Notices regarding the solicitation “Research and Evaluation on the 

Administration of Justice”

April 11, 2018: NIJ hosted a webinar discussion on April 4, 2018, that provided an overview 

of this solicitation. The transcripts and slides have been appended to this document.

April 2, 2018: A sentence was redacted under “New Investigator/Early Career Opportunity” 

in Section A. Program Description. 

April 2, 2018: Item 9.c. titled “Disclosure of Process Related to Executive Compensation” 

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

Information was redacted. 

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

Office of Justice Programs Approval Expires 11/30/2020 

National Institute of Justice 

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

Justice (NIJ) is seeking applications for funding investigator-initiated, interdisciplinary research 

and evaluation projects related to the administration of justice in three areas: (1) eyewitness 

evidence; (2) front-end intervention strategies; and (3) enhancing investigation and prosecution. 

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

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

particularly at the state and local levels.

Research and Evaluation on the 

Administration of Justice 

Applications Due: May 14, 2018

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 

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

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

foreign colleges and universities are not eligible to apply. Federal agencies are eligible to apply. 

(Any award made to a federal agency will be made as an interagency reimbursable agreement.) 

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

management fee. 

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

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

(subgrantees)1

. The applicant must be the entity that would have primary responsibility for 

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

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

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

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

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

1

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

and Submission Information. 
2 

NIJ-2018-14001 

NIJ may elect to fund applications submitted under this FY 2018 solicitation in future fiscal 

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

availability of appropriations. 

Deadline 

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

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

14, 2018.

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

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

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

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

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

problems that may have caused a rejection notification. 

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

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

Information. 

Contact Information 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

application. Additional information on reporting technical issues appears under Experiencing 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grants.gov number assigned to this solicitation: NIJ-2018-14001

Release date: March 16, 2018
3 

NIJ-2018-14001 

Contents 

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

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

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

Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly Products .......................................11

B. Federal Award Information ....................................................................................................13

Type of Award .......................................................................................................................14

Financial Management and System of Internal Controls ........................................................14

Budget Information ................................................................................................................15

Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement .................................................................................15

Pre-agreement Costs (also known as Pre-award Costs) .......................................................15

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver ...............................16

Prior Approval, Planning, and Reporting of Conference/Meeting/Training Costs ...................16

Costs Associated With Language Assistance (if applicable) ..................................................17

C. Eligibility Information .............................................................................................................17

D. Application and Submission Information ...............................................................................17

What an Application Should Include ......................................................................................17

How to Apply .........................................................................................................................32

E. Application Review Information .............................................................................................36

Review Criteria ......................................................................................................................36

Review Process .....................................................................................................................38

F. Federal Award Administration Information ............................................................................39

Federal Award Notices ..........................................................................................................39

Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements ............................................40

General Information about Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements ..............................41

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s) ...................................................................................41

H. Other Information..................................................................................................................42

Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552 and 5 U.S.C. 552a) ....................42

Provide Feedback to OJP ......................................................................................................42

Application Checklist .............................................................................................................43
4 

NIJ-2018-14001 

Research and Evaluation on the 

Administration of Justice 

(CFDA No. 16.560)

A. Program Description

Overview 

NIJ seeks applications for funding investigator-initiated, interdisciplinary research and evaluation 

projects related to the administration of justice in three areas: (1) eyewitness evidence; (2) frontend intervention strategies; and (3) enhancing investigations and prosecutions. This solicitation 

aims to strengthen the knowledge base concerning these three areas and to improve public 

safety by producing findings with practical implications. 

Strong applications that address the administration of justice in the United States, which fall 

outside these three priority areas, may also be considered. This solicitation supports the U.S. 

Department of Justice’s priorities of reducing violent crime and enhancing investigations and 

prosecutions. 

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

authority provided by a full-year appropriations act for FY 2018. As of the writing of this 

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

no full-year appropriation for the Department has been enacted for FY 2018. 

