U.S. Department of Justice OMB No. 1121-0329

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

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

Justice (NIJ) is pleased to announce that it is seeking applications for funding to complete an 

evaluability assessment of up to five Circles of Support and Ability (COSA) sites. This program 

furthers the Department’s mission by sponsoring research to provide objective, independent, 

evidence-based knowledge and tools to meet the challenges of crime and justice, particularly at 

the State and local levels. 

Evaluability Assessments of the Circles of Support 

and Accountability (COSA) Model 

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 (including federally 

recognized Indian tribal governments as determined by the Secretary of the Interior), nonprofit 

and for-profit organizations (including tribal nonprofit or for-profit 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 may elect to make awards for applications submitted under this solicitation in future years, 

dependent on the merit of the applications and on the availability of appropriations in future 

years. 

Deadline 

Applicants must register with Grants.gov prior to submitting an application. (See “How to Apply,” 

page 10.) All applications are due by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on June 8, 2012. (See “Deadlines: 

Registration and Application,” page 3.) 

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 e-mail to support@grants.gov.

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

except federal holidays. 

For assistance with any other requirements of this solicitation, contact Dr. Marie Garcia, Social 

Science Analyst, by telephone at 202–514–7128 or by e-mail at Marie.Garcia@usdoj.gov. 

Grants.gov number assigned to announcement: NIJ-2012-3293 

Release Date: April 16, 2012 

SL001021 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

2 

Contents

Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 3 

Deadlines: Registration and Application ....................................................................................... 3 

Eligibility ........................................................................................................................................ 3 

Program-Specific Information ....................................................................................................... 3 

Performance Measures ................................................................................................................. 8 

Notice of Post-Award FFATA Reporting Requirement .................................................................. 9 

How to Apply ............................................................................................................................... 10 

What an Application Should Include ........................................................................................... 12 

Information to Complete the Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) ..................... 12 

Program Narrative ........................................................................................................... 12 

Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative ............................................................. 15 

Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable) .................................................................. 16 

Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable) .................................................................... 16 

Other Standard Forms .................................................................................................... 17 

Selection Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 17 

Review Process .......................................................................................................................... 19 

Additional Requirements ............................................................................................................. 19 

Provide Feedback to OJP on This Solicitation ............................................................................ 21 

Application Checklist ................................................................................................................... 22 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

3 

 

Evaluability Assessments of the Circles of 

Support and Accountability (COSA) Model 

(CFDA No. 16.560) 

Overview 

As part of a collaborative effort with the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART), NIJ seeks competitive proposals for a 

single award that will support an evaluability assessment of up to five sites that are 

implementing the Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) model. Results from the 

evaluability assessments may become a precursor to further research and program 

development work, lay possible groundwork for other targeted research, and assist with the 

coordination of extramural and intramural research and evaluation efforts sponsored by NIJ and 

partnering agencies (e.g., the SMART Office). 

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

(sections 201 and 202). 

Deadlines: Registration and Application 

Applicants must register with Grants.gov prior to submitting an application. OJP encourages 

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

apply for funding under this announcement is 11:59 p.m. eastern time on June 8, 2012. See the 

“How to Apply” section on page 10 for details. 

Eligibility 

Refer to the title page for eligibility under this program. 

Program-Specific Information 

Every day, offenders with a high risk to reoffend are released from prison and are not subject to 

formalized community supervision. These individuals, known by some as serve-outs, are free to 

leave the State (or jurisdiction) and are not subject to any restrictions on their residential and 

employment choices, interactions with community members, or travel. Without these 

restrictions, this population is difficult to identify and provide reentry services. 

The COSA Initiative emerged in Canada in the 1990s as a community-based, restorative justice 

movement that “focuses on the need to engage the community in the reintegration process.”1

 At 

its core, COSA enlists volunteers from the community to aid in the management of high-risk sex 

offenders. COSA typically targets male offenders who have a long history of offending, failure in 

treatment, antisocial values and attitudes, and are at a high risk for reoffending (for new sex or 

1

 Wilson, R. J., & M. Prinzo (2001). Circles of support: A restorative justice initiative. Journal of Psychology & Human 

Sexuality, 13(3-4), 59-77. 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

4 

 

other offenses), and who are likely held until a Warrant Expiry Date (WED).2

 Each Circle 

consists of a Core Member (former offender) and 4–6 community volunteers. A COSA volunteer 

meets with the Core Member daily and the circle meets once a week during the initial 60–90 

days post-release. The key to the program is “a relationship scheme based on friendship and 

accountability for behavior.”3

Evaluations of the COSA Initiative have been based primarily in Canada. COSA has been 

demonstrated to reduce recidivism for offenders in Canada; however, recent examinations of 

the model have used small samples and limited follow-up time periods. This initiative also has 

been piloted in the United Kingdom.4

 

At present, there is no research that indicates if and how COSA is being implemented in the 

United States. There is a need for descriptive and comprehensive information on the use of the 

COSA model in the United States and how it aids sex offenders who are released from prison 

without any community supervision. In addition, there is a need to provide descriptive 

information on those sites and/or jurisdictions currently providing services to sex offenders 

based on the COSA model. Results from these assessments may provide insight into the 

programmatic, service, and policy needs of sex offenders when released in the community. 

