Notices regarding the solicitation “Research on “Sentinel Events” and 

Criminal Justice System Errors”

March 25, 2016: Answers to questions have been posted. To assist applicants in completing 

their proposals, NIJ has made the answers to questions received available for this funding 

opportunity. Visit http://nij.gov/funding/pages/solicitation-qa.aspx#NIJ-2016-9235 for questions 

and answers to help prepare your application.

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

Office of Justice Programs Approval Expires 07/31/2016

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 on sentinel events in the criminal 

justice system. This program furthers the Department’s mission by sponsoring research to 

provide objective, independent knowledge and tools to meet the challenges of crime and 

criminal justice, particularly at the State and local levels.

Research on “Sentinel Events” and Criminal 

Justice System Errors

Applications Due: May 17, 2016

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

education), and certain qualified individuals. For-profit organizations must agree to forgo any 

profit or management fee. Foreign governments, foreign organizations, and foreign institutions 

of higher education are not eligible to apply.

NIJ welcomes applications that involve two or more entities that will carry out the funded federal 

award activities, however, one eligible entity must be the applicant and the other(s) must be 

proposed as subrecipient(s). The applicant must be the entity with primary responsibility for 

conducting and leading the project. If successful, the applicant will be responsible for monitoring 

and appropriately managing any subrecipients or, as applicable, for administering any 

procurement subcontracts that would receive federal program funds from the applicant under 

the award.

An eligible applicant may submit more than one application, as long as each application 

proposes a different project in response to the solicitation. (Applicants should also review and 

consider the “Duplicate Applications” note under How to Apply in Section D. Application and 

Submission Information.) Subrecipients may be part of multiple proposals.

NIJ may elect to make awards for applications submitted under this solicitation in future fiscal 

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

availability of appropriations.

Deadline

Applicants must register with Grants.gov prior to submitting an application. All applications 

are due to be submitted and in receipt of a successful validation message in Grants.gov by 

11:59 p.m. eastern time on May 17, 2016.

All applicants are encouraged 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.
2 NIJ-2016-9235

Contact Information

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

Support Hotline at 800-518-4726 or 606-545-5035, or via email to support@grants.gov.

The Grants.gov Support Hotline hours of operation are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except 

federal holidays.

Applicants that experience unforeseen Grants.gov technical issues beyond their control that 

prevent them from submitting their application by the deadline must email the NIJ contact 

identified below within 24 hours after the application deadline and request approval to 

submit their application. Additional information on reporting technical issues is found 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 announcement: NIJ-2016-9235

Release date: March 18, 2016
3 NIJ-2016-9235

Contents

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

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

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

Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly and/or Practitioner-Oriented Products . 9

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 Cost (also known as Pre-award Cost) Approvals..........................................11

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

Prior Approval, Planning, and Reporting of Conference/Meeting/Training Costs ...................12

Costs Associated with Language Assistance (if applicable)...................................................12

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

Limit on Number of Application Submissions.........................................................................13

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

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

How to Apply .........................................................................................................................24

E. Application Review Information.............................................................................................27

Selection Criteria ...................................................................................................................27

Review Process.....................................................................................................................29

F. Federal Award Administration Information ............................................................................30

Federal Award Notices ..........................................................................................................30

Administrative, National Policy, and other Legal Requirements .............................................30

General Information About Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements .............................31

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s) ...................................................................................32

H. Other Information..................................................................................................................32

Provide Feedback to OJP......................................................................................................32

Application Checklist .............................................................................................................34
4 NIJ-2016-9235

Research on “Sentinel Events” and Criminal 

Justice System Errors

(CFDA No. 16.560)

A. Program Description

Overview

The purpose of the National Institute of Justice Research, Evaluation, and Development 

Projects grants program (CFDA 16.560) is to encourage and support research, development, 

and evaluation to improve criminal justice policy and practice in the United States. NIJ is

interested in encouraging further research on a relatively new area of study in criminal justice 

research — an exploration of the use of sentinel event reviews (SERs) to improve criminal

justice systems overall. Mistakes, or negative outcomes, in the criminal justice system are rarely 

caused by one single act or actor. Often, mistakes signal multiple weaknesses in the criminal 

justice system or process. Thus, corrections to such errors need to go beyond traditional 

remedies that focus on removing the “bad apple” responsible for the event to those that address 

the underlying system-level problems that contributed to the event. Sentinel event review 

processes have been used in other fields, notably aviation and medicine, and NIJ would like to 

sponsor research projects that explore the use of these reviews in the criminal justice system.

Authorizing Legislation: Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 

(sections 201 and 202).

Program-Specific Information

The US criminal justice system lacks a mechanism that many other “high-risk” industries such 

as medicine and transportation consider critical: a review process to help learn from errors at 

the system level and that can lead to policy and practice reforms that reduce the future risk of

the same type of error. These all-stakeholder, non-blaming, forward-looking reviews of “sentinel 

events” acknowledge that errors are rarely the result of a single actor or action and they often 

signal underlying weaknesses in systems and/or processes. Other industries have not only 

conducted such reviews but have found ways to sustain and institutionalize this learning-fromerror approach in order to create an ongoing commitment to a culture of change.

Since 2011, NIJ has been investigating the feasibility of using sentinel event reviews as a way 

to learn from errors in the criminal justice system. NIJ has three guiding research questions 

regarding the use of SERs in the criminal justice system:

1) Can it be done?

2) Is it sustainable?

3) Does it lead to observable improvements?
5 NIJ-2016-9235

Through a three-city pilot program and strategic social science research investments over 

the last two years, NIJ is in the process of answering these questions. For more information 

on NIJ’s work in this area, please see:

• Sentinel Events Initiative webpage: http://www.nij.gov/topics/justicesystem/Pages/sentinel-events.aspx.

• NIJ Special Report: Mending Justice: Sentinel Event 

Reviews, http://www.nij.gov/publications/pages/publicationdetail.aspx?ncjnumber=247141.

As our other research endeavors are either still underway or just getting started, much of what 

NIJ knows about how SERs might work in the criminal justice system stems from the lessons 

learned in our pilot projects. For more details, please see:

• Pilot program lessons learned: Paving the Way: Lessons learned in Sentinel Event 

Reviews, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249097.pdf

NIJ is interested in building on the lessons learned in the pilot program. First, NIJ would like to 

explore the use of SERs within a single stakeholder group (in this case, the police). One of our 

pilot sites conducted their SER this way and found it generated useful information. Thus, it is 

possible that focusing reviews within a single silo of the system may be a viable first step on the 

road to a more comprehensive, all-stakeholder application of SERs in the criminal justice 

system. Second, NIJ would like to fund multiple-stakeholder SER teams to continue learning 

about the processes and structures that will work in the criminal justice system. Therefore, these 

“multi-silo” projects represent the more comprehensive application of SERs to the broader 

criminal justice system itself. Projects in both areas should extend our knowledge beyond the 

“can it be done” question to issues of sustainability and impact, and provide important insights 

on how this could be taken to scale in the criminal justice system.

