Notices regarding the solicitation “Research, Development, and 

Evaluation of Technologies to Improve School Safety”

January 27, 2017: 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 https://nij.gov/funding/pages/solicitation-qa.aspx#NIJ-2017-11462 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 12/31/2018 

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 to support projects that (1) demonstrate and 

evaluate existing technologies; or that (2) develop, demonstrate, and evaluate innovative 

technologies that can improve the safety of schools and students across the nation. This 

solicitation is part of the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative (CSSI). This program furthers 

the Department’s mission by funding rigorous research to produce practical knowledge and 

tools that can improve the safety of schools and students. The Initiative is carried out through 

partnerships between researchers, educators, and other stakeholders, including law 

enforcement, behavioral and mental health professionals, courts, and other justice system 

professionals. Projects funded under the CSSI are designed to produce knowledge and tools 

that can be applied to schools and school districts across the nation for years to come. 

Research, Development, and Evaluation of Technologies to 

Improve School Safety 

Applications Due: March 30, 2017 

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 colleges and 

universities are not eligible to apply. 

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

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

(“subgrantees”).1 The applicant must be the entity that would have primary responsibility for 

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

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

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

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

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

NIJ may elect to fund applications submitted under this FY 2017 solicitation in future fiscal 

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

availability of appropriations. 

 

1

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

and Submission Information. 
NIJ-2017-11462

2

Deadline

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

due by 11: 59 p.m. eastern time on March 30, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

any problems that may have caused a rejection notification.

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

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

Information.

Contact Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

application after the deadline. Additional information on reporting technical issues appears 

under “Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues” in the How to Apply section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grants.gov number assigned to this solicitation: NIJ-2017-11462

Release date: January 17, 2017
NIJ-2017-11462

3

Contents

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

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

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

Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly Products ........................................ 7

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

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

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

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

Cost Sharing or Match Requirement......................................................................................11

Pre-Agreement Costs (also known as Pre-award Costs).......................................................11

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver...............................11

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

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

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

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

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

How to Apply .........................................................................................................................26

E. Application Review Information.............................................................................................30

Review Criteria ......................................................................................................................30

Review Process.....................................................................................................................31

F. Federal Award Administration Information ............................................................................33

Federal Award Notices ..........................................................................................................33

Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements ............................................33

General Information about Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements..............................34

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s) ...................................................................................35

H. Other Information..................................................................................................................35

Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552 and 5 U.S.C. 552a) ....................35

Provide Feedback to OJP......................................................................................................35

Application Checklist .............................................................................................................37
NIJ-2017-11462

4

Research, Development, and Evaluation of 

Technologies to Improve School Safety

(CFDA No. 16.560)

A. Program Description

Overview

The Comprehensive School Safety Initiative (CSSI) funds rigorous research to produce practical 

knowledge that can improve the safety of schools and students. The Initiative is carried out 

through partnerships between researchers, educators, and other stakeholders; including law 

enforcement, behavioral and mental health professionals, courts, and other justice system 

professionals. Projects funded under the CSSI are designed to produce knowledge that can be 

applied to schools and school districts across the nation for years to come.

This specific solicitation seeks applications for funding to support projects to:

(1) demonstrate and evaluate the application of existing technologies to improve school 

safety; or that 

(2) develop, demonstrate, and evaluate innovative, new technologies that can improve the 

safety of schools.

Statutory Authority: Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 

(sections 201 and 202); the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (sections 231-233); and 28 U.S.C. 

530C.

Program-Specific Information

School safety is a matter of great concern to community members as well as education and 

public safety professionals across the nation. Technology is an essential element of safety 

practices in schools of all sizes and grade levels. Use of school safety technology has increased 

in recent years. For example, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that the 

percentage of schools employing security cameras increased from 19% in 2000 to 75% in 

2014.2

NIJ previously funded two complementary research efforts in the area of school safety 

technology. Respectively, these studies sought to: (1) explore the limits of and the needs for 

technology to make schools safe, and to identify technology improvement needs; and (2) to 

identify technologies currently in use in K-12 schools to prevent, respond to, and mitigate 

criminal acts of violence; how those technologies are being used; what is known about their 

efficacy; and factors that may affect their deployment. The reports documenting those efforts —

 

2 https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_233.50.asp.
NIJ-2017-11462

5

The Role of Technology in Improving K-12 School Safety,

3 and A Comprehensive Report on 

School Safety Technology4 — were published in 2016.

The first study employed a mixed methods approach including literature reviews, case studies of 

innovative applications of technology to school safety — such as the integrated technology 

approach employed by Miami-Date (FL) county, and structured engagement with stakeholders 

including representatives from school districts. That study report contains recommendations for 

researchers, technology developers, and school administrators. With regard to research and 

evaluation, the study recommendations include the need for more evidence as to what works in 

the area of schools safety technology. Moreover, the report notes the need for rigorous research 

designs to instill trust in school safety technology evaluation results to include measures of 

proximal outcomes that might be used to assess the effectiveness of new technology. The study 

report also notes the need to test technology solutions outside the laboratory in real-world 

settings because of the myriad of confounding factors affecting the implementation of safety 

technology in schools. 

That study report also identified a number of opportunities for technology development of which 

four appeared to be or particularly high-value:

 Direct, layered, two-way communication between teachers and a central command and 

control system;

 Anonymous tip line technology allowing multiple mediums to be uploaded;

 Online “all-in-one” platforms providing school staff and parents with relevant information, 

including training modules, violence alerts, prevention information, and suggested 

responses in the aftermath of violent events; and

 More sophisticated social media scanning to identify bullying, threats, and evidence of 

self-harm.

The second study examines the different types of technology used today for school safety 

applications in both the United States and abroad. It also employed a mixed methods approach 

that included a literature review and case studies. The study report notes the lack of quantitative 

methods or metrics to evaluate the impact of technologies as well as a strong evidence base 

regarding what works.

 

3 Schwartz, H.L.; Ramchand, R.; Barnes-Proby, D.; Grant, S; Jackson, B.A.; Leuschner, K.J.; Matsuda, M.; Saunders, 

J. (2016). The Role of Technology in Improving K-12 School Safety. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1400/RR1488/RAND_RR1488.pdf.