In cooperation with the SMART Office, NIJ is soliciting proposals to conduct an evaluability 

assessment of up to five sites implementing the COSA model in the United States. The 

evaluability assessment plan should include but not be limited to: (a) a rapid assessment of the 

activities underway at the COSA sites and the program activities that appear promising as tools 

to prevent re-offending and reduce re-incarceration; (b) critical information about the sites’ ability 

to participate in a subsequent evaluation if funding were made available, and the type of 

evaluation possible at each site and the estimated cost(s) of an evaluation; and (c) 

supplemental information to include, but not be limited to, the sites’ ability to follow and 

implement the COSA model, collect data including programmatic and recidivism information, the 

soundness and completeness of extant data sources, estimates of the proposed outcome 

measures that derive from ongoing activities, actual and estimated sample sizes of persons that 

could be observed, and evidence of on-going relationships between the COSA program, local 

community service providers, and local law enforcement agencies. When developing the 

evaluability assessment plan and timeline, applicants are encouraged to build time into their 

proposal that allows for the development of the evaluability assessment plan and for project 

documents to be reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), if applicable. 

The evaluability assessments include but are not limited to: 

1. Studying the overall COSA model goals, objectives, design, operation, and history. 

 

2 In Canada, offenders subject to WED are those who are considered to be at the highest risk for recidivism. They are 

held until the end of their sentences after which they are released without a formal process of community supervision. 

These offenders are equivalent to offenders in the US who are serve-outs or max’ed out. 3

 Wilson, R. J., Cortoni, F., & McWhinnie, A. J. (2009). Circles of Support & Accountability: A Canadian replication of 

outcome findings. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21(4), 412-430. 4

 Quaker Peace and Social Witness. (2005). Circles of Support and Accountability in the Thames Valley: The first 

three years April 2002 to March 2005. London: Quaker Communications. 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

5 

2. Observing the model in action to assess operations. 

• For example, examining the COSA model implemented in practice compared 

to the theoretical model. 

• If applicable, obtain Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and submit a 

Privacy Certificate, along with IRB-approved materials, to NIJ for approval. 

3. Determining the programs’ current efforts and capacity for data collection, data 

management, and analysis. 

• Current data collection efforts, quality and reliability of data, and need for 

additional data collection efforts. 

4. Assessing the likelihood that COSA sites are achieving stated goals and objectives. 

• Are goals and objectives realistic, measurable, and achievable? 

5. Assessing whether conducting a full program evaluation would provide useful 

information to stakeholders. If so, recommend evaluation types and rationale. 

Applicants are encouraged to propose a variety of evaluation methods and informationgathering approaches to conduct these evaluability assessments. Applicants are also 

encouraged to consider the examination of the following outcomes of interest: 

• Recidivism (new charges for sexual, violent (sexual or nonsexual violence), and 

any other criminal offenses; and returns to prison). 

• Changes in offender criminal behavior, pro-criminal attitudes or 

antisocial behavior. 

• Employment and education opportunities. 

• Housing opportunities. 

• Drug and alcohol use. 

• Participation in sex offender treatment, substance abuse, and mental health 

services. 

• Program cost effectiveness. 

Site selection decisions will be made at a later date. Once an award is made, the successful 

grantee shall work closely with NIJ in regard to the development, revision, and finalization of the 

research plan for conducting the evaluability assessments and the formatting and structure of 

the evaluability assessment reports. A revised project budget should be submitted if needed. A 

special condition will be attached to the award stipulating that the grantee may not obligate, 

expend, or drawdown more than $10,000 until NIJ approves the revised evaluability assessment 

plan and issues a Grant Adjustment Notice to remove or modify this special condition. 

Deliverables

The project period for these assessments is 6 months. The following deliverables will be 

submitted to NIJ within this timeframe: 

• A draft final report and an executive summary shall be delivered at the beginning of the 

fifth month of the grant period. The draft final report shall be delivered in electronic copy 

using Microsoft Word to NIJ. NIJ will provide comments on the draft within 15 calendar 

days of delivery of the draft report. The successful applicant will make revisions to the 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

6 

report and provide a final version within fifteen (15) calendar days of receiving NIJ 

comments. 

• The final report shall be delivered in both hard copy and electronic copy and should 

include copies of all evaluability assessment materials and tools. The use of the final 

report will be at the discretion of NIJ, as deemed appropriate. 

• One evaluability assessment report for each COSA site (up to five sites) shall be 

delivered. 

Applicants are encouraged to submit an example of an evaluability assessment report as part of 

an appendix to their applications. 

Other Deliverables 

• Weekly conference calls with the NIJ Program Manager to review progress and address 

issues. 