Area 1: Policing

Communities across the U.S. have confronted a series of policing “sentinel events” over the 

past few years. Incidents ranging from police shootings of unarmed citizens to crowd control 

practices have exacerbated tensions between police departments and the communities they 

serve. In response to these issues, President Obama established the President’s Task Force on 

21st Century Policing to identify best practices and make recommendations on how policing 

practices can promote effective crime reduction while building public trust.1 Among the task 

force’s recommendations are the establishment of “Serious Incident Review Boards” comprised 

of police and community members, and that law enforcement agencies should consider 

performing non-punitive reviews of critical incidents — both of which are aimed at identifying 

and addressing system-level problems.

NIJ would like to sponsor research that mobilizes SER reviews within police departments to 

examine critical incidents in a manner consistent with the recommendations from the 21st

Century Policing report.2 Although the overarching goal of SERs is to include a broad range of 

 1 http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf. 2 Please note that NIJ has another solicitation focusing on 21st Century Police report. View this solicitation at 

http://nij.gov/funding/Documents/solicitations/NIJ-2016-9095.pdf. Applicants are advised to look closely at both 

solicitation to determine which funding opportunity fits their project.
6 NIJ-2016-9235

stakeholders from across the criminal justice system (Area 2 of this solicitation will focus on 

this), it may also be valuable to experiment with reviews conducted only within a sole 

stakeholder agency, such as a police department. The reality is that police departments are a 

system within a system, and bringing all parts of this “system” together in a room to examine 

something that went wrong in a non-blaming forward-looking manner would be quite novel.3

Applicants are asked to put together SER teams including representatives from all divisions 

within the police department. Although not required, jurisdictions may include criminal justice 

partners from outside of the police department as appropriate. In addition, applicants are 

required to include a research partner on the project in some capacity. In the SER pilot projects, 

researchers played a variety of roles on the team, most of which were not those of a traditional 

research partner (see page 7 of Paving the Way: Lessons Learned in Sentinel Event Reviews). 

The research partner may reside within the police agency or may be affiliated with an academic 

institution or other external research organization. While the role the researcher may play in the 

project is flexible, it is expected that the researcher will serve at the very least as an objective 

observer and/or neutral participant tasked with ensuring that the project advances the 

knowledge base of SERs in the criminal justice system and contributes to our understanding of 

how to move this strategy forward.

Because many recent “sentinel events” involving the police have strained police-community 

relations, departments are also strongly encouraged to consider ways to include one or more 

community groups in the project. This approach could include victim advocacy groups, the faithbased community, or other groups involved in improving services and conditions in the 

community. Our initial outreach to victims groups indicated a great deal of support for the SER 

process, a sentiment expressed very well by Jennifer Thompson in Mending Justice: Sentinel 

Event Reviews (page 36). Although there are some challenges to bringing non-justice agencies 

into the review itself (see pages 5-6, Paving the Way: Lessons Learned in Sentinel Event 

Reviews), they could serve in an advisory role of some type or be included in the reporting of 

review findings or recommended changes. Applicants are encouraged to consider how including 

the community in the work of an SER can enhance the overall legitimacy of the SER process, 

the police, and the criminal justice system generally.

Applicants are also strongly encouraged to include subject matter experts from other disciplines 

as consultants or advisors on the project as appropriate for the events chosen. For example, if it 

is expected that issues of mental health or substance abuse may play a role in the events, 

mental health providers may be helpful either as part of the team or as advisors on the project.

Requirements of proposals Area 1:

• Identification of three or more cases of police-involved shootings, excessive or perceived 

excessive use of force, suicides of police officers, suicides of individuals in police custody or 

any incident in which there was a negative outcome that should not happen again; and a 

commitment to a thorough SER of each event.

 3 Sentinel event reviews are designed to go beyond the basic fact-finding inquiries typically involved in an Internal 

Affairs Bureau (IAB), disciplinary action, or a criminal investigation, which focus mainly on the incident in question and 

are explicitly trying to get at the issue of blame and fault. While there may be some examination of factors such as 

training or department policy, the focus is generally on whether individual(s) complied with such, rather than whether 

there are any weaknesses in the training and/or policies. By moving beyond the issue of blame, SER permits 

stakeholders to step back and examine contributing factors with an eye towards learning from error rather than just 

trying to punish error. It requires a major shift in mindset.
7 NIJ-2016-9235

• The sentinel event review team should consist of representatives from the following units (or 

duty responsibilities) of the police department: patrol, dispatch, investigations, human

resources, training, internal affairs, the union, evidence collection and/or crime laboratory, 

and corporation counsel.

o The research partner and the role they will play should be spelled out clearly in the 

proposal.

o Additional team members and/or partners on the project are strongly encouraged, 

including community representatives, representatives from other criminal justice 

agencies, other public sector agencies that have a stake in the event being reviewed, 

and community agencies as appropriate.

Area 2:Multi-Stakeholder Sentinel Event Reviews

Mistakes, or negative outcomes, can and do happen in all parts of the criminal justice system. 

There is a growing recognition that these mistakes are to be expected because all human 

systems are fallible and that a more holistic approach to reform is needed to minimize the risks 

of future mistakes. For example, the National Commission on Forensic Science recently 

adopted a recommendation that would encourage the use of root cause analysis, commonly 

used in the medical field, as a way of generating corrective actions for deviations from policies 

within a crime laboratory.4

Frequently, these events involve compound errors at multiple points in the criminal justice 

process. Even events that appear to affect only one agency or part of the system often have 

roots that reach far beyond; and solutions to errors can be informed by a wide range of 

perspectives and participants. For these reasons, SERs will ideally involve representatives from 

a number of criminal justice stakeholders and beyond. For projects proposed in this area, NIJ 

encourages jurisdictions to identify three or more events that have broad implications for the 

overall effectiveness of the criminal justice system; with potential for significantly diminishing the 

public’s confidence in the system, and/or have impeded the efficient and reliable operations of 

the system in some substantial way. Such events could include deaths in custody (i.e., prisons 

or jails), suicides of prison staff, wrongful arrests or convictions, forensic errors, repeated Brady 

violations, or other sentinel events with comparable impact to the system. The idea is to choose 

events that the criminal justice stakeholders believe could provide critical insight into why 

system-level breakdowns are occurring and lead to reforms in the criminal justice system.

Consistent with the breadth of the sentinel events to be reviewed, applicants should assemble 

an inclusive SER team with representation from at least five criminal justice or local government 

agencies and/or community stakeholder groups. Jurisdictions are encouraged to think 

expansively when putting teams together, and consider a wide-range of potential partners. In 

addition, applicants may want to propose some stakeholders to be part of the SER team 

specifically and other individuals to serve in some other advisory or assistive capacity, similar to 

what was outlined in Area 1 for community partners.