4 Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (2016). A Comprehensive Report on School Safety 

Technology. Laurel, MD, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250274.pdf.
NIJ-2017-11462

6

This solicitation is intended to build on that prior work funded by NIJ and to complement existing

school safety technology research and development funded by NIJ.5It seeks to (1) produce 

rigorous, objective information about school safety technology to address the gaps in the 

evidence base noted in the aforementioned reports; and (2) to foster the development, 

demonstration, and rigorous evaluation of new and innovative tools with attention to 

effectiveness and potential unintended negative consequences informed by those two reports. 

NIJ is particularly interested in:

 Exploring the opportunities for technology development noted in the first of the 

aforementioned reports.

 Expanding our understanding of the effectiveness of promising technology approaches 

identified in the aforementioned reports.

 Expanding our understanding of the challenges to technology implementation noted in 

the aforementioned reports.

Technology by itself is not a solution. Evaluations of the effect of a technology must also 

account for the effectiveness of the interventions that are adopted to make use of a technology, 

or suite of technologies. 

Both the aforementioned NIJ study reports note that stakeholders and researchers are 

concerned that implementation of certain types of school safety technology and practices has 

the potential for harmful effects on students and disparate negative effects on minority students. 

Many have voiced concerns about schools operating and appearing more like prisons.6 NIJ is 

particularly interested in understanding how the implementation of different school safety 

technologies or technology suites and complementary interventions can either cause or mitigate 

against those effects.

Grant funding through this solicitation may support costs associated with technology 

development, implementation, research, and evaluation.

NIJ strongly recommends that research organizations be designated as the applicant (the 

“prime”) making subawards to participating stakeholders as appropriate for the proposed 

project. This arrangement is preferred in order to produce the highest quality research while 

reducing administrative burdens to State education agencies (SEAs), local education agencies 

(LEAs), and other stakeholders. Research organizations may be institutions of higher education, 

 

5NIJ is funding four, ongoing school safety technology research efforts. First, NIJ is funding an effort involving the City of 

Chicago Board of Education and the University of Chicago to monitor social media to identify students most in need of 

remediation, link high-risk individuals to the district’s Gang School Safety Team (GSST) for intervention, refer students to 

follow up social-emotional intervention strategies within the school or community, and maintain continual postintervention follow up to ensure successful outcomes. Second, NIJ is funding an effort involving Miami-Date (FL) and 

West-Ed Atlanta to improve school safety through deployment of a data collection, analysis and dissemination system 

that that permits proactive responses to potential threats, both immediate (as in the case of gang activity) and over time 

(such as deteriorating school climate or escalations in bullying).Third, NIJ is funding an effort with the University of 

Virginia to develop a training simulator to increase teachers’ detection and effective intervention with bulling behaviors. 

Lastly, NIJ is funding an effort with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation to develop an anonymous tip line 

system for youths looking for help in a crisis or wanting to aid a peer by reporting harmful behavior.

6 Swartz et al, 2016). The Role of Technology in Improving K-12 School Safety. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, 

CA, pp. 15, 29, 30 and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (2016). A Comprehensive Report on 

School Safety Technology. Laurel, MD, pp. 2-3, 9-7, 11-9, 11-26.
NIJ-2017-11462

7

nonprofit or for-profit organizations, or public entities that have experience in conducting applied 

research and evaluation and/or technology development.

Coordination should be based on a formal agreement that demonstrates value placed upon 

open communication and the sharing of information and ideas. NIJ strongly encourages 

applicants to include appropriate letters of support in their applications. For applications 

selected for award, grantees should produce a formalized (i.e., written and fully-executed by 

authorized representatives of all parties) memorandum of understanding (MOU) or agreement 

that outlines the roles and responsibilities of all entities. The goal of the partnership should be to 

demonstrate and evaluate existing technologies, or develop, demonstrate, and evaluate 

innovative new technologies that can improve the safety of schools and students across the 

nation.

Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly Products

The goal of this CSSI solicitation is to fund rigorous research that produces practical knowledge 

and tools that can improve the safety of schools and students across the nation. This is 

accomplished through partnerships involving educators, researchers, and other stakeholders 

(e.g., law enforcement, behavioral, and mental health professionals, etc.).

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

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

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

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

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

inventions, or similar scientific products.

It is expected that there will be an equal effort to make the research findings accessible to 

practitioner and policymaker audiences through articles in trade publications, the development 

of training manuals, policy briefs, conferences, webinars, articles for newspapers or magazines, 

letters to the editor, or other dissemination and translation of research finding vehicles.

Additional guidance

 Increasing scientific knowledge and evidence about what works, presented in vetted and 

digestible ways to allow for adoption by schools across the nation with similar 

challenges.

 The fielding of new, innovative and cost-effective school safety technologies in schools 

across the nation.

 Rigorous research designs to instill trust in evaluation results about school safety 

technologies, their uses, and outcomes.

 Measures of proximal outcomes that might be used to assess the effects of a new 

technology.

An exemplar of any solution resulting from technology development activities funded under this 

solicitation will be delivered to NIJ at the end of the award for third-party evaluation, along with 

detailed implementation instructions.
NIJ-2017-11462

8

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submission Information.

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

performance measures set out in the table immediately below.

Performance Measures

Objective Performance Measure(s) Data Recipient Provides

Conduct research in 

science, technology, 

engineering, and/or 

mathematics having clear 

implications for criminal 

justice policy and practice 

in the United States.

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 project or any subsequent agencyapproved modifications to the scope.

2. Quality of the research as demonstrated by 

the scholarly products that result in whole 

or in part from work funded under the NIJ 

award, such as published, peer-reviewed, 

scientific journal articles, and/or (as 

appropriate for the funded project) law 

review journal articles, book chapter(s) or 

book(s) in the academic press, 

technological prototypes, patented 

inventions, or similar scientific products.

3. Quality of management as measured by 

such factors as whether significant project 

milestones were achieved, reporting and 

other deadlines were met, and costs 

remained within approved limits.

1. Quarterly financial 

reports, semi-annual 

and final progress 

reports of the work 

performed under the 

NIJ award, and, if 

applicable, an annual 

audit report.

2. List of citation(s) to all 

scholarly products that 

resulted in whole or in 

part from work funded 

under the NIJ award.

3. If applicable, each data 

set that resulted in 

whole or in part from 

work funded under the 

NIJ award.

Evaluation Research

If an application includes an evaluation research component (or consists entirely of evaluation 

research), the application is expected to propose the most rigorous evaluation design 

appropriate for the research questions to be addressed.