• Monthly progress reports to keep NIJ apprised of the current status of the evaluability 

assessments. Additional information about the content of the progress reports and their 

due dates will be provided once an award is made. 

• A final progress report and a task activity summary will be submitted at the end of the 

grant period. The task activity summary shall address activities undertaken to achieve 

completion of this project. 

Evidence-based Programs or Practices

OJP considers programs and practices to be evidence-based when their effectiveness has been 

demonstrated by causal evidence (generally obtained through one or more outcome 

evaluations). Causal evidence documents a relationship between an activity or intervention 

(including technology) and its intended outcome, including measuring the direction and size of a 

change, and the extent to which a change may be attributed to the activity or 

intervention. Causal evidence depends on the use of scientific methods to rule out, to the extent 

possible, alternative explanations for the documented change. The strength of causal evidence, 

based on the factors described above, will influence the degree to which OJP considers a 

program or practice to be evidence-based. OJP’s CrimeSolutions.gov website is one resource 

that applicants may use to find information about evidence-based programs in criminal justice, 

juvenile justice, and crime victim services. 

Amount and length of awards: NIJ anticipates that up to a total of $125,000 may become 

available for one award made through this solicitation. All awards are subject to the 

availability of appropriated funds and to any modifications or additional requirements 

that may be imposed by law. 

Evaluation research: Within applications proposing evaluation research, funding priority will be 

given to experimental research designs that use random selection and assignment of 

participants to experimental and control conditions. When randomized designs are not feasible, 

priority will be given to quasi-experimental designs that include contemporary procedures such 

as Propensity Score Matching or Regression Discontinuity Design to address selection bias in 

evaluating outcomes and impacts.

Evaluations that also include measurements of program fidelity and implementation as part of a 

thorough process assessment are desirable. Measurements of program fidelity should be 

included as part of an assessment of program processes and operations to ensure that policies, 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

7 

programs, and technologies are implemented as designed. As one aspect of a comprehensive 

evaluation, assessments of program processes should include objective measurements and 

qualitative observations of programs as they are actually implemented and of services that are 

delivered. These may include assessment of such aspects as adherence to program content 

and protocol, quantity and duration, quality of delivery, and participant responsiveness. 

Proposed evaluation research designs with multiple units of analysis and multiple 

measurements will also be given priority. Design aspects that contribute to the validity of results 

are necessary to effectively address issues of generalizability and representativeness of 

findings. 

Finally, applications that include cost/benefit analysis will be given priority. NIJ views 

cost/benefit analysis as an effective way to communicate and disseminate findings from 

evaluation research. 

Please note: All applicants under this solicitation must comply with Department of Justice 

regulations on confidentiality and human subjects’ protection. See “Other Requirements for OJP 

Applications” at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/other_requirements.htm. 

What will not be funded: 

1. Provision of training or direct service. 

2. Proposals primarily to purchase equipment, materials, or supplies. (The budget may include 

these items if they are necessary to conduct applied research, development, demonstration, 

evaluation, or analysis.) 

3. Work that will be funded under another specific solicitation. 

4. Proposals that do not contain a research component or do not respond to the specific goals 

of this solicitation. 

Budget Information 

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver 

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

may not be used to pay total cash compensation (salary plus 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. The 2012 salary table for SES 

employees is available at www.opm.gov/oca/12tables/indexSES.asp. Note: A recipient may 

compensate an employee at a higher 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.) 

The limitation on compensation rates allowable under an award may be waived on an individual 

basis at the discretion of the Director of the National Institute of Justice. An applicant requesting 

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

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

uniqueness of the service being provided, the individual’s specific knowledge of the program or 

project being undertaken with award funds, and a statement explaining that the individual’s 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

8 

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. 

Minimization of Conference Costs 

No OJP funding can be used to purchase food and/or beverages for any meeting, conference, 

training, or other event. Exceptions to this restriction may be made only in cases where such 

sustenance is not otherwise available (i.e., extremely remote areas), or where a special 

presentation at a conference requires a plenary address where there is no other time for 

sustenance to be obtained. Such an exception would require prior approval from OJP. This 

restriction does not apply to water provided at no cost, but does apply to any and all other 

refreshments, regardless of the size or nature of the meeting. Additionally, this restriction does 

not impact direct payment of per diem amounts to individuals in a travel status under the 

organization’s travel policy. 

Updated Department of Justice and OJP guidance on conference planning, minimization of 

costs, and conference cost reporting will be forthcoming and will be accessible on the OJP 

website at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/funding.htm. 

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 by individuals with limited English proficiency may be allowable costs. Reasonable 

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

translation services where appropriate. 

For additional information, see the "Civil Rights Compliance" section of the OJP "Other 

Requirements for OJP Applications" Web page 

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/other_requirements.htm). 

Match Requirement 

See “Cofunding” paragraph under “What an Application Should Include” (below). 