Applicants are required to include a research partner on the project in some capacity (see page

7 of Paving the Way: Lessons Learned in Sentinel Event Reviews for potential roles). The 

research partner may reside within one of the participating agencies or may be affiliated with an 

academic institution or other external research organization. While the role the researcher may 

 4 http://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/786581/download.
8 NIJ-2016-9235

play in the project is flexible, it is expected that the researcher will serve at the very least as an 

objective observer and/or neutral participant tasked with ensuring that the project advances the 

knowledge base of SERs in the criminal justice system, and contributes to our understanding of 

how to move this strategy forward.

Requirements of proposals for Area 2:

• Identification of three or more sentinel events of importance to the local community; and a 

commitment to a thorough SER of each event.

• The sentinel event review team should consist of representatives from five or more 

stakeholder groups, three of which should be criminal justice stakeholders.

o Criminal justice stakeholders include: police, prosecution, defense, judiciary, courts, 

corrections, and the crime laboratory.

o Other potential partners include but are not limited to: juvenile justice system 

representatives, mayor’s office, city risk managers, victim’s representatives, religious 

leaders, community groups, public health, education, and the media.

o The research partner and the role they will play should be spelled out in the 

proposal.

Proposals in either area should include:

• A plan to conduct sentinel event reviews on three or more events as appropriate for the 

Area applying to, including:

o Identification of the individuals who will represent each agency on the SER team and 

what their roles are expected to be. Identification of at least one individual who will 

be responsible for project coordination and/or direction.

o A discussion of who is expected to lead and/or facilitate the reviews and how the 

ground rules for the reviews will be determined.

o A discussion of how materials will be gathered for the review, how data will be 

shared across agencies for the review, and how any confidentiality issues will be 

handled.

• A plan for reporting on findings and recommended action items from the reviews to the 

agencies and organizations involved and a discussion of how the team will track the 

outcomes from the recommendations.

• A plan for producing a report for NIJ that includes a detailed overview of the processes and 

structures put in place to conduct the reviews, a discussion of the sustainability of this 

process during the project and any plans to continue the process after the project is 

complete, and a discussion of the impact of the recommendations stemming from the 

review. Jurisdictions will not be required to report on specific details of the cases reviewed.
9 NIJ-2016-9235

• Applicants are strongly encouraged to develop and include a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) among the agencies and partners involved to delineate the roles and 

responsibilities of each partner. The MOU should be signed by all relevant partners prior to 

the submission of an application.

Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly and/or Practitioner-Oriented 

Products

The goals of the Research on “Sentinel Events” and Criminal Justice System Errors solicitation 

are to engage in further research in a relatively new area of research in the criminal justice field,

and improve the knowledge and understanding of criminal justice-related issues through 

science. NIJ strives to provide objective and independent knowledge and validated tools and 

processes to reduce violence on both a State and local level, and promote healing and justice 

for victims of all types of crimes. The objective of this solicitation is to fund research projects 

examining the utility of sentinel event reviews in criminal justice settings.

In addition to required data sets (if applicable), interim and final progress and financial reports,5

NIJ expects one or more scholarly and/or practitioner-oriented products to result from each 

award under this solicitation. Scholarly products include 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.

Practitioner-oriented publications include, but are not limited to articles in trade journals, webbased information or training products, or lessons learned guidelines or tools.

B. Federal Award Information

NIJ estimates that a total of $1,000,000 may become available for multiple awards under this 

solicitation. Prospective applicants may propose projects with budgets as low as $10,000. From 

the total amount, NIJ anticipates that it will make multiple awards for up to 36-month project 

periods. 

To allow time for, among other things, any necessary post-award review, modification, and 

clearance by OJP of the proposed budget, applicants should propose an award start date of 

January 1, 2017.

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 and/or practitioner-oriented products, timelines/milestones, and 

budget detail worksheet and budget narrative—to clearly set out each phase. (This is 

particularly the case if the applicant proposes a project that will exceed—in cost or length of 

project period—the amount or length anticipated for an individual award (or awards) under this 

solicitation.) Given limitations on the availability to NIJ of funds for research, development, and 

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

proposals that would not receive full funding would be productive. (If NIJ elects to fund only 

certain phases of a proposed project in FY 2016, the expected scholarly and/or practitioneroriented products from the partial-funding award may, in some cases, vary from those described 

above.)

 5 See “Federal Award Administration Information” (“General Information About Post-Federal Award Reporting 

Requirements”) section of this solicitation, below, for additional information.
10 NIJ-2016-9235

NIJ may, in certain cases, provide supplemental funding in future years to awards under its 

research, development, and evaluation solicitations. Important considerations in decisions 

regarding supplemental funding include, among other factors, the availability of funding, 

strategic priorities, NIJ’s assessment of the quality of the management of the award (for 

example, timeliness and quality of progress reports), and NIJ’s assessment of 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 Award6

NIJ expects that it will make any award from this solicitation in the form of a grant or cooperative 

agreement. A cooperative agreement is a particular type of grant used if NIJ expects to have 

ongoing substantial involvement in award activities. Substantial involvement includes direct 

oversight and involvement with the grantee organization in implementation of the grant, but 

does not involve day-to-day project management. See Administrative, National Policy, and other 

Legal Requirements, under Section F. Federal Award Administration Information, for details 

regarding the federal involvement anticipated under an award from this solicitation.

As discussed later in the solicitation, important rules (including limitations) apply to any 

conference/meeting/training costs under cooperative agreements.

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

Department of Justice regulations on confidentiality and human subjects’ protection. See 

“Evidence, Research, and Evaluation Guidance and Requirements” under “Solicitation 

Requirements” in OJP's Funding Resource Center.

Financial Management and System of Internal Controls

Award recipients and subrecipients (including any recipient or subrecipient funded in response 

to this solicitation that is a pass-through entity7

) must, as described in the Part 200 Uniform 

Requirements 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 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.

 6 See generally 31 U.S.C. §§ 6301-6305 (defines and describes various forms of federal assistance relationships, 

including grants and cooperative agreements [a type of grant]). 7 For purposes of this solicitation (or program announcement), “pass-through entity” includes any entity eligible to 

receive funding as a recipient or subrecipient under this solicitation (or program announcement) that, if funded, may 

make a subaward(s) to a subrecipient(s) to carry out part of the funded program.
11 NIJ-2016-9235

(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.

In order to better understand administrative requirements and cost principles, applicants are 

encouraged to enroll, at no charge, in the Department of Justice Grants Financial Management 

Online Training available here.

Budget Information

What will not be funded:

• Proposals 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.)