If the primary purpose of the evaluation is to determine the effectiveness or impact of an 

intervention (e.g., program, practice, or policy), the most rigorous evaluation designs may

include random selection and assignment of participants (or other appropriate units of analysis) 

to experimental and control conditions. In cases where randomization is not feasible, applicants 

should propose a strong quasi-experimental design that can address the risk of selection bias. 

Applications that propose meta-analysis of existing evaluation studies must establish clear 

inclusion criteria that favor and provide separate analysis of effect sizes for randomized and 

strong quasi-experimental studies. Applicants are encouraged to review evidence rating criteria 
NIJ-2017-11462

9

on the CrimeSolutions.gov website for further information on high-quality evaluation design 

elements.

Applications that include evaluation research should consider including cost/benefit analysis. In 

cases where evaluations find that interventions have produced the intended benefit, cost/benefit 

analysis provides valuable and practical information for practitioners and policymakers that aids 

decision-making.

Evaluation research projects may address a wide range of research questions beyond those 

focused on the effectiveness or impact of an intervention. Different research designs may be 

more appropriate for different research questions and at different stages of program 

development. In all cases, applications are expected to propose the most rigorous evaluation 

design appropriate for the research questions to be addressed.

B. Federal Award Information

Total funding for this solicitation and the number of awards will depend on the availability of 

appropriated funds, the quality of the applications, and other pertinent factors. NIJ anticipates up 

to $6 million will be available in FY 2017 to fund one or more awards. The duration of the award 

period of performance will depend on the research proposed. Awards will normally not exceed a 

three-year period of performance. 

Applicants should base their federal funding request and period of performance on the actual 

requirements of the research, and not necessarily on the funding anticipated being available in

FY 2017 to support his solicitation nor to fit within a three-year period of performance.

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

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

be required of the recipient), applicants should propose an award start date of January 1, 2018.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

would be productive. (If, in FY 2017, NIJ elects to fund only certain phases of a proposed 

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

vary from those described above.)

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

research, development, and evaluation solicitations, through supplemental awards. In making 

decisions regarding supplemental awards, NIJ will consider, among other factors, the availability 

of appropriations, OJP’s strategic priorities, and OJP’s assessment of both the management of 

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

work funded under the award.
NIJ-2017-11462

10

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

additional requirements that may be imposed by law.

Type of Award

NIJ expects that any award under this solicitation will be made in the form of a cooperative 

agreement, which is a type of award that provides for OJP to have substantial involvement in 

carrying out award activities. See Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal 

Requirements, under Section F. Federal Award Administration Information, for a brief discussion 

of what may constitute substantial federal involvement. 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 

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

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

Cooperative Agreements - FY 2017 Awards” in the OJP Funding Resource Center.

Financial Management and System of Internal Controls

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

entities7) must, as described in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements8 as set out at 2 C.F.R. 

200.303:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).

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

Federal awards.

(c) Evaluate and monitor [the recipient’s (and any subrecipients)] 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 

 

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

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

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

modifications) the provisions of 2 C.F.R. Part 200.
NIJ-2017-11462

11

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

privacy and obligations of confidentiality.

To help ensure that applicants understand applicable administrative requirements and cost 

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

Financial Management Online Training, available here.

Budget Information

What will not be funded:

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

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

demonstration, evaluation, or analysis.)

 Applications that are not responsive to this specific solicitation.

Cost Sharing or Match Requirement

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

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

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

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

performance of the federal award.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requiring Prior Approval” in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide for more information.

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver

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

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

employee of the recipient at a rate that exceeds 110% 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.

9 The 2017 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. (Non-federal funds used for any such additional 

 

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

2 C.F.R. Part 200.
NIJ-2017-11462

12

compensation will not be considered matching funds, where match requirements apply.) If only 

a portion of an employee’s time is charged to an OJP award, the maximum allowable 

compensation is equal to the percentage of time worked times the maximum salary limitation.

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

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

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

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

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

budget.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

all food and beverage costs.

Costs Associated with Language Assistance (if applicable)

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

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

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

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

services, where appropriate.

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

Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements - FY 2017 

Awards” in the OJP Funding Resource Center.

Participant Support Costs and Incentives for Social Science Research

NIJ has established policies concerning the use of reasonable and justified stipends (including 

travel costs) and incentives to support research integrity; please see Participant Support Costs 

and Incentives for Social Science Research at http://www.nij.gov/funding/Pages/researchparticipant-costs-and-incentives.aspx for guidance on requests for approval and proper tracking 

protocol.
NIJ-2017-11462

13

C. Eligibility Information

For eligibility information, see the title page.

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

Include” in Section D. Application and Submission Information.

D. Application and Submission Information

What an Application Should Include

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

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

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

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

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

funds available.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

applicant may combine the Budget Narrative and the Budget Detail Worksheet in one 

document. However, if an applicant submits only one budget document, it must contain both

narrative and detail information. 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,” “Resumes”) for all attachments. Also, OJP recommends that 

applicants include resumes 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).

To avoid processing delays, an applicant must include an accurate legal name on its SF424. Current OJP award recipients, when completing the field for “Legal Name” should use 

the same legal name that appears on the prior year award document which is also the legal 

name stored in OJP’s financial system. On the SF-424, enter the Legal Name in box 5 and 

Employer Identification Number (EIN) in box 6 exactly as it appears on the prior year award 

document. An applicant with a current, active award(s) must ensure that its GMS profile is 
NIJ-2017-11462

14

current. If the profile is not current, the applicant should submit a Grant Adjustment Notice 

updating the information on its GMS profile prior to applying under this solicitation. 

A new applicant entity should enter the Official Legal Name and address of the applicant 

entity in box 5 and the EIN in box 6 of the SF-424. An applicant must attach official legal 

documents to its application (e.g., articles of incorporation, 501C3, etc.) to confirm the legal 

name, address, and EIN entered into the SF-424.

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

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

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

2. Project Abstract

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

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

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

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

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 the form’s standard 12-point font (with 1-inch margins).

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

program narrative.

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

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

3. Program Narrative

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

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

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

narrative section. The project abstract, table of contents, appendices, and government forms 

do not count toward the 30-page limit.

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

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

The following sections should be included as part of the program narrative.10

 

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

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

applicant structure the application – specifically including the narrative, expected scholarly products, 
NIJ-2017-11462

15

Program Narrative Guidelines:

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

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

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

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

principal investigator.

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

narrative limit).

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

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

more than two pages, addressing: (1) the title, submission date, and NIJassigned application number of the previous application, and (2) a brief summary 

of revisions to the application, including responses to previous feedback received 

from NIJ.

