through NIJ for the 

Research and Evaluation on Policing, Fiscal Year 2019 

Solicitation: NIJ-2019-15543 

Solicitation Post Date: February 7, 2019 

Solicitation Close Date: May 7, 2019 11:59 PM EDT 

Today’s Presenters: 

Brett Chapman, Social Science Analyst, Eric D. Martin, Social Science Analyst, Office of Research and 

Evaluation, and Joel Hunt, Senior Computer Scientist, Office of Science and Technology 
 

Webinar Overview 

• What this webinar will not cover 

• Review Process & Selection Criteria 

• Common panel criticisms 

• New Expectations 

• Q&A Session 
 

What is not covered 

• Expected Deliverables 

• What is not funded 

• Recommended Resources 

• Application Process 

• For more information on these topics please see the transcript and 

slides for the FY19 Research and Evaluation on the Administration of 

Justice solicitation webinar (appended to the bottom of the solicitation). 
REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS 
 

 

Basic and Technical Requirements 

• Basic Minimum Requirements (BMR) 

– Submitted by an eligible type applicant 

– Must include: 

• Budget detail worksheet 

– Formerly two separate documents: budget narrative and budget detail worksheet 

• Program narrative 

• Resumes/curriculum vitae of key personnel 

• Technical Merit Requirements (TMR) 

– Responsive to the scope of the solicitation 

• Must be responsive to at least one activity listed under an objective within NIJ’s 

Policing Strategic Research Plan 2017-2022 

• Must use a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design (will discuss in later section) 
 

 

External and Internal Review 

• Those that meet BMR and TMR 

• External Peer Reviewer 

• Technical and practitioner reviewers 

• Internal Review 

– NIJ scientific staff and leadership 

– Department subject matter experts 

• All funding decisions are at the discretion of the NIJ Director 
 

Selection Criteria 

• Statement of the Problem and Research Questions 20% 

– Understanding of the problem research questions and their importance 

• Project Design and Implementation 50% 

– Quality and technical merit 

• Potential Impact – 20% 

– Ability to change a stated criminal justice problem 

• Capabilities/Competencies – 10% 

– Demonstrated productivity, and experience of the applicant organization 

and proposed project staff 

• Budget 

• Dissemination plans 
COMMON PANEL CRITICISMS 
 

 

 

 

Critiques Raised During Peer Review Process 

• Overall Problems in Applications 

– The proposal vaguely describes how the data will be collected and 

analyzed. 

– Proposal fails to demonstrate the significance of the proposed work. 

– Failure to demonstrate an understanding of the potential pitfalls and 

limitations of the proposed research. 

– Too many details in the proposal are missing. 

– The proposal fails to demonstrate how it will impact criminal justice policy 

and practice in the real world. 

– Proposal was disorganized in its presentation, poorly written or lacked 

coherence. 
 

 

 

Critiques Raised During Peer Review Process 

• Statement of the Problem 

– Statement fails to identify gaps in the current literature. 

– The literature review is insufficient. 

– The scope of the proposed research is extremely limited. 
 

 

Critiques Raised During Peer Review Process 

• Research Design 

– The overall research design is not well articulated. 

– The proposed research design/methods approach does not logically flow 

from the problem statement and literature review. 

– The proposed research questions are not derived from the literature 

review. 

– The proposed sample size should be supported by a power analysis. 

– The feasibility of the proposed protocol is not addressed, in terms of 

access to the necessary qualitative and quantitative information. 

– The comparison group is biased in a systematic way. 
 

Critiques Raised During Peer Review Process 

• Research Design (continued) 

– The research design is to too ambitious and too complex. 

– Proposed research design is not clearly laid out. 

– The proposed sampling strategy is flawed. 

– The proposed quantitative analyses is vague and unclear. 
 

Critiques Raised During Peer Review Process 

• Capabilities and Competencies 

– The Principal Investigator (PI) does not demonstrate familiarity or 

proficiency with the proposed quantitative analysis. 

– Limited information to suggest that the PI can manage research projects. 

– The research team has a limited track record of publishing scholarly 

research. 

– The dissemination plan lacks specificity and/or is not innovative 

– No criminology/criminal justice outlets are identified in the dissemination 

plan. 
NEW EXPECTATIONS 
 

 

 

New Expectations Specific to this Solicitation 

• Opportunity Zones 

• High-risk List 

• Memorandums of understanding or strong letters of support with 

the appropriate entities 

– These letters should indicate a level of understanding of what the 

research entails and of the new archiving requirement (see below) 

• Archiving plans that adhere to the new archiving requirements 

• RCT design 

– Clear controls and discussions about minimizing contamination 

– Clear measurements/constructs 

– Clear statistical analysis plan 
Solicitation Close Date: 

May 7, 2019 11:59 PM EDT 
 

DISCUSSION 

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 

A transcript of this presentation, and the related slides will be posted to the NIJ website. 
 

 

 

Application Assistance and Support 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Response Center 

https://www.ncjrs.gov 

• Provides solicitation support and general assistance. 

• Links to all current OJP funding opportunities. 

• Funding Notices - subscribe to receive email notifications of new opportunities: 

– Sign up to receive the bi-weekly JUSTINFO newsletter as well as the weekly Funding News From NCJRS email. 

– Be sure to select “Grants/funding” as an area of interest in your NCJRS registration profile when you subscribe. 

• email - grants@ncjrs.gov 

• web chat - https://webcontact.ncjrs.gov/ncjchat/chat.jsp 

• toll free at 800–851–3420; 

• TTY at 301–240–6310 (hearing impaired only) 

The NCJRS Response Center hours of operation are 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday. 
 

 

 

 

Application Assistance 

Grants.gov 

• Provides technical assistance with submitting an application: 

• Customer Support Hotline – 800-518-4726 or 606-545-5035 

• The Grants.gov Support Hotline operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except on federal 

holidays. 

• Email 

• support@grants.gov 

Website 

• https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support.html 

• Provides information on available federal funding opportunities for various federal agencies. 
Recommended Resources from NIJ 

NIJ Grants 

– https://www.nij.gov/funding/pages/welcome.aspx 

NIJ Funding FAQ’s 

– https://www.nij.gov/funding/Pages/faqs.aspx 

NIJ CrimeSolutions.Gov 

– https://www.nij.gov/funding/Pages/faqs.aspx 
 

Recommended Resources 

OJP Funding Resource Center 

– https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm 

2019 OJP Grant Application Resource Guide 

– https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm 

DOJ Grants Financial Guide 

– https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/index.htm 

DOJ Grants Financial Management Online Training 

– https://ojpfgm.webfirst.com/