• Proposals that are not responsive to this specific solicitation.

Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement

See “Cofunding” paragraph under item 4 (“Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative”) 

under What an Application Should Include in Section D. Application and Submission 

Information.

Pre-Agreement Cost (also known as Pre-award Cost) Approvals

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

performance of the grant 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. If approved, pre-agreement costs could be paid 

from grant funds consistent with a grantee’s approved budget, and under applicable cost 

standards. However, all such costs prior to award and prior to approval of the costs are incurred 

at the sole risk of an applicant. Generally, no applicant should incur project costs before

submitting an application requesting federal funding for those costs. Should there be 

extenuating circumstances that appear to be appropriate for OJP’s consideration as preagreement costs, the applicant should contact the point of contact listed on the title page of this 

announcement for details on the requirements for submitting a written request for approval. See 

the section on Costs Requiring Prior Approval in the Financial Guide, for more information.
12 NIJ-2016-9235

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver

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

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

employee of the award recipient at a rate that exceeds 110% 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 2016 salary 

table for SES employees is available at the Office of Personnel Management website. Note: A 

recipient may compensate an employee at a greater rate, provided the amount in excess of this 

compensation limitation is paid with non-federal funds. (Any such additional compensation will 

not be considered matching funds where match requirements apply.) For employees who 

charge only a portion of their time to an award, the allowable amount to be charged 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, the limitation on compensation rates allowable under an award. An applicant 

requesting a waiver should include a detailed justification in the budget narrative of the 

application. Unless the applicant submits a waiver request and justification with the application, 

the applicant should anticipate that OJP will request the applicant to adjust and resubmit the 

budget.

The justification should include the particular qualifications and expertise of the individual, the 

uniqueness of the service the individual will provide, the individual’s specific knowledge of the 

program or project being undertaken with award funds, and a statement explaining that the 

individual’s salary is commensurate with the regular and customary rate for an individual with 

his/her qualifications and expertise, and for the work to be done.

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

OJP strongly encourages applicants that propose to use award funds for any conference-, 

meeting-, or training-related activity to review carefully—before submitting an application—the 

OJP policy and guidance on “conference” approval, planning, and reporting 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, including 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.

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

2 C.F.R. Part 200.
13 NIJ-2016-9235

For additional information, see the "Civil Rights Compliance" section under “Solicitation 

Requirements” in OJP's Funding Resource Center.

C. Eligibility Information

For eligibility information, see title page.

For additional information on cost sharing or matching requirements, see Section B. Federal 

Award Information.

Limit on Number of Application Submissions

If an applicant submits multiple versions of the same application, NIJ will review only the most 

recent system-validated version submitted. For more information on system-validated versions, 

see How to Apply.

D. Application and Submission Information

What an Application Should Include

Applicants should anticipate that if they fail to submit an application that contains all of the 

specified elements, it may affect negatively the review of their application; and, should a 

decision be made to make an award, it may result in the inclusion of special conditions that 

preclude the recipient from accessing or using award funds pending satisfaction of the 

conditions.

Moreover, applicants should anticipate that applications determined to be nonresponsive to the 

scope of the solicitation, or that do not include the application elements that NIJ has designated 

to be critical, will neither proceed to peer review nor receive further consideration. Under this 

solicitation, NIJ has designated the following application elements as critical: Program Narrative, 

Budget Detail Worksheet, Budget Narrative, and résumés/curriculum vitae of key personnel. For 

purposes of this solicitation, “key personnel” means the project coordinator/director and the

research partner. Please review the “Note on File Names and File Types” under How to Apply to 

be sure applications are submitted in permitted formats.

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

“Program Narrative,” “Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative,” “Timelines,” 

“Memoranda of Understanding,” “Résumés”) for all attachments. Also, OJP recommends that 

applicants include résumés in a single file.

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).
14 NIJ-2016-9235

Intergovernmental Review: This funding opportunity (program) is not subject to Executive 

Order 12372. (In completing the SF-424, applicants are to make the appropriate selection in 

response to question 19 to indicate 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.

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

project in 250-400 words. Project abstracts 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 a standard 12-point font (Times New Roman) 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.

Permission to Share Project Abstract with the Public: It is unlikely that NIJ will be able to 

fund all applications submitted under this solicitation, but it may have the opportunity to 

share information with the public regarding unfunded applications, for example, through a 

listing on a web page available to the public. The intent of this public posting would be to 

allow other possible funders to become aware of such proposals.

In the project abstract template, applicants are asked to indicate whether they give OJP 

permission to share their project abstract (including contact information) with the public if NIJ 

does not fund the proposed project. Granting (or failing to grant) this permission will not 

affect OJP’s funding decisions, and, if the application is not funded, granting permission will 

not guarantee that project abstract information will be shared, nor will it guarantee funding 

from any other source.

Note: OJP may choose not to list a project that otherwise would have been included in a 

listing of unfunded applications, should the abstract fail to meet the format and content 

requirements noted above and outlined in the project abstract template.

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.
15 NIJ-2016-9235

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 

organization and the principal investigator.

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

narrative limit).

If an applicant is resubmitting a proposal 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 NIJassigned application number of the previous proposal, and (2) a brief summary of 

revisions to the proposal, 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.

• Project Design and Implementation.

• Potential Impact.

• Capabilities/Competencies.

 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 and/or practitioneroriented products, timelines/milestones, and budget detail worksheet and budget narrative – to set out each phase

clearly. (In appropriate cases, the expected scholarly and/or practitioner-oriented product(s) from a particular phase

may vary from those described above.) See generally, “Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly 

and/or Practitioner-Oriented Products” under “Program-Specific Information,” above.
16 NIJ-2016-9235

Within these sections, the narrative should address:

• Purpose, goals, and objectives.

• Review of relevant literature.

• Detailed description of project design and methods, such as research 

questions and measurement or analysis plan, types of sentinel events to 

be reviewed, and implementation plan for conducting reviews.

• Planned Scholarly and/or Practitioner-Oriented Products (See Goals, 

Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly and/or PractitionerOriented Products under Program-Specific Information, above, for a 

discussion of expected products

• Implications for criminal justice policy and practice in the United States.

• Management plan and organization.

• Plan for Dissemination to Broader Audiences. (if applicable to the 

proposed project). Applicants should identify plans (if any) to produce or 

to make available to broader interested audiences – such as 

criminal/juvenile justice practitioners or policymakers – summary 

information from any planned scholarly products of the proposed project 

(such as summaries of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals), in a 

form designed to be readily accessible and useful to those audiences. 