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

limit).

d. Main Body.

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

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

 Statement of the Problem.

 Project Design and Implementation.

 Potential Impact.

 Capabilities/Competencies.

Within these sections, the narrative should address:

 Purpose, goals, and objectives.

 Review of relevant literature.

 Detailed description of research design and methods, such as research 

questions, hypotheses, description of sample, and analysis plan.

 

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

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

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

Information,” above.
NIJ-2017-11462

16

 Planned Scholarly Products (See Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and 

Expected Scholarly Products under Program-Specific Information, above, for 

a discussion of expected scholarly 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 the planned 

scholarly products of the proposed project (such as summaries or 

translational materials 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. 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 resumes of the principal investigator and any and all coprincipal investigators. In addition, curriculum vitae, resumes, or biographical 

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

be significantly involved in substantive aspects of the proposed project

(including, for example, individuals such as statisticians used to conduct

proposed data analysis)

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

such conflicts on the part of prospective reviewers of the application, a 

complete list of the individuals named or otherwise identified anywhere in the 

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

may work (or advise or consult) on the proposed research, development, or 

evaluation project. This applies to all such individuals, including, for example, 

individuals who are or would be employees of the applicant or employees of 

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

subrecipient, and individuals who may (or will) work without compensation 

(such as advisory board members). This appendix to the program narrative is 

to include, for each listed individual: name, title, employer, any other 

potentially-pertinent organizational affiliation(s), and the individual's proposed 

roles and responsibilities in carrying out the proposed project. If the 

application identifies any specific entities or organizations (other than the 

applicant) that will or may work (or advise or consult) on the proposed project, 

without also naming any associated individuals, the name of each such 

organization also should be included on this list. Applicants should use the 

“Proposed Project Staff, Affiliation, and Roles” form available at
NIJ-2017-11462

17

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

list.

If the application (including the budget) identifies any proposed noncompetitive agreements that are or may be considered procurement 

"contracts" (rather than subawards) for purposes of federal grants 

administrative requirements the applicant also must list the entities with which 

the applicant proposes to contract. Applicants should provide this list as a 

separate sheet titled "Proposed non-competitive procurement contracts."

For information on distinctions — for purposes of federal grants 

administrative requirements — between subawards and procurement 

contracts under awards, see “Budget and Associated Documentation,” below.

 Proposed project timeline and expected milestones

 Human Subjects Protection paperwork (documentation and forms related to 

Institutional Review Board (IRB) review). (See

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

approval is not required at the time an application is submitted.

 Privacy Certificate (for further guidance go to

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

 List of any previous and current NIJ awards to the applicant and 

investigator(s), including the NIJ-assigned award numbers and a brief 

description of any scholarly products that resulted in whole or in part from 

work funded under the NIJ award(s). (See “Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, 

and Expected Scholarly Products” under “Program-Specific Information,” 

above, for definition of “scholarly products.”)

 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 

application has been submitted (if applicable)

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

special award conditions, which may include 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 NACJD (See 

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

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

Archiving Plan” — to comply with data archiving requirements. The plan 

should provide brief details about proposed data management and archiving,

including submission to NIJ (through NACJD) of all files and documentation

necessary to allow for future efforts by others to reproduce the project’s 
NIJ-2017-11462

18

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.

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

associated with meeting archiving requirements.

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

the period of performance.

4. Budget and Associated Documentation

a. Budget Detail Worksheet

A sample Budget Detail Worksheet can be found at 

www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/BudgetDetailWorksheet.pdf. An applicant that 

submits its budget in a different format should use the budget categories listed in the 

sample budget worksheet. (An applicant should include in the budget work associated 

with satisfying data archiving requirements.) NIJ expects applicants to provide a 

thorough narrative for each section of the Budget Detail Worksheet. The Budget Detail 

Worksheet should break out costs by year.

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

see the DOJ Grants Financial Guide.

b. Budget Narrative

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

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

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

activities).

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

effectiveness of award expenditures. Budget narratives should generally describe cost 

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

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

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

used to reduce costs, without compromising quality.

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

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

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

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

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

Detail Worksheet, the budget narrative should describe costs by year.
NIJ-2017-11462

19

c. Cofunding

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

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

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

The application should identify generally any such contributions that the applicant 

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

will be supported with non-federal contributions.

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

under Section B. Federal Award Information.

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

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

mandatory and subject to audit.

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

Contracts (if any)

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

may propose to enter into procurement “contracts” under the award.

Whether — for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements — a particular 

agreement between a recipient and a third party will be considered a "subaward" or 

instead considered a procurement "contract" under the award is determined by federal 

rules and applicable OJP guidance. It is an important distinction, in part because the 

federal administrative rules and requirements that apply to "subawards" and 

procurement "contracts" under awards differ markedly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

subaward for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements.

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

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

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

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

procurement “contract” under an award.

Additional guidance on the circumstances under which (for purposes of federal grants 

administrative requirements) an agreement constitutes a subaward as opposed to a 

procurement contract under an award, is available (along with other resources) on the 

OJP Part 200 Uniform Requirements web page.
NIJ-2017-11462

20

1. Information on proposed subawards

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

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

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

authorization from OJP before it may make a subaward.

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

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

application as approved by OJP. If, however, a particular subaward is not authorized by 

federal statute or regulation, and is not sufficiently described and justified in the 

application as approved by OJP, the recipient will be required, post-award, to request 

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

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

and program, the applicant should — (1) identify (if known) the proposed subrecipient(s), 

(2) describe in detail what each subrecipient will do to carry out the federal award and 

federal program, and (3) provide a justification for the subaward(s), with details on 

pertinent matters such as special qualifications and areas of expertise. Pertinent 

information on subawards should appear not only in the Program Narrative, but also in 

the Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative.

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

proposed noncompetitive contracts over $150,000)

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

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

purposes of federal grants administrative requirements — is considered a procurement 

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

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

Procurement Standards of the (DOJ) Part 200 Uniform Requirements (as set out at 2 

C.F.R. 200.317 - 200.326). The Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative should 

identify proposed procurement contracts. (As discussed above, subawards must be 

identified and described separately from procurement contracts.)

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

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

requirements) constitute procurement “contracts” under awards will be entered into on 

the basis of full and open competition. If a proposed procurement contract would exceed 

the simplified acquisition threshold — currently, $150,000 — a recipient of an OJP award 

may not proceed without competition unless and until the recipient receives specific 

advance authorization from OJP to use a non-competitive approach for the procurement.