Performance Measures 

To assist the Department in 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. Any award recipient will be 

required, 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: 

 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

9 

Objective Performance Measure(s) Data Grantee Provides

Develop and analyze 

information and data 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 

grantee’s substantive 

scope did not deviate 

from the funded 

proposal or any 

subsequent agency 

modifications to the 

scope. 

2. Quality of the research 

as assessed by peer 

reviewers. 

3. Quality of the 

management as 

measured by whether 

significant interim 

project milestones were 

met, and costs 

remained within 

approved limits. 

4. If applicable, number of 

NIJ final grant reports, 

NIJ research 

documents, and grantee 

research documents 

published. 

1. A final report providing 

a comprehensive 

overview of the project 

and a detailed 

description of the 

project design, data, 

and methods; a full 

presentation of scientific 

findings; and a thorough 

discussion of the 

implications of the 

project findings for 

criminal justice practice 

and policy in the United 

States. 

2. Quarterly updates 

describing the 

evaluation progress 

including descriptions of 

program 

implementation, clients 

served, and other 

relevant process 

information to be 

determined by NIJ. 

3. Quarterly financial 

reports, semi-annual 

progress reports, and a 

final progress report. 

4. If applicable, each data 

set that was collected, 

acquired, or modified in 

conjunction with the 

project. 

5. If applicable, citation to 

report(s)/document(s). 

Notice of Post-Award FFATA Reporting Requirement 

Applicants should anticipate that OJP will require all recipients (other than individuals) of awards 

of $25,000 or more under this solicitation, consistent with the Federal Funding Accountability 

and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), to report award information on any first-tier subawards 

totaling $25,000 or more, and, in certain cases, to report information on the names and total 

compensation of the five most highly compensated executives of the recipient and first-tier 

subrecipients. Each applicant entity must ensure that it has the necessary processes and 

systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements should it receive funding. Reports 

regarding subawards will be made through the FFATA Subaward Reporting System (FSRS), 

found at www.fsrs.gov. 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

10 

Please note also that applicants should anticipate that no subaward of an award made under 

this solicitation may be made to a subrecipient (other than an individual) unless the potential 

subrecipient acquires and provides a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. 

How to Apply 

Applications will be submitted through Grants.gov. Grants.gov is a “one-stop storefront” that 

provides a unified process for all customers of federal awards to find funding opportunities and 

apply for funding. Complete instructions on how to register and submit an application can be 

found at www.Grants.gov. If the applicant experiences technical difficulties at any point during 

this process, 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 onetime process; however, processing delays may occur, and it can take up to several weeks

for first-time registrants to receive confirmation and a user password. OJP highly recommends 

that applicants start the registration process as early as possible to prevent delays in submitting 

an application package by the specified application deadline. 

All applicants are required to complete the following steps: 

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 renewal of 

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

universal standard for identifying and keeping track of 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. Obtain a DUNS number by calling Dun and Bradstreet at 866–705–

5711 or by applying online at www.dnb.com. A DUNS number is usually received within 

1-2 business days. 

2. Acquire or renew registration with the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) 

database. OJP requires that all applicants (other than individuals) for federal financial 

assistance maintain current registrations in the CCR database. An applicant must be 

registered in the CCR to successfully register in Grants.gov. The CCR database is the 

repository for standard information about federal financial assistance applicants, 

recipients, and subrecipients. Organizations that have previously submitted applications 

via Grants.gov are already registered with CCR, as it is a requirement for Grants.gov 

registration. Note, however, that applicants must update or renew their CCR 

registration annually to maintain an active status. Information about CCR registration 

procedures can be accessed at www.ccr.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/applicants/get_registered.jsp.

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 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

11 

the applicant organization’s AOR. Note that there can be more than one AOR for the 

organization.

5. Search for the funding opportunity on Grants.gov. Use the following identifying 

information when searching for the funding opportunity on Grants.gov. The Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for this solicitation is 16.560, titled 

“National Institute of Justice Research, Evaluation, and Development Project Grants” 

and the funding opportunity number is NIJ-2012-3293. 

6. Complete the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. All applicants must complete this 

information. An applicant that expends any funds for lobbying activities must provide the 

detailed information requested on the form, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL). 

An applicant that does not expend any funds for lobbying activities should enter “N/A” in 

the required highlighted fields. 

7. Submit an 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 an e-mail validation message from Grants.gov. The validation 

message will state whether the application has been received and validated, or rejected, 

with an explanation. Important: Applicants are urged to submit applications at least 72 

hours prior to the due date of the application to allow time to receive the validation 

message and to correct any problems that may have caused a rejection notification. 

Note: Grants.gov will forward the application to OJP’s Grants Management System 

(GMS). 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.” 

Note: Duplicate Applications

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

version submitted. 

Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues 

If an applicant experiences unforeseen Grants.gov technical issues beyond the applicant’s 

control that prevent submission of its application by the deadline, the applicant must email the 

NIJ contact identified in the Contact Information section on the title page within 24 hours after 

the application deadline and request approval to submit its application. The applicant must 

include in the e-mail: a description of the technical difficulties, a timeline of submission efforts, 

the complete grant application, the applicant DUNS number, and Grants.gov Help Desk tracking 

number(s) the applicant has received. Note: Requests are not automatically approved by 

NIJ. After the program office reviews all of the information submitted, and contacts the 

Grants.gov Help Desk to validate the technical issues reported, OJP will contact the applicant to 

either approve or deny the request to submit a late application. If the technical issues reported 

cannot be validated, the application will be rejected as untimely. 

The following conditions are not valid reasons to permit late submissions: (1) failure to begin the 

registration process in sufficient time, (2) failure to follow Grants.gov instructions on how to 

register and apply as posted on its Web site, (3) failure to follow all of the instructions in the OJP 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

12 

solicitation, and (4) technical issues experienced with the applicant’s computer or information 

technology (IT) environment, including firewalls. 

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

of the OJP funding Web page at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/solicitations.htm. 

What an Application Should Include 

Applicants should anticipate that failure to submit an application that contains all of the specified 

elements may negatively affect the review of the application; and, should a decision be made to 

make an award, it may result in the inclusion of special conditions that preclude access to or 

use of award funds pending satisfaction of the conditions. 

Moreover, applicants should anticipate that applications that are unresponsive to the scope of 

the solicitation, or that do not include application elements designated by NIJ 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 and budget narrative, and resumes/curriculum vitae of key personnel. The Budget 

Narrative and the Budget Detail Worksheet may be combined in one document. However, if only 

one document is submitted, it must contain both narrative and detail information. 

OJP strongly recommends use of appropriately descriptive file names (e.g., “Program 

Narrative,” “Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative,” “Timelines,” “Memoranda of 

Understanding,” “Resumes”) for all attachments. OJP recommends that resumes be included in 

a single file. 

1. Information to complete the Application for Federal Assistance (SF–424) 

The SF–424 is a standard form required for use as a cover sheet for submission of preapplications, applications, and related information. Grants.gov and 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). 

2. Program Narrative 

The program narrative section of the application should not exceed 20 double-spaced 

pages in 12-point font with 1-inch margins. Abstract, table of contents, charts, figures, 

appendices, and government forms do not count toward the 20-page limit for the 

narrative section. 

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

noncompliance may be considered in peer review and in final award decisions. 

Program Narrative Guidelines: 

a. Title Page (not counted against the 20-page program narrative limit). 

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

opportunity number, and the applicant’s name and complete contact information 

(i.e., name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address).

 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

13 

b. Project Abstract (not counted against the 20-page program narrative limit). 

The 400 to 600-word abstract should state the problem under investigation 

(including research goals and objectives) and the anticipated relevance of the 

project to criminal justice public policy, practice, or theory. It should describe the 

proposed method and/or research design, including data to be used in 

addressing research questions, data collection procedures and instrumentation, 

access to data, and other methods or procedures of the proposed study. It 

should also describe procedures for data analysis and all expected products, 

including interim and final reports, instrumentation, and devices. If applicable, it 

should describe the subjects who will be involved in the proposed project, 

including the number of participants; participants’ age, gender, and race/ethnicity; 

and other pertinent characteristics, such as methods used to gain access to 

subjects. 

c. Resubmit Response (if applicable) (not counted against the 20-page program 

narrative limit). If an applicant is resubmitting a proposal that was presented 

previously to NIJ, but not funded, the applicant should indicate this. A statement 

should be provided, no more than two pages, addressing: (1) the title, 

submission date, and NIJ-assigned application number of the previous proposal, 

and (2) a brief summary of revisions to the proposal. This document should be 

inserted after the abstract. 

d. Table of Contents and Figures (not counted against the 20-page program 

narrative limit). 

e. Main body. The main body of the program narrative should describe the project 

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

narrative: 

• Statement of the Problem. 

• Project/Program Design and Implementation. 

• Capabilities/Competencies. 

• Impact/Outcomes and Evaluation. 

• Dissemination Strategy. 

Within these sections, the narrative should address: 

• Purpose, goals, and objectives. 

• Review of relevant literature. 

• Detailed description of research design and methods to include: 

research questions, hypotheses, description of sample, analysis plan, 

etc. 

• Implications for criminal justice policy and practice in the United 

States. 

• Management plan and organization. 

f. Appendices (not counted against the 20-page program narrative limit) include: 

• Bibliography/references. 

• Any tools/instruments, questionnaires, tables/charts/graphs, or maps 

pertaining to the proposed study. 

• Curriculum vitae, resumes or biographical sketches of key personnel. 

• Project timeline and research calendar with expected milestones. 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

14 

• Research independence and integrity (see “Selection Criteria,” 

below). 

• Human Subjects Protection Paperwork including Institutional Review 

Board (IRB) documentation and forms (see 

www.ojp.gov/nij/funding/humansubjects/human-subjects.htm). 

• Privacy Certificate (for further guidance go to 

www.ojp.gov/nij/funding/humansubjects/privacy-certificateguidance.htm).