(Such dissemination might include, for example, trade press articles and 

webinars.)

e. Performance Measures

To demonstrate program progress and success, as well as, to assist the 

Department 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, applicants that receive funding 

under this solicitation must provide data that measure the results of their work 

done under this solicitation. OJP will require any award recipient, post award, to 

provide the data requested in the “Data Grantee Provides” column so that OJP 

can calculate values for the “Performance Measures” column. (Submission of 

performance measures data is not required for the application.) Performance 

measures for this solicitation are as follows:
17 NIJ-2016-9235

Objective Performance Measure(s) Data Grantee Provides

Conduct research in 

social and behavioral 

sciences 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 proposal or any subsequent agencyapproved modifications to the scope.

2.Quality of the research as demonstrated by 

the scholarly and/or practitioner-oriented 

products that result in whole or in part from 

work funded under the NIJ award (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 progress reports of 

the work performed 

under the NIJ award, 

and, if applicable, an 

annual audit report.

2.List of citation(s) to all 

scholarly and/or 

practitioner-oriented 

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.

f. 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 résumés of the project coordinator/director and the 

research partner. In addition, curriculum vitae, resumes, or biographical 

sketches of all other individuals who will be significantly involved in 

substantive aspects of the proposal (including, for example, key points of 

contact for agencies and partners involved).

• List (to the extent known) of all proposed project staff members, including 

those affiliated with the applicant organization or any proposed subrecipient 

organization(s), any proposed consultant(s) and contractors (whether 

individuals or organizations), and any proposed members of an advisory 

board for the project (if applicable). The list should include, for each individual 

and organization: name, title (if applicable), employer or other organizational

affiliation, and roles and responsibilities proposed for the project. Applicants 

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

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

this listing.
18 NIJ-2016-9235

• 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 applicant organization 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 and/or Practitioner-Oriented Products” under 

“Program-Specific Information,” above, for definition of “scholarly products.”)

• Letters of cooperation/support or administrative agreements from 

organizations collaborating in the project, such as law enforcement and 

correctional agencies (if applicable).

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

proposal has been submitted (if applicable).

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

special award conditions, including a partial withholding of award funds) that 

data sets resulting in whole or in part from projects funded under this 

solicitation be submitted for archiving with the National Archive of Criminal 

Justice Data (NACJD) (See www.nij.gov/funding/data-resourcesprogram/applying/Pages/data-archiving-strategies.aspx).

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

Archiving Plan” – to comply with potential 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 procedures, 

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

protocols. Applicants will not be required to divulge law enforcement sensitive 

information about the sentinel events under review.

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

associated with meeting archiving requirements.
19 NIJ-2016-9235

Note that required data sets are to be submitted 90 days before the end of 

the project period.

4. Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative

a. Budget Detail Worksheet

A sample Budget Detail Worksheet can be found 

at www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/BudgetDetailWorksheet.pdf. Applicants that 

submit their budget in a different format should include the budget categories listed in 

the sample budget worksheet. (Work associated with satisfying data archiving 

requirements should be reflected.) NIJ expects applicants to provide a thorough 

narrative to each section of the Budget Detail Worksheet. The Budget Detail Worksheet 

should be broken down by year.

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

see the Financial Guide at http://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).

Applicants should demonstrate in their budget narratives how they will maximize cost 

effectiveness of grant 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 

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

used to reduce costs, without compromising quality.

The narrative should be sound mathematically, and correspond 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 they are relevant 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 be broken down 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.
20 NIJ-2016-9235

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. Non-Competitive Procurement Contracts In Excess of Simplified Acquisition 

Threshold

If an applicant proposes to make one or more non-competitive procurements of products 

or services, where the non-competitive procurement will exceed the simplified 

acquisition threshold (also known as the small purchase threshold), which is currently 

set at $150,000, the application should address the considerations outlined in 

the Financial Guide.

e. Pre-Agreement Cost Approvals

For information on pre-agreement costs approvals, see Section B. Federal Award 

Information.

5. Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable)

Indirect costs are allowed only under the following circumstances:

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

(b) The applicant 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).

Attach a copy of the federally approved indirect cost rate agreement to the application. 

Applicants that do not have an approved rate may request one through their cognizant 

federal agency, which will review all documentation and approve a rate for the applicant 

organization, or, if the applicant’s accounting system permits, costs may be allocated in the 

direct cost categories. For the definition of Cognizant Federal Agency, see the “Glossary of 

Terms” in the Financial Guide. For assistance with identifying your cognizant agency, please 

contact the Customer Service Center at 1-800-458-0786 or at ask.ocfo@usdoj.gov. If DOJ is 

the cognizant federal agency, applicants may obtain information needed to submit an 

indirect cost rate proposal at www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/IndirectCosts.pdf.

In order to use the “de minimis” indirect rate, attach written documentation to the application 

that advises OJP of both the applicant’s eligibility (to use the “de minimis” rate) and its 

election. If the applicant elects the “de minimis” method, costs must be consistently charged 

as either indirect or direct costs, but may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as 

both. In addition, if this method is chosen then it must be used consistently for all federal 

awards until such time as you choose to negotiate a federally approved indirect cost rate.10

6. Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable)

Tribes, tribal organizations, or third parties proposing to provide direct services or assistance 

to residents on tribal lands should include in their applications a resolution, a letter, affidavit, 

or other documentation, as appropriate, that certifies that the applicant has the legal 

 10 See 2 C.F.R. § 200.414(f).
21 NIJ-2016-9235

authority from the tribe(s) to implement the proposed project on tribal lands. In those 

instances when an organization or consortium of tribes applies for a grant 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 grant. 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. Applicant Disclosure of High-Risk Status

Applicants are to disclose whether they are currently designated high-risk by another federal 

grant making agency. This includes any status requiring additional oversight by the federal 

agency due to past programmatic or financial concerns. If an applicant is designated highrisk by another federal grant making agency, you must email the following information to 

OJPComplianceReporting@usdoj.gov at the time of application submission:

• The federal agency that currently designated the applicant as high-risk.

• Date the applicant was designated high risk.

• The high-risk point of contact name, phone number, and email address, from that 

federal agency.

• Reasons for the high-risk status.

OJP seeks this information to ensure appropriate federal oversight of any grant award.

Disclosing this high risk information does not disqualify any organization from receiving an 

OJP award. However, additional grant oversight may be included, if necessary, in award 

documentation.

8. Additional Attachments

a. Applicant disclosure of pending applications11

Applicants are to disclose whether they have pending applications for federally funded 

grants or subgrants (including cooperative agreements) that include requests for funding 

to support the same project being proposed under this solicitation and will cover the 

identical cost items outlined in the budget narrative and worksheet in the application 

under this solicitation. The disclosure should include both direct applications for federal 

funding (e.g., applications to federal agencies) and indirect applications for such funding 

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

OJP seeks this information to help avoid any 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.

 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.
22 NIJ-2016-9235

SAMPLE

Applicants that have pending applications as described above are 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 funding agency.

Applicants should include the table as a separate attachment to their application. The file 

should be named “Disclosure of Pending Applications.”