An applicant that (at the time of its application) intends — without competition — to enter 

into a procurement contract that would exceed $150,000 should include a detailed 

justification that explains to OJP why, in the particular circumstances, it is appropriate to 

proceed without competition. Various considerations that may be pertinent to the 

justification are outlined in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide.
NIJ-2017-11462

21

e. Pre-Agreement Costs

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

5. Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable)

Indirect costs may be charged to an award only if:

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

or

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

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

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

attach a copy of the indirect cost rate agreement to the application. An applicant that does

not have a current federally-approved rate may request one through its cognizant federal 

agency, which will review all documentation and approve a rate for the applicant entity, or, if 

the applicant’s accounting system permits, applicants may propose to allocate costs in the 

direct cost categories.

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

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

DOJ is the cognizant federal agency, an applicant may obtain information needed to submit 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rate is eligible to use the "de minimis" rate.)

6. Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

an authorizing resolution or comparable legal documentation from each tribal governing 

body) may submit, instead, a copy of its consortium bylaws with the application.
NIJ-2017-11462

22

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

applicant disclosure of high-risk status)

Every applicant (other than an individual applying in his/her personal capacity) is to 

download, complete, and submit the OJP Financial Management and System of Internal 

Controls Questionnaire, as part of its application.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 The date the applicant was designated high-risk

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

and email address)

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

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

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

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

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

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

document).

8. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

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

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

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL). An applicant that does not expend any funds for 

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

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

9. Additional Attachments

a. Applicant disclosure of pending applications11

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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.
NIJ-2017-11462

23

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

(“subgrant”) 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. 

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

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

months: 

 The federal or State funding agency 

 The solicitation name/project name 

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

SAMPLE

Federal or State 

Funding Agency 

Solicitation 

Name/Project 

Name

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

Federal or State Funding Agency

DOJ/Office of 

Community 

Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS)

COPS Hiring 

Program

Jane Doe, 202/000-0000; 

jane.doe@usdoj.gov

Health and Human 

Services/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

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

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

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

statement. 

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

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

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

cooperative agreements or for subawards under federal grants or cooperative 

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

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

submitted as part of this application.”
NIJ-2017-11462

24

b. Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity

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

evaluation, the applicant must demonstrate research/evaluation independence and 

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

applicant must demonstrate independence and integrity regarding both this proposed 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

investigators, and any subrecipients), and that the applicant has identified no 

such conflicts of interest – whether personal or financial or organizational 

(including on the part of the applicant entity or on the part of staff, 

investigators, or subrecipients) – that could affect the independence or 

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

research.

OR

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

the applicant has identified – including through review of pertinent information 

on the principal investigator, any co-principal investigators, and any 

subrecipients – that could affect the independence or integrity of the 

research, including the design, conduct, or reporting of the research. These 

conflicts may be personal (e.g., on the part of investigators or other staff), 

financial, or organizational (related to the applicant or any subrecipient entity). 

Some examples of potential investigator (or other personal) conflict situations 

are those in which an investigator would be in a position to evaluate a 

spouse’s work product (actual conflict), or an investigator would be in a 

position to evaluate the work of a former or current colleague (potential 

apparent conflict). With regard to potential organizational conflicts of interest, 

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

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

technical assistance to that specific project or a location implementing the 

project (whether funded by OJP or other sources), because the organization 

in such an instance might appear to be evaluating the effectiveness of its own 

prior work. The key is whether a reasonable person understanding all of the 

facts would be able to have confidence that the results of any research or 

evaluation project are objective and reliable. Any outside personal or financial 

interest that casts doubt on that objectivity and reliability of an evaluation or 

research product is a problem and must be disclosed.

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

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

following two items:
NIJ-2017-11462

25

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

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

applicant should provide a brief narrative explanation of how and why it 

reached that conclusion. The applicant also is to include an explanation of the 

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

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

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

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

organizational codes of ethics/conduct and policies regarding organizational, 

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

plan, if any, will be accepted as proposed.

OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

include organizational codes of ethics/conduct and policies regarding 

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

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

OJP will assess research and evaluation independence and integrity based on 

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

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

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

activity; and the adequacy of the applicant’s existing or proposed remedies to control 

any such factors.

c. Disclosure of Process Related to Executive Compensation

An applicant that is a nonprofit organization may be required to make certain 

disclosures relating to the processes it uses to determine the compensation of its 

officers, directors, trustees, and key employees.

Under certain circumstances, a nonprofit organization that provides unreasonably 

high compensation to certain persons may subject both the organization’s managers 

and those who receive the compensation to additional federal taxes. A rebuttable 

presumption of the reasonableness of a nonprofit organization’s compensation 

arrangements, however, may be available if the nonprofit organization satisfied 

certain rules set out in Internal Revenue Service regulations with regard to its 

compensation decisions.

Each applicant nonprofit organization must state at the time of its application (in the

"OJP Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire" 

mentioned earlier) whether or not the applicant entity believes (or asserts) that it 
NIJ-2017-11462

26

currently satisfies the requirements of 26 C.F.R. 53.4958-6 (which relate to 

establishing or invoking a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness of compensation 

of certain individuals and entities).

A nonprofit organization that states in the questionnaire that it believes (or asserts) 

that it has satisfied the requirements of 26 C.F.R. 53.4958-6 must then disclose, in an 

attachment to its application (to be titled "Disclosure of Process related to Executive 

Compensation"), the process used by the applicant nonprofit organization to 

determine the compensation of its officers, directors, trustees, and key employees 

(together, "covered persons").

At a minimum, the disclosure must describe in pertinent detail: (1) the composition of 

the body that reviews and approves compensation arrangements for covered 

persons; (2) the methods and practices used by the applicant nonprofit organization to 

ensure that no individual with a conflict of interest participates as a member of the 

body that reviews and approves a compensation arrangement for a covered person; 

(3) the appropriate data as to comparability of compensation that is obtained in 

advance and relied upon by the body that reviews and approves compensation 

arrangements for covered persons; and (4) the written or electronic records that the 

applicant organization maintains as concurrent documentation of the decisions with 

respect to compensation of covered persons made by the body that reviews and 

approves such compensation arrangements, including records of deliberations and of 

the basis for decisions.

For purposes of the required disclosure, the following terms and phrases have the 

meanings set out by the Internal Revenue Service for use in connection with 26 C.F.R. 