Program-Specific Information 

1. Eyewitness Identification Evidence 

Suspect misidentification is a known contributor to wrongful convictions. The “positive 

identification” of a suspect as the perpetrator, particularly when given by the victim of a 

crime, has been shown to have a significant effect on jury deliberations. Research on 

eyewitness memory points to several factors that can affect the accuracy and confidence of 

identification.2

 Some factors, such as the stress or trauma at the time of the crime, or visual 

conditions that affect visibility of a perpetrator’s features, are outside the direct control of the 

criminal justice system (typically called estimator variables). Other factors can be more 

directly controlled for by criminal justice system procedures (typically called system 

variables). System variables occur throughout the investigation and eyewitness identification 

process. During the investigation process and initial identification of a suspect, procedures 

such as the structure and timing of witness interviews, the types of questions asked, or 

feedback to the witness during questioning/profile generation can affect later identification. 

Research on human memory has highlighted the role of stress and attention factors when 

viewing an event as important for later recall precision. In addition, research has shown that 

humans can be susceptible to recalling false details or information of a specific event as an 

unconscious function of how the brain links conceptually related information in memory. 

 

2

 Wells, G. L., Memon, A., Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness Evidence: Improving Its Probative Value. Psychological 

Science in the Public Interest, 7(2), 45–75. 
5 

NIJ-2018-14001 

Similarly, research on facial recognition processes indicates that there are more individual 

differences in people’s ability to identify faces than previously thought.

With this solicitation, NIJ seeks proposals for research to harness the advances made in 

cognitive neuroscience to better understand the factors influencing eyewitnesses’ memories 

of events and how estimator and systemic variables might best be accounted for to reduce 

the potential for misidentification. Potential research questions include, but are not limited to: 

 How do attention and memory encoding conditions at the time of a crime affect

subsequent eyewitness identification accuracy?

 How can different types of memory retrieval cues during the investigation process

influence eyewitness recall and identification?

2. Front-end Intervention Strategies

a. Diversion and Deflection

Police diversion programs (sometimes referred to as pre-arrest, pre-booking diversion,

or deflection programs) represent alternatives to traditional responses to individuals who

commit low-level criminal offenses. Many of these programs are designed to reduce

criminal behavior; decrease overall costs to the criminal justice system; provide solutions

to enhance public safety; and strengthen relationships between the police and

community residents.

Prosecutor-led diversion programs offer similar responses to criminal behavior by giving

prosecutors effective tools to allocate resources through the implementation of pretrial

diversion strategies. These programs include various treatment components to promote

positive changes in criminal offender behavior; improve confidence in the criminal justice

system; and maintain public safety. Diversion and deflection programs are designed to

steer certain offenders away from different stages in the criminal justice system by

addressing their substance abuse or mental health challenges with resources such as

community-based or in-patient treatment interventions. In recent years, a number of

such programs have been adopted and although the potential of these programs has

been noted, additional rigorous assessments of these interventions are needed.3

 NIJ is

interested in evaluations of diversion or deflection programs with research questions that

may include but are not limited to:

 What is the impact of deflection or diversion programs on crime and/or drug abuse?

 What is the impact of diversion or deflection programs on cost to taxpayers and/or

the criminal justice system?

 What barriers inhibit the potential success, if any, of diversion or deflection

programs?

 What is the impact of diversion or deflection programs on police-community

relationships?

3A National Survey of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs and Initiatives. 
6 

NIJ-2018-14001 

b. Pretrial Notification Protocols and Court Appearance Compliance 

NIJ sponsors criminal court research and court-based program evaluation to identify 

tools, programs and policies that satisfy criminal justice system goals including public 

safety, cost efficiency, and fair and equitable treatment of victims and defendants. 