Applicants that do not have pending applications as described above are to include a 

statement to this effect in the separate attachment page (e.g., “[Applicant Name on SF424] does not have pending applications submitted within the last 12 months for 

federally funded grants or subgrants (including cooperative agreements) that include 

requests for funding to support the same project being proposed under this solicitation 

and will cover the identical cost items outlined in the budget narrative and worksheet in 

the application under this solicitation.”)

b. Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity

If a proposal involves research and/or evaluation, regardless of the proposal’s other 

merits, in order to receive funds, the applicant must demonstrate research/evaluation 

independence, including appropriate safeguards to ensure research/evaluation 

objectivity and integrity, both in this proposal and as it may relate to the applicant’s other 

current or prior related projects. This documentation may be included as an attachment 

to the application which addresses BOTH i. and ii. below.

i. For purposes of this solicitation, applicants must document research and evaluation 

independence and integrity by including, at a minimum, one of the following two 

items:

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

any research integrity issues (including all principal investigators and subrecipients) and it has concluded that the design, conduct, or reporting of 

Federal or 

State 

Funding 

Agency 

Solicitation 

Name/Project 

Name

Name/Phone/E-mail for Point of Contact at 

Funding Agency

DOJ/COPS COPS Hiring 

Program

Jane Doe, 202/000-0000; jane.doe@usdoj.gov

HHS/ 

Substance 

Abuse & 

Mental Health 

Services 

Administration

Drug Free 

Communities 

Mentoring Program/ 

North County Youth 

Mentoring Program

John Doe, 202/000-0000; john.doe@hhs.gov
23 NIJ-2016-9235

research and evaluation funded by NIJ grants, cooperative agreements, or 

contracts will not be biased by any personal or financial conflict of interest on 

the part of part of its staff, consultants, and/or sub-recipients responsible for 

the research and evaluation or on the part of the applicant organization;

OR

b. A specific listing of actual or perceived conflicts of interest that the applicant 

has identified in relation to this proposal. These conflicts could be either 

personal (related to specific staff, consultants, and/or sub-recipients) or 

organizational (related to the applicant or any subgrantee organization). 

Examples of potential investigator (or other personal) conflict situations may 

include, but are not limited to, 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 could not be 

given a grant 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), as the 

organization in such an instance would 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 applicants must address the issue of 

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 potential personal or 

organizational conflicts of interest exist, then the applicant should provide a 

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

Applicants MUST also include an explanation of the specific processes and 

procedures that the applicant will put in place to identify and eliminate (or, at 

the very least, mitigate) potential personal or financial conflicts of interest on 

the part of its staff, consultants, and/or sub-recipients for this particular 

project, should that be necessary during the grant period. Documentation that 

may be helpful in this regard could include organizational codes of 

ethics/conduct or policies regarding organizational, personal, and financial 

conflicts of interest.

OR

b. If the applicant has identified specific personal or organizational conflicts of

interest in its proposal during this review, the applicant must propose a 

specific and robust mitigation plan to address conflicts noted above. At a 

minimum, the plan must include specific processes and procedures that the 

applicant will put in place to eliminate (or, at the very least, mitigate) potential 
24 NIJ-2016-9235

personal or financial conflicts of interest on the part of its staff, consultants, 

and/or sub-recipients for this particular project, should that be necessary 

during the grant period. Documentation that may be helpful in this regard 

could include organizational codes of ethics/conduct or policies regarding 

organizational, personal, and financial conflicts of interest. There is no 

guarantee that the plan, if any, will be accepted as proposed.

Considerations in assessing research and evaluation independence and integrity will 

include, but are not be limited to, the adequacy of the applicant’s efforts to identify 

factors that could affect the objectivity or integrity of the proposed staff and/or the 

organization 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.

9. Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire

In accordance with the Part 200 Uniform Requirements as set out at 2 C.F.R. 200.205, 

federal agencies must have in place a framework for evaluating the risks posed by 

applicants before they receive a federal award. To facilitate part of this risk evaluation, all

applicants (other than an individual) are to download, complete, and submit this form.

10. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

All applicants must complete this information. Applicants that expend any funds for lobbying 

activities are to provide the detailed information requested on the form Disclosure of 

Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL). Applicants that do not expend any funds for lobbying activities 

are to enter “N/A” in the text boxes for item 10 (“a. Name and Address of Lobbying 

Registrant” and “b. Individuals Performing Services”).

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 www.Grants.gov. Applicants that experience technical 

difficulties during this process should call the Grants.gov Customer Support Hotline at 800-518-

4726 or 606–545–5035, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except federal holidays. 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 and a user password. OJP 

encourages applicants to register several weeks before the application submission deadline. 

In addition, OJP urges applicants to submit applications 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.

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

regarding this solicitation. 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.
25 NIJ-2016-9235

Note on Attachments. Grants.gov has two categories of files for attachments: mandatory and 

optional. OJP receives all files attached in both categories. Please insure all required 

documents are attached in the mandatory category.

Note on File Names and File Types: Grants.gov only permits the use of certain specific

characters in names of attachment files. Valid file names may include only the characters shown 

in the table below. Grants.gov is designed to reject any application that includes an 

attachment(s) with a file name that contains any characters not shown in the table below. 

Grants.gov is designed to forward successfully submitted applications to OJP’s Grants 

Management System (GMS).

Characters Special Characters

Upper case (A – Z) Parenthesis ( ) Curly braces { } Square brackets [ ]

Lower case (a – z) Ampersand (&) Tilde (~) Exclamation point (!)

Underscore (__) Comma ( , ) Semicolon ( ; ) Apostrophe ( ‘ )

Hyphen ( - ) At sign (@) Number sign (#) Dollar sign ($)

Space Percent sign (%) Plus sign (+) Equal sign (=)

Period (.) 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: 

OJP may not make a federal award to an applicant organization until the applicant organization 

has complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements. Individual applicants must 

comply with all Grants.gov requirements. If an applicant has not fully complied with the 

requirements by the time the federal awarding agency is ready to make a federal award, the 

federal awarding agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a federal 

award and use that determination as a basis for making a federal award to another applicant.

Individual applicants should search Grants.gov for a funding opportunity for which individuals 

are eligible to apply. Use the Funding Opportunity Number (FON) to register. Complete the 

registration form at https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/IndCPRegister to create a username and 

password. Individual applicants should complete all steps except 1, 2 and 4.