• List of previous and current NIJ awards to applicant organization and 

investigator(s). 

• A sample of an evaluability assessment report(s) and data collection 

instruments. 

• 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). 

• Other materials specified by the solicitation. 

• Data archiving plan (see descriptive paragraph below).

Data Archiving Plan: Applications should include a brief plan to comply with data archiving 

requirements. The plan should be one or two pages in length and include a description of the 

proposed data management and archiving process including confidentiality protections and level 

of effort associated with meeting archiving requirements. Associated tasks should be reflected 

in the proposed project budget and budget narrative sections of the application. 

In most instances, NIJ requires that data resulting from funded research be submitted as grant 

products or deliverables for archiving with the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data 

(NACJD) (www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/archive.jsp). The purpose of the Data 

Archiving Plan is to demonstrate recognition by applicants that data sets resulting from the 

proposed research are required to be submitted as grant products for archiving according to 

special grant conditions. Along with other grant products, special conditions require that all 

research data be submitted 90 days before the end of the project period. Some amount of grant 

award funds is typically withheld for submission of research data along with the final report and 

other products/deliverables. 

The plan should be submitted as an appendix labeled, “Data Archiving Plan.” The number of 

pages used for the plan will not count against the narrative page limit. The plan should provide 

brief details about the proposed archiving process including submission of these files: qualitative 

and quantitative data, final technical reports, instrumentation and data collection forms, and the 

privacy certificate and informed consent protocols including protections for confidentiality (where 

applicable). The focus of the Data Archiving Plan is to describe how the grant data products will 

be prepared and documented so as to allow reproduction of the project’s findings as well as 

future research that can extend the scientific value of the original project (See: 

www.icpsr.umich.edu/files/ICPSR/access/dataprep.pdf).

Specifically, the Data Archiving Plan includes: 

• Information regarding data formats (quantitative/qualitative/spatial) and software with 

which data will be collected, entered into a database, stored, analyzed and transferred. 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

15 

Standard commercial software or software typically acceptable to NACJD should be 

identified for use in the proposed data collection 

(www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/archiving/deposit-nij-data.jsp).

• A description of procedures by which the applicant plans to collect data along with 

anticipated units of analysis (e.g., individuals, locations), level of analysis and other 

identifiers for each data file that will be submitted upon completion of the funded 

research. 

• If the proposed research includes collection of information identifiable to private persons 

o A description of all assurances of confidentiality made to those persons 

o A copy of the consent form that was utilized 

o A copy of the Privacy Certificate (as submitted to and approved by the funding 

agency) 

o IRB approval documentation 

o Any information transfer agreement that was utilized to transfer the data with 

identifiers. 

• Any anticipated variable creation, data transformations or scale construction that may be 

critical to the interpretation or analysis of the data by others. 

• A plan for submission of computer programming code or software syntax providing detail 

on how the data will be processed including any significant treatments of the data such 

as de-identification, imputation, filtering or weighting. 

• A description of the technical documentation (e.g., data dictionary or codebook) that 

explains how variables will be designated in the data file(s), such as the use of variable 

naming conventions and variable groups, missing data/value designations, variable and

category/value labels, operational definitions and citations as needed for these variables. 

• Contact information for the Principal Investigator in the event other researchers should 

need more information about the study or the data. 

3. Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative 

a. Budget Detail Worksheet 

A sample Budget Detail Worksheet can be found at 

www.ojp.gov/funding/forms/budget_detail.pdf. If the budget is submitted in a different 

format, the budget categories listed in the sample budget worksheet should be 

included. 

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

see the OJP Financial Guide at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/financialguide/index.htm.

b. Budget Narrative

The Budget Narrative should thoroughly and clearly describe every category of 

expense listed in the Budget Detail Worksheet. Proposed budgets are expected to 

be complete; reasonable and allowable; cost effective; and necessary for project 

activities. The narrative should be mathematically sound and correspond with the 

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

should explain how all costs were estimated and calculated and how they are 

relevant to the completion of the proposed project. The narrative may include tables 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

16 

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. 

Cofunding: A grant 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. 

If a successful application proposes a voluntary match amount, the match amount 

incorporated into the OJP-approved budget becomes mandatory and subject to 

audit. 

4. Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable)

Indirect costs are allowed only if the applicant has a federally approved indirect cost rate. 

(This requirement does not apply to units of local government.) A copy of the rate 

approval should be attached. If the applicant does not have an approved rate, one can 

be requested by contacting the applicant’s 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. If DOJ 

is the cognizant Federal agency, obtain information needed to submit an indirect cost 

rate proposal at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/pdfs/indirect_costs.pdf.

5. Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable) 

If an application is being submitted by either (1) a tribe or tribal organization or (2) a third 

party proposing to provide direct services or assistance to residents on tribal lands, then 

a current authorizing resolution of the governing body of the tribal entity or other 

enactment of the tribal council or comparable governing body authorizing the inclusion of 

the tribe or tribal organization and its membership should be included with the 

application. In those instances when an organization or consortium of tribes proposes to 

apply for a grant on behalf of a tribe or multiple specific tribes, then the application 

should include a resolution (or comparable legal documentation, as may be applicable) 

from all tribes that will be included as a part of the services/assistance provided 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 authorizing resolution or 

other enactment of each tribal governing body) may submit a copy of its consortium 

bylaws with the application in lieu of tribal resolutions (or comparable legal 

documentation). 

If an applicant is unable to obtain and submit with its application a fully-executed (i.e., 

signed) copy of a tribal resolution or other, comparable legal documentation as may be 

consistent with the tribe’s governance structure, then, at minimum, the applicant should 

submit an unsigned, draft version of such legal documentation as part of its application 

(except in cases where, with respect to a tribal consortium applicant, consortium bylaws 

allow action without the support of all consortium member tribes). If selected for funding, 

use of and access to funds will be contingent on receipt of the fully-executed tribal 

resolution or other, comparable legal documentation. 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

17 

6. Other Standard Forms

Additional forms that may be required in connection with an award are available on 

OJP’s funding page at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/forms.htm. For successful applicants, 

receipt of funds may be contingent upon submission of all necessary forms. Note in 

particular the following forms. 

a. Standard Assurances

Applicants must read, certify, and submit this form in GMS prior to the receipt 

of any award funds. 

b. Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other 

Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements 

Applicants must read, certify, and submit this form in GMS prior to the receipt 

of any award funds. 

c. Accounting System and Financial Capability Questionnaire 

(required for any applicant other than an individual that is a non-governmental 

entity and that has not received any award from OJP within the past 3 years; 

this form must be downloaded, completed, and submitted). 

Selection Criteria 

Statement of the Problem (Understanding of the problem and its importance)—15%

Project/Program Design and Implementation (Quality and technical merit)—30%

1. Awareness of the state of current research. 

2. Soundness of methods and analytic and technical approach. 

3. Feasibility of proposed project and awareness of pitfalls. 

4. Innovation and creativity (when appropriate). 

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

applicants)—20%

1. Qualifications and experience of proposed staff. 

 2. Demonstrated ability of proposed staff and organization to manage the effort. 

 3. Adequacy of the plan to manage the project, including how various tasks are subdivided 

and resources are used. 

 4. Successful past performance on NIJ grants and contracts (when applicable). 

Budget—15% 

1. Total cost of the project relative to the perceived benefit (cost effectiveness). 

 2. Appropriateness of the budget relative to the level of effort. 

 3. Use of existing resources to conserve costs. 

Impact/Outcomes and Evaluation (Relevance to policy and practice)—15% 

1. Potential for significant advances in scientific or technical understanding of the problem. 

2. Potential for significant advances in the field. 

3. Relevance for improving the policy and practice of criminal justice and related agencies 

in the United States and improving public safety, security, and quality of life. 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

18 

4. Affordability and cost-effectiveness of proposed products, when applicable (e.g., 

purchase price and maintenance costs for a new technology or cost of training to use the 

technology). 

Relevance of the project for policy and practice in the United States

Higher quality applications clearly explain the practical implications of the project. They 

connect technical expertise with criminal justice policy and practice. To ensure that the 

project has strong relevance for policy and practice, some researchers and technologists 

collaborate with practitioners and policymakers. The application may include letters showing 

support from practitioners, but they carry less weight than clear evidence of the applicant’s 

understanding of how policymakers and practitioners can best use and benefit from the 

proposed work. While a partnership may affect State or local activities, it should also have 

broader implications for other communities nationwide. 

Dissemination Strategy—5% 

1. Well-defined plan for the grant recipient to disseminate results to appropriate audiences, 

including researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. 

 2. Suggestions for print and electronic products that NIJ should consider developing for 

practitioners and policymakers. 

 

Research Independence and Integrity 

Regardless of a proposal’s rating under the criteria outlined above, in order to receive funds, the 

applicant’s proposal must demonstrate research independence, including appropriate 

safeguards to ensure research objectivity and integrity. 

For purposes of this solicitation, research independence and integrity pertains only to ensuring 

that the design, conduct, or reporting of research funded by NIJ grants, cooperative 

agreements, or contracts will not be biased by any financial interest on the part of the 

investigators responsible for the research or on the part of the applicant. 

In the appendix dealing with research independence and integrity, the applicant must explain 

the process and procedures that the applicant has put in place to identify and manage potential 

financial conflicts of interest on the part of its staff, consultants, and/or subrecipients. It must 

also identify any potential organizational financial conflicts of interest on the part of the applicant 

with regard to the proposed research. If the applicant believes that there are no potential 

organizational financial conflicts of interest, the applicant must provide a brief narrative 

explanation of why it believes that to be the case. 

Where potential organizational financial conflicts of interest exist, in the appendix the applicant 

must identify the safeguards the applicant has put in place to address those conflicts of interest. 