53.4958-6: officers, directors, trustees, key employees, compensation, conflict of 

interest, appropriate data as to comparability, adequate documentation, and concurrent 

documentation.

Applicant nonprofit organizations should note that following receipt of an appropriate 

request, OJP may be authorized or required by law to make information submitted to 

satisfy this requirement available for public inspection. Also, a recipient may be required 

to make a prompt supplemental disclosure after the award in certain circumstances 

(e.g., changes in the way the organization determines compensation).

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, which operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except on 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 of registration 

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

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

least 72 hours prior to the application due date, in order to allow time for the applicant to receive 
NIJ-2017-11462

27

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

any problems that may have caused a rejection notification.

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

regarding this solicitation. If this solicitation is cancelled or modified, individuals who sign up with 

Grants.gov for updates will be automatically notified.

Browser Information: Grants.gov was built to be compatible with Internet Explorer. For 

technical assistance with Google Chrome, or another browser, contact Grants.gov Customer 

Support.

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

“optional.” OJP receives all files attached in both categories. Please ensure that all required 

documents are attached in either Grants.gov category.

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

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

in the table below. Grants.gov rejects any application that includes an attachment(s) with a file 

name that contains any characters not shown in the table below. Grants.gov forwards

successfully-submitted applications to the OJP Grants Management System (GMS).

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: 

Every applicant entity must comply with all applicable System for Award Management (SAM) 

and unique entity identifier (currently, a Data Universal Numbering System [DUNS] number) 

requirements. If an applicant entity has not fully complied with applicable SAM and unique 

identifier requirements by the time OJP makes award decisions, OJP may determine that the 

applicant is not qualified to receive an award and may use that determination as a basis for 

making the award to a different applicant.

An individual who wishes to apply in his/her personal capacity should search Grants.gov for 

funding opportunities for which individuals are eligible to apply. Use the Funding Opportunity 

Number (FON) to register. (An applicant applying as an individual must comply with all 

applicable Grants.gov individual registration requirements.)
NIJ-2017-11462

28

Complete the registration form at https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/IndCPRegister to create a 

username and password for Grants.gov. (An applicant applying as an individual should 

complete all steps except 1, 2 and 4.)

1. Acquire a unique entity identifier (currently, a DUNS number). In general, the Office of 

Management and Budget requires every applicant for a federal award (other than an 

individual) to include a "unique entity identifier" in each application, including an application 

for a supplemental award. Currently, a DUNS number is the required unique entity identifier.

A DUNS number is a unique nine-digit identification number provided by the commercial 

company Dun and Bradstreet. This unique entity identifier is used for tracking purposes, and 

to validate address and point of contact information for applicants, recipients, and 

subrecipients. It will be used throughout the life cycle of an OJP award. Obtaining a DUNS 

number is a free, one-time activity. Call Dun and Bradstreet at 866–705–5711 to obtain a 

DUNS number or apply online at www.dnb.com. A DUNS number is usually received within 

1-2 business days.

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

repository for certain standard information about federal financial assistance applicants, 

recipients, and subrecipients. All applicants for OJP awards (other than individuals) must 

maintain current registrations in the SAM database. An applicant must be registered in SAM 

to successfully register in Grants.gov. Each applicant must update or renew its SAM 

registration at least annually to maintain an active status. SAM registration and renewal 

can take as long as 10 business days to complete.

An application cannot be successfully submitted in Grants.gov until Grants.gov receives the 

SAM registration information. Once the SAM registration/renewal is complete, the 

information transfer from SAM to Grants.gov can take as long as 48 hours. OJP 

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

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. An applicant entity’s "unique entity identifier" (DUNS number) must be used 

to complete this step. For more information about the registration process for organizations 

and other entities, go to https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/OrcRegister. Individuals registering 

with Grants.gov should go to http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/individualregistration.html.

4. Acquire confirmation for the AOR from the E-Business Point of Contact (E-Biz POC).

The E-Biz POC at the applicant organization must log into Grants.gov to “confirm” the 

applicant organization’s AOR. The E-Biz POC will need the Marketing Partner Identification 

Number (MPIN) password obtained when registering with SAM to complete this step. Note 

that an organization can have more than one AOR.

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

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

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

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

opportunity number is NIJ-2017-11462.
NIJ-2017-11462

29

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. The second will state whether the application has been validated and 

successfully submitted, or whether it has been rejected due to errors, with an explanation. It 

is possible to first receive a message indicating that the application is received, and then 

receive a rejection notice a few minutes or hours later. Submitting an application well ahead 

of the deadline provides time to correct the problem(s) that caused the rejection. Important:

OJP urges each applicant to submit its application at least 72 hours prior to the application 

due date, to allow time to receive validation messages or rejection notifications from 

Grants.gov, and to correct in a timely fashion any problems that may have caused a 

rejection notification. Applications must be successfully submitted through Grants.gov by 

11: 59 p.m. eastern time on March 30, 2017.

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

timeframes.

Note: Application Versions

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

recent system-validated version submitted.

Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues

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

prevent it from submitting its application by the deadline must contact the Grants.gov Customer 

Support Hotline 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 the title page within 24 hours after the application deadline to request 

approval to submit its application after the deadline. The applicant’s e-mail must describe the 

technical difficulties, and must include a timeline of the applicant’s submission efforts, the 

complete grant application, the applicant’s DUNS number, and any Grants.gov Help Desk or 

SAM tracking number(s).

Note: OJP does not automatically approve requests to submit a late application. After 

OJP reviews the applicant’s request, and contacts the Grants.gov or SAM Help Desks to verify 

the reported technical issues, OJP will inform the applicant whether the request to submit a late 

application has been approved or denied. If OJP determines that the untimely application 

submission was due to the applicant’s failure to follow all required procedures, OJP will deny the 

applicant’s request to submit its application.

The following conditions generally are insufficient to justify late submissions:

 Failure to register in SAM or Grants.gov in sufficient time (SAM registration and renewal 

can take as long as 10 business days to complete. The information transfer from SAM to 

Grants.gov can take up to 48 hours.)

 Failure to follow Grants.gov instructions on how to register and apply as posted on its 

website
NIJ-2017-11462

30

 Failure to follow each instruction in the OJP solicitation

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

such as issues with firewalls or browser incompatibility.

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

the top of the OJP Funding Resource Center web page.

E. Application Review Information

Review 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.

Project Design and Implementation (Quality and technical merit) – 50%

1. Soundness of methods and analytic and technical approach to addressing the stated 

aim(s) of the proposed project.