1. Acquire a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. In general, the Office of 

Management and Budget requires that all applicants (other than individuals) for federal 

funds include a DUNS number in their applications for a new award or a supplement to an 

existing award. A DUNS number is a unique nine-digit sequence recognized as the 

universal standard for identifying and differentiating entities receiving federal funds. The 

identifier is used for tracking purposes and to validate address and point of contact 

information for federal assistance applicants, recipients, and subrecipients. The DUNS 

number will be used throughout the grant life cycle. 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 www.dnb.com. A DUNS number is usually received within 1-2 business days.
26 NIJ-2016-9235

2. Acquire registration with the System for Award Management (SAM). SAM is the 

repository for standard information about federal financial assistance applicants, recipients, 

and subrecipients. OJP requires all applicants (other than individuals) for federal financial 

assistance to maintain current registrations in the SAM database. Applicants must be 

registered in SAM to successfully register in Grants.gov. Applicants must update or renew 

their SAM registration annually to maintain an active status. SAM registration and renewal 

can take as long as 10 business days to complete.

Applications 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 up to 48 hours. OJP 

recommends that the applicant register or renew registration with SAM as early as possible.

Information about SAM registration procedures can be accessed at www.sam.gov.

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. The applicant organization’s DUNS number must be used to complete this 

step. For more information about the registration process, go 

to www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html. Individuals registering with Grants.gov should 

go to http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/individual-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 number for this solicitation is 16.560 titled “National Institute of 

Justice Research, Evaluation, and Development Project Grants,” and the funding 

opportunity number is NIJ-2016-9235.

6. Submit a valid application consistent with this solicitation by following the directions 

in Grants.gov. 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 and the second will state whether the application has been successfully

validated, or 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 well ahead of the deadline provides time to correct the 

problem(s) that caused the rejection. Important: OJP urges applicants to submit 

applications 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. All applications are due 

to be submitted and in receipt of a successful validation message in Grants.gov by 11:59

p.m. eastern time on May 17, 2016.

Click here for further details on DUNS, SAM, and Grants.gov registration steps and 

timeframes.
27 NIJ-2016-9235

Note: Duplicate Applications

If an applicant submits multiple versions of the same application, NIJ will review only the most 

recent system-validated version submitted. See Note on File Names and File Types under How 

To Apply.

Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues

Applicants that experience unforeseen Grants.gov technical issues beyond their control that 

prevent them from submitting their application by the deadline must contact the Grants.gov 

Customer Support Hotline or the SAM Help Desk (Federal Service Desk) 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 page 2 within 24 hours after the application deadline and 

request approval to submit their application. The e-mail must describe the technical difficulties, 

and 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: 

NIJ does not automatically approve requests. After the program office reviews the 

submission, and contacts the Grants.gov or SAM Help Desks to validate 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 applicant failed to follow all required procedures, 

which resulted in an untimely application submission, OJP will deny the applicant’s request to 

submit their application.

The following conditions are generally 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.

• Failure to follow each instruction in the OJP solicitation.

• Technical issues with the applicant’s computer or information technology environment, 

including firewalls, browser incompatibility, etc.

Notifications regarding known technical problems with Grants.gov, if any, are posted at 

the top of the OJP funding web page at http://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm.

E. Application Review Information

Selection Criteria

Applications that meet basic minimum requirements will be evaluated by peer reviewers using 

the following review criteria.

Statement of the Problem (Understanding of the problem and its importance) – 10%

1. Demonstrated understanding of the problem.

2. Demonstrated awareness of the state of current research.
28 NIJ-2016-9235

Project Design and Implementation (Quality and technical merit) – 40%

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.

Potential Impact – 20%

Potential for a significant scientific or technical advance(s) that will improve criminal/juvenile

justice in the United States, such as:

1. Potential for significantly improved understanding of the stated criminal/juvenile justice 

problem.

2. Potential for innovative solution to address (all or a significant part of) the stated 

criminal/juvenile justice problem.

3. Potential for improving the policy and practice of the criminal justice system agencies 

involved in the project.

Capabilities/Competencies (Capabilities, demonstrated productivity, and experience of the 

applicant organization and proposed project staff) – 30%

1. Qualifications and experience of proposed project staff (that is, the project 

coordinator/director and research partner, and all other individuals (and organizations)

identified in the application who will be significantly involved in substantive aspects of the 

proposal).

2. Demonstrated ability of the applicant organization to manage the effort.

3. Relationship between the capabilities/competencies of the proposed project staff 

(including the applicant organization) and the scope of the proposed project.

4. Demonstrated commitment by all agencies to participate fully in the project.

Budget

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.
29 NIJ-2016-9235

3. Use of existing resources to conserve costs.

4. Proposed budget alignment with proposed project activities.

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 awarding grants. 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 applicants have met basic minimum 

requirements, OJP screens applications for compliance with specified program requirements to 

help determine which applications should proceed to further consideration for award. Although 

program requirements may vary, the following are common requirements applicable to all 

solicitations for funding under OJP grant programs:

• Applications must be submitted by an eligible type of applicant.

• Applications must request funding within programmatic funding constraints (if 

applicable).

• Applications must be responsive to the scope of the solicitation.

• Applications must include all items designated as “critical elements.”

• Applicants will be checked against the System for Award Management.

For a list of critical elements, see “What an Application Should Include” under Section D. 

Application and Submission Information.

NIJ may use internal peer reviewers, external peer reviewers, or a combination, to assess 

applications meeting basic minimum requirements on technical merit using the solicitation’s 

selection criteria. An external peer reviewer is an expert in the subject matter of a given 

solicitation who is not a current DOJ employee. An internal reviewer is a current DOJ employee 

who is well-versed or has expertise in the subject matter of this solicitation. A peer review panel 

will evaluate, score, and rate applications that meet basic minimum requirements.

OJP reviews applications for potential discretionary awards to evaluate the risks posed by 

applicants before they receive an award. This review may include but is not limited to the 

following:
30 NIJ-2016-9235

1. Financial stability and fiscal integrity.

2. Quality of management systems and ability to meet the management standards 

prescribed in the Financial Guide.

3. History of performance.

4. Reports and findings from audits.

5. The applicant's ability to effectively implement statutory, regulatory, or other 

requirements imposed on award recipients.

6. Proposed costs to determine if the Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative 

accurately explain project costs, and whether those costs are reasonable, necessary, 

and allowable under applicable federal cost principles and agency regulations.

All final award decisions will be made by the Director of the National Institute of Justice. Peer 

reviewers’ ratings and any resulting recommendations are advisory only, although their views 

are considered carefully. In addition to peer review ratings, considerations for award 

recommendations and decisions may include, but are not limited to, planned scholarly products, 

proposed budgets, past performance (including scholarly products) under prior NIJ and OJP 

awards, research independence and integrity, strategic priorities, and available funding when 

making awards.

F. Federal Award Administration Information

Federal Award Notices

OJP sends award notification 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 how to 

accept the award in GMS. GMS automatically issues the notifications at 9:00 p.m. eastern time 

on the award date (by September 30, 2016). Recipients will be required to login; accept any 

outstanding assurances and certifications on the award; designate a financial point of contact; 

and review, sign, and accept the award. The award acceptance process involves physical 

signature of the award document by the authorized representative and the scanning of the fullyexecuted award document to OJP.