Considerations in evaluating research independence and integrity will include, but may not be 

limited to, the adequacy of the applicant’s efforts to identify factors that could affect the 

objectivity/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. 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

19 

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. NIJ may use either internal peer reviewers, external peer reviewers, or 

a combination, to review the applications under this solicitation. 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. Applications that meet basic minimum requirements will be evaluated, 

scored, and rated by a peer review panel. Peer reviewers’ ratings and any resulting 

recommendations are advisory only. In addition to peer review ratings, considerations for award 

recommendations and decisions may include, but are not limited to, underserved populations, 

geographic diversity, strategic priorities, past performance, and available funding. 

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), in consultation with NIJ, conducts a financial 

review of applications for potential discretionary awards to evaluate the fiscal integrity and 

financial capability of applicants; examines proposed costs to determine if the Budget Detail 

Worksheet and Budget Narrative accurately explain project costs; and determines whether 

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, who 

also may give consideration to factors including, but not limited to, underserved populations, 

geographic diversity, strategic priorities, past performance, and available funding when making 

awards. 

Additional Requirements 

Applicants selected for awards must agree to comply with additional legal requirements upon 

acceptance of an award. OJP strongly encourages applicants to review the information 

pertaining to these additional requirements prior to submitting an application. Additional 

information for each requirement can be found at 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/other_requirements.htm. 

• Civil Rights Compliance 

• Faith-Based and Other Community Organizations 

• Confidentiality 

• Research and the Protection of Human Subjects 

• Anti-Lobbying Act 

• Financial and Government Audit Requirements 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

20 

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

• DOJ Information Technology Standards (if applicable) 

• Single Point of Contact Review 

• Non-Supplanting of State or Local Funds 

• Criminal Penalty for False Statements 

• Compliance with Office of Justice Programs Financial Guide

• Suspension or Termination of Funding 

• Nonprofit Organizations 

• For-profit Organizations 

• Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 

• Rights in Intellectual Property 

• Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) of 2006 

• Awards in Excess of $5,000,000 – Federal Taxes Certification Requirement 

• Active CCR Registration 

If a proposal is funded, the award recipient will be required to submit several reports and other 

materials, including: 

Final substantive report: The final report should be a comprehensive overview of the project 

and should include a detailed description of the project design, data, and methods; a full 

presentation of scientific findings, placed in the context of existing literature; a thorough 

discussion of the implications of the project findings for criminal justice practice and policy in the 

United States; etc. It must contain an abstract of no more than 600 words and an executive 

summary of 2,500 to 4,000 words. 

A draft of the final report and an executive summary shall be submitted at the beginning of the 

fifth month of the grant period. The successful applicant will make revisions to the report and 

provide a final version within 15 calendar days of receiving NIJ’s comments. The executive 

summary and final report must be submitted in hardcopy and electronic formats and should 

include copies of all evaluability assessment tools and materials. One evaluability assessment 

report for each site (up to five sites) shall be delivered. 

Interim reports: Grantees must submit quarterly financial reports, semi-annual progress 

reports, a final progress report, and, if applicable, an annual audit report in accordance with 

Office of Management and Budget Circular A–133. Future awards and fund drawdowns may be 

withheld if reports are delinquent. 
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

21 

Data sets: NIJ requires submission of all data sets (original, intermediate, and final) produced 

or collected for the funded project, and any artifact associated with the project data. Included 

with the final sets of data should be the plan outlined in the Data Archiving Plan section of the 

proposal. 

Provide Feedback to OJP on This Solicitation 

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

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

review/peer review process. Feedback can be provided to 

OJPSolicitationFeedback@usdoj.gov.
NIJ-2012-3293 

OMB No. 1121-0329

Approval Expires 02/28/2013 

 

22 

Application Checklist 

Evaluability Assessments of the Circles of Support and 

Accountability (COSA) Model 

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

What an Application Should Include: 

_____ Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) (see page 12) 

_____ Program Narrative (see page 12) 

_____ Appendices to the Program Narrative (see page 13) 

_____ Bibliography/references 

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

 the proposed study 

_____ Curriculum vitae, resumes, or biographical sketches of key personnel 

_____ Project timeline and research calendar with expected milestones 

_____ Research independence and integrity 

_____ Human Subjects Protection Paperwork 

_____ Privacy Certificate 

_____ List of previous and current NIJ awards to applicant organization and 

 investigator(s) 

_____ Letters of cooperation/support or administrative agreements from organizations 

 collaborating in the project 

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

 has been submitted 

_____ A sample of an evaluability assessment report(s) and data collection instruments 

_____ Data Archiving Plan 

_____ Budget Detail Worksheet (see page 15) 

_____ Budget Narrative (see page 15) 

_____ Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) (see page 11) 

_____ Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable) (see page 16) 

_____ Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable) (see page 16) 

_____ Other Standard Forms as applicable (see pages 17) including: 

 _____ Accounting System and Financial Capability Questionnaire (if applicable)