2. Feasibility of proposed project.

3. Awareness of potential pitfalls of proposed project design and feasibility of proposed 

actions to minimize and/or mitigate them.

Potential Impact – 15%

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

justice in the United States, such as:

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

problem.

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

criminal/juvenile justice problem.

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

applicant organization and proposed project staff) – 20%

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

any and all co-principal investigators, and all other individuals (and organizations)

identified in the application (regardless of “investigator” status) who will be significantly 

involved in substantive aspects of the proposed project).
NIJ-2017-11462

31

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.

Budget

In addition peer reviewers will consider and may comment on the following additional items in 

the context of scientific and technical merit.

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

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

3. Use of existing resources to conserve costs

4. Alignment of the proposed budget with proposed project activities

5. Proposed plan (if any) to produce or to make available to broader interested audiences, 

such as criminal/juvenile justice practitioners or policymakers, summary information from 

the planned scholarly products of the project.

Plan for Dissemination to Broader Audiences (if applicable to the proposed project) – 5%

Peer reviewers should 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 as well as practitioners in other, related 

fields, summary information from the planned scholarly products of the project.

Review Process

OJP is committed to ensuring a fair and open process for making awards. NIJ reviews the 

application to make sure that the information presented is reasonable, understandable, 

measurable, and achievable, as well as consistent with the solicitation.

Peer reviewers will review the applications submitted under this solicitation that meet basic 

minimum requirements. For purposes of assessing whether an application meets basic 

minimum requirements and should proceed to further consideration, OJP screens applications 

for compliance with those requirements. Although specific requirements may vary, the following 

are common requirements applicable to all solicitations for funding under OJP programs:

 The application must be submitted by an eligible type of applicant.

 The application must request funding within programmatic funding constraints (if 

applicable).

 The application must be responsive to the scope of the solicitation.

 The application must include all items designated as “critical elements.”
NIJ-2017-11462

32

 The applicant must not be identified in SAM as excluded from receiving federal 

awards

For a list of the critical elements for this solicitation, see “What an Application Should Include” 

under Section D. Application and Submission Information.

Peer review panels will evaluate, score, and rate applications that meet basic minimum 

requirements. NIJ may use internal peer reviewers, external peer reviewers, or a combination, 

to assess applications on technical merit using the solicitation’s review criteria. An 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. Peer reviewers’ ratings and any resulting 

recommendations are advisory only, although reviewer views are considered carefully. Other 

important considerations for NIJ include underserved populations, geographic diversity, 

strategic priorities, and available funding, as well as the planned scholarly products and the 

extent to which the budget detail worksheet and budget narrative accurately explain project 

costs that are reasonable, necessary, and otherwise allowable under federal law and applicable 

federal cost principles.

Pursuant to the Part 200 Uniform Requirements, before award decisions are made, OJP also

reviews information related to the degree of risk posed by applicants. Among other things to 

help assess whether an applicant that has one or more prior federal awards has a satisfactory 

record with respect to performance, integrity, and business ethics, OJP checks whether the 

applicant is listed in SAM as excluded from receiving a federal award. In addition, if OJP 

anticipates that an award will exceed $150,000 in federal funds, OJP also must review and 

consider any information about the applicant that appears in the non-public segment of the 

integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently, the Federal Awardee 

Performance and Integrity Information System; "FAPIIS").

Important note on FAPIIS: An applicant, at its option, may review and comment on any 

information about itself that currently appears in FAPIIS and was entered by a federal awarding 

agency. OJP will consider any such comments by the applicant, in addition to the other 

information in FAPIIS, in its assessment of the risk posed by applicants."

The evaluation of risks goes beyond information in SAM, however. OJP itself has in place a 

framework for evaluating risks posed by applicants for competitive awards. OJP takes into 

account information pertinent to matters such as—

1. Applicant financial stability and fiscal integrity.

2. Quality of the management systems of the applicant, and applicant’s ability to meet 

prescribed management standards, including those outlined in the DOJ Grants Financial 

Guide.

3. Applicant’s history of performance under OJP and other DOJ awards (including scholarly 

products, and compliance with reporting requirements and award conditions), as well as 

awards from other federal agencies.

4. Reports and findings from audits of the applicant, including audits under the Part 200 

Uniform Requirements
NIJ-2017-11462

33

5. Applicant's ability to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements, and to effectively 

implement other award requirements

All final award decisions will be made by the Director of the National Institute of Justice, who 

may take into account not only peer review ratings and NIJ recommendations, but also other 

factors as indicated in this section.

F. Federal Award Administration Information

Federal Award Notices

Award notifications will be made by September 30, 2017. OJP sends award notifications by 

email through GMS to the individuals listed in the application as the point of contact and the 

authorizing official (E-Biz POC and AOR). The email notification includes detailed instructions 

on how to access and view the award documents, and steps to take in GMS to start the award 

acceptance process. GMS automatically issues the notifications at 9:00 p.m. eastern time on 

the award date.

For each successful applicant, an individual with the necessary authority to bind the applicant 

will be required to login; execute a set of legal certifications and a set of legal assurances; 

designate a financial point of contact; thoroughly review the award, including all award 

conditions; and sign and accept the award. The award acceptance process requires 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 OJPapproved application, the recipient must comply with all award conditions, as well as all 

applicable requirements of federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders (including 

applicable requirements referred to in the assurances and certifications executed in connection 

with award acceptance). OJP strongly encourages prospective applicants to review information 

on post-award legal requirements and common OJP award conditions prior to submitting an 

application.

Applicants should consult the “Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements - FY 2017 Awards”, available in the OJP Funding 

Resource Center. In addition, applicants should examine the following two legal documents, as 

each successful applicant must execute both documents before it may receive any award funds.

 Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility 

Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements.

 Standard Assurances.

Applicants may view these documents in the Apply section of the OJP Funding Resource 

Center.

The web pages accessible through the “Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable 

to OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements - FY 2017 Awards” are intended to give applicants 
NIJ-2017-11462

34

for OJP awards a general overview of important statutes, regulations, and award conditions that 

apply to many (or in some cases, all) OJP grants and cooperative agreements awarded in FY 

2017. Individual OJP awards typically also will include additional award conditions. Those 

additional conditions may relate to the particular statute, program, or solicitation under which the 

award is made; to the substance of the funded application; to the recipient's performance under 

other federal awards; to the recipient's legal status (e.g., as a for-profit entity); or to other 

pertinent considerations.