Administrative, National Policy, and other Legal Requirements

If selected for funding, in addition to implementing the funded project consistent with the 

agency-approved project proposal and budget, the recipient must comply with award terms and 

conditions, and other legal requirements, that are included in the award, incorporated into the 

award by reference, or are otherwise applicable to the award. OJP strongly encourages 

prospective applicants to review the information pertaining to these requirements prior to 

submitting an application. To assist applicants and recipients in accessing and reviewing this 

information, OJP has placed it on its Solicitation Requirements page of the OJP Funding 

Resource Center.
31 NIJ-2016-9235

Please note in particular the following two forms, which applicants must submit in GMS prior to 

the receipt of any award funds, as each details legal requirements with which applicants must 

provide specific assurances and certifications of compliance. Applicants may view these forms

in the OJP Funding Resource Center and are strongly encouraged to review and consider them 

carefully prior to making an application for OJP grant funds.

• Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility 

Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements.

• Standard Assurances.

Upon grant approval, OJP electronically transmits (via GMS) the award document to the 

prospective award recipient. In addition to other award information, the award document 

contains award terms and conditions that specify national policy requirements12 with which 

recipients of federal funding must comply; uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, 

and audit requirements; and program-specific terms and conditions required based on 

applicable program (statutory) authority or requirements set forth in OJP solicitations and 

program announcements. For example, certain efforts may call for special requirements, terms, 

or conditions relating to intellectual property, data/information-sharing or -access, or information 

security; or audit requirements, expenditures and milestones, or publications and/or press 

releases.

OJP also may place additional terms and conditions on an award based on its risk assessment 

of the applicant, or for other reasons it determines necessary to fulfill the goals and objectives of 

the program.

Prospective applicants may access and review the text of mandatory conditions OJP includes in 

all OJP awards, as well as the text of certain other conditions, such as administrative conditions, 

via the Mandatory Award Terms and Conditions page of the OJP Funding Resource Center.

As stated above, NIJ may elect to make awards under this program as either a grant or a 

cooperative agreement. Cooperative agreement awards include standard “federal involvement” 

conditions that describe the general allocation of responsibility for execution of the funded 

program. Generally stated, under cooperative agreement awards, responsibility for the day-today conduct of the funded project rests with the recipient in implementing the funded and 

approved proposal and budget, and the award terms and conditions. Responsibility for oversight 

and redirection of the project, if necessary, rests with NIJ.

In addition to any “federal involvement” condition(s), OJP cooperative agreement awards 

include a special condition specifying certain reporting requirements required in connection with 

conferences, meetings, retreats, seminars, symposium, training activities, or similar events 

funded under the award, consistent with OJP policy and guidance on “conference” approval, 

planning, and reporting.

General Information About Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements

Recipients 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 

 12 See generally 2 C.F.R. 200.300 (provides a general description of national policy requirements typically applicable 

to recipients of federal awards, including the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA)).
32 NIJ-2016-9235

Uniform Requirements. Applicants should anticipate that NIJ will require recipients to use a 

version of the non-budgetary components of the Research Performance Progress Report 

(RPPR) template/format for progress reports, appropriately modified for NIJ research awards. 

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.

Special Reporting requirements may be required as appropriate.

As indicated earlier in this solicitation, NIJ expects scholarly and/or practitioner-oriented 

products to result from any award under this solicitation. Please review the Goals, Objectives, 

Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly and/or Practitioner-Oriented Products segment of the 

“Program-Specific Information” section of this solicitation, as well as the “Performance 

Measures” section.

In addition to the expectation of scholarly and/or practitioner-oriented products, successful 

applicants under this solicitation will be required to submit the following deliverables regarding 

the work funded by the NIJ award.

Required Data Sets and Associated Files and Documentation

As discussed earlier, NIJ requires recipients of an award under this solicitation to submit to 

NACJD all data sets that result in whole or in part from the work funded by NIJ, along with 

associated files and any 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. All data sets and necessary documentation are to be submitted 90 days 

prior to the end of the project period. For more information, see the “Program Narrative” section 

of What an Application Should Include.

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s)

For Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s), see the title page.

For contact information for Grants.gov, see the title page.

H. Other Information

Provide Feedback to OJP

To assist OJP in improving its application and award processes, we encourage applicants to 

provide feedback on this solicitation, the application submission process, and/or the application 

review/peer review process. Provide feedback to OJPSolicitationFeedback@usdoj.gov.

IMPORTANT: This e-mail is for feedback and suggestions only. Replies are not sent from this 

mailbox. If you have specific questions on any program or technical aspect of the solicitation, 

you must directly contact the appropriate number or e-mail listed on the front of this solicitation 

document. These contacts are provided to help ensure that you can directly reach an individual 

who can address your specific questions in a timely manner.

If you are interested in being a reviewer for other OJP grant applications, please e-mail your 

résumé to ojppeerreview@lmsolas.com. The OJP Solicitation Feedback email account will not 
33 NIJ-2016-9235

forward your résumé. Note: Neither you nor anyone else from your organization can be a peer 

reviewer in a competition in which you or your organization have submitted an application.
34 NIJ-2016-9235

Application Checklist

Research on “Sentinel Events” and Criminal Justice System Errors

This application checklist has been created to assist in developing an application.

What an Applicant Should Do:

Prior to Registering in Grants.gov:

_____ Acquire a DUNS Number (see page 25)

_____ Acquire or renew registration with SAM (see page 26)

To Register with Grants.gov:

_____ Acquire AOR and Grants.gov username/password (see page 26)

_____ Acquire AOR confirmation from the E-Biz POC (see page 26)

To Find Funding Opportunity:

_____ Search for the funding opportunity on Grants.gov (see page 26)

_____ Download Funding Opportunity and Application Package (see page 26)

_____ Sign up for Grants.gov email notifications (optional) (see page 24)

_____ 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 12)

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 26)

If no Grants.gov receipt, and validation or error notifications are received:

_____ Please refer to the section: Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues

(see page 27)

General Requirements:

_____ Review the Solicitation Requirements in the OJP Funding Resource Center.

What an Application Should Include:

_____ Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) (see page 13)

_____ Project Abstract (if applicable) (see page 14)

_____ Program Narrative (see page 14)

_____ Budget Detail Worksheet (see page 19)

_____ Budget Narrative (see page 19)

_____ Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable) (see page 20)

_____ Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable) (see page 20)

_____ Applicant Disclosure of High-Risk Status (see page 21)

_____ Additional Attachments

_____ Applicant Disclosure of Pending Applications (see page 21)

_____ Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity (see page 22)

_____ Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire (see page 24)

_____ Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) (see page 24)

_____ Employee Compensation Waiver request and justification (if applicable)

(see page 12)