As stated above, NIJ expects any award under this solicitation to be a cooperative agreement. A 

cooperative agreement will include a condition in the award document that sets out the 

“substantial federal involvement” in carrying out the award and program. Generally speaking, 

under cooperative agreements with OJP, responsibility for the day-to-day conduct of the funded 

project rests with the recipient. OJP, however, may have substantial involvement in matters 

such as coordination efforts and site selection, as well as review and approval of work plans, 

research designs, data collection instruments, and major project-generated materials. In 

addition, OJP often indicates in the award condition that it may redirect the project if necessary.

In addition to a condition that sets out the “substantial federal involvement” in the award, 

cooperative agreements awarded by OJP include a condition the requires specific reporting in 

connection with conferences, meetings, retreats, seminars, symposium, training activities, or 

similar events funded under the award.

General Information about Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements

In addition to the deliverables and expected scholarly products described in Section A. Program 

Description, any recipient of an award under this solicitation will be required to submit the 

following reports and data.

Required reports. Recipients typically must submit quarterly financial reports, semi-annual

progress reports, final financial and progress reports, and, if applicable, an annual audit report in 

accordance with the Part 200 Uniform Requirements or specific award conditions. Applicants 

should anticipate that progress reports will be required to follow the non-budgetary components 

of the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) template/format. General information on 

RPPRs may be found at www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rppr/. Future awards and fund drawdowns 

may be withheld if reports are delinquent. (In appropriate cases, OJP may require additional 

reports.)

Awards that exceed $500,000 will include an additional condition that, under specific 

circumstances, will require the recipient to report (to FAPIIS) information on civil, criminal, and 

administrative proceedings connected with (or connected to the performance of) either the OJP 

award or any other grant, cooperative agreement, or procurement contract from the federal 

government. Additional information on this reporting requirement appears in the text of the

award condition posted on the OJP web site at http://ojp.gov/funding/FAPIIS.htm.

Special reporting requirements may be required as appropriate.

Data on performance measures. In addition to required reports, each recipient of an award 

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

the award. To demonstrate program progress and success, as well as to assist DOJ with 

fulfilling its responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

(GPRA), Public Law 103-62, and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Public Law 111–352,
NIJ-2017-11462

35

OJP will require any recipient, post award, to provide the data listed as “Data Recipient 

Provides” in the performance measures table in Section A. Program Description, under 

"Performance Measures," so that OJP can calculate values for this solicitation's performance 

measures.

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s)

For questions directed to the Federal Awarding Agency (OJP), see NCJRS contact information 

on the title page.

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

H. Other Information

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

All applications submitted to OJP (including all attachments to applications) are subject to the 

federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and to the Privacy Act. By law, DOJ may withhold 

information that is responsive to a request pursuant to FOIA if DOJ determines that the 

responsive information either is protected under the Privacy Act or falls within the scope of one 

of nine statutory exemptions under FOIA. DOJ cannot agree in advance of a request pursuant 

to FOIA not to release some or all portions of an application.

In its review of records that are responsive to a FOIA request, OJP will withhold information in 

those records that plainly falls within the scope of the Privacy Act or one of the statutory 

exemptions under FOIA. (Some examples include certain types of information in budgets, and 

names and contact information for project staff other than certain key personnel.) In appropriate 

circumstances, OJP will request the views of the applicant/recipient that submitted a responsive 

document.

For example, if OJP receives a request pursuant to FOIA for an application submitted by a 

nonprofit or for-profit organization or an institution of higher education, or for an application that 

involves research, OJP typically will contact the applicant/recipient that submitted the 

application and ask it to identify — quite precisely — any particular information in the application 

that applicant/recipient believes falls under a FOIA exemption, the specific exemption it believes 

applies, and why. After considering the submission by the applicant/recipient, OJP makes an 

independent assessment regarding withholding information. OJP generally follows a similar 

process for requests pursuant to FOIA for applications that may contain law-enforcement 

sensitive information.

Provide Feedback to OJP

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

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

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

IMPORTANT: This e-mail is for feedback and suggestions only. OJP does not send replies from 

this mailbox to messages it receives in this mailbox. Any prospective applicant that has specific 

questions on any program or technical aspect of the solicitation must use the appropriate 

telephone number or e-mail listed on the front of this solicitation document to obtain information. 
NIJ-2017-11462

36

These contacts are provided to help ensure that prospective applicants can directly reach an 

individual who can address specific questions in a timely manner.

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

resume to ojppeerreview@lmsolas.com. (Do not send your resume to the OJP Solicitation 

Feedback email account.) Note: Neither you nor anyone else from your organization or entity 

can be a peer reviewer in a competition in which you or your organization/entity has submitted 

an application.
NIJ-2017-11462

37

Application Checklist

Research, Development, and Evaluation of Technologies to Improve School 

Safety

This application checklist has been created as an aid in developing an application.

What an Applicant Should Do:

Prior to Registering in Grants.gov:

_____ Acquire a DUNS Number (see page 28)

_____ Acquire or renew registration with SAM (see page 28)

To Register with Grants.gov:

_____ Acquire AOR and Grants.gov username/password (see page 28)

_____ Acquire AOR confirmation from the E-Biz POC (see page 28)

To Find Funding Opportunity:

_____ Search for the funding opportunity on Grants.gov (see page 28)

_____ Download Funding Opportunity and Application Package (see page 28)

_____ Sign up for Grants.gov email notifications (optional) (see page 27)

_____ 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 29)

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

_____ See the NCJRS contact information on the title page

Overview of Post-Award Legal Requirements:

_____ Review the "Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements - FY 2017 Awards" in the OJP Funding Resource Center.

Scope Requirement:

_____ The federal amount requested is within the allowable limit(s).

Eligibility Requirement: For eligibility information, see the title page.

What an Application Should Include:

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

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

_____ Program Narrative (critical element) (see page 14)

_____ Budget Detail Worksheet (critical element) (see page 18)

_____ Budget Narrative (critical element) (see page 18)

_____ Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable) (see page 21)

_____ Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable) (see page 21)
NIJ-2017-11462

38

_____ Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire

(see page 22)

_____ Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) (see page 22)

_____ Additional Attachments

_____ Applicant Disclosure of Pending Applications (see page 22)

_____ Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity (see page 24)

_____ Disclosure of Process related to Executive Compensation (see page 25)

_____ CVs/Resumes (critical element) (see page 16)

_____ Request and Justification for Employee Compensation; Waiver (if applicable)

(see page 11)