Proposals submitted for funding consideration should build upon this portfolio in the area 

of notification protocols to improve court appearance rates for increased efficiency in 

case processing and delivery of justice. Pretrial research and practice experts identify 

court appearances and failure to appear (FTA) as a primary concern. In FY 2008, an 

NIJ-funded field experiment tested the impact of various notices on perceived procedural 

justice and court appearance compliance. The researchers examined variation in FTA at 

misdemeanor arraignment by experimenting with different written notification and 

messages. They found that any reminder was better than none (especially among 

defendants who lack trust in the criminal justice system), and a reminder with 

substantive information was better, but emphasis on procedural justice is no more 

effective than an FTA sanctions message alone.4

Effectiveness in promoting court appearance compliance can vary by case or defendant 

population, and proposals should address the various challenges courts experience in 

implementing pretrial notification protocols. Cases differ in type and severity, whereby 

some were issued a citation and are notified to confirm the scheduling of their first court 

appearance. Others are arrested and booked on misdemeanor or felony offenses and 

released until arraignment or the next court hearing. Defendant housing stability, local 

family networks, mobile phone access, and other resources are also relevant. 

Furthermore, jurisdictions vary in staffing and other resources necessary to implement 

manual or automated systems, and maintain current information on defendant contacts 

and court case status. 

NIJ seeks proposals for research on innovative pretrial notification models that leverage 

agency time and capacity with protocols that reduce FTAs, thus promoting defendant 

accountability and efficient use of court resources. Research questions of interest 

include but are not limited to: 

 What pretrial notification protocols are most effective in reducing FTAs? 

 What case and/or defendant characteristics mediate or moderate the effects of 

notification protocols? 

 Are pretrial notification protocols cost-efficient? 

 How can pretrial notification protocols be improved to be more cost-efficient? 

c. Bail Reform 

States and other jurisdictions vary widely in pretrial policy and practice. As of 2014, the 

National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies estimated about 450 programs in the 

 

4

 See Bornstein, B.H., Tomkins, A.J., Neeley, E.M., Herian, M.N., & Hamm, J.A. (2013). Reducing courts' failure-toappear rate by written requirements. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(1), 70-80; and Bornstein, B.H., Tomkins, 

A.J., & Neeley, E.M. (2011). Reducing courts' failure to appear rate: A procedural justice approach. NCJ 234370, 

Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 
7 

NIJ-2018-14001 

3,300 counties and the 95 federal districts of the U.S. New York City’s Criminal Justice 

Agency and others initially developed standard protocols for pretrial assessment and 

release recommendations that were operational by the 1980s. Assessments were based 

on criminal history, self-report, and verified community ties (employment, housing) that 

were predictive of court appearances, with some legal variable overrides (e.g., 

homicides). Pretrial release and detention policies and practices of interest include: risk 

assessment, public safety, court appearances (failure to appear or FTA), community 

supervision, and related issues (e.g., serious mental illness).5

 NIJ is interested in policy 

analysis and other research on more recent developments concerning bail reform 

legislation. States are considering legislation to shift from relying principally on monetary 

bail as a condition of release to individualized assessments based on a defendant’s flight 

risk and potential threat to public safety. The goals include reducing costs associated 

with pretrial jail detention, which may interfere with defendant employment and family 

responsibilities, and reserving money bail as a last resort. Reviews of the protocols and 

assessment tools used to implement these pretrial reform initiatives are still underway. 

NIJ seeks proposals for research on the implementation, effects, and costs of bail 

reform. Research questions of interest include but are not limited to: 

1. What assessment factors best determine eligibility for pretrial release versus 

detention in predicting outcomes including: 

a) Failure to appear. 

b) Violation of pretrial release conditions. 

c) New criminal offenses. 

2. Are pretrial release decisions made according to assessment results, and what 

factors are used to override assessment results? 

3. Are there any changes in the number of type of defendants released on their own 

recognizance versus monetary bail? 

4. Under what conditions are pretrial defendants released, and does community-based 

supervision affect outcomes? 

5. How do the implementation and outcome costs associated with assessment and 

other bail reform measures compare to business as usual? 

 

5

 See Pretrial Research Meeting at https://www.nij.gov/topics/courts/pretrial/Pages/research-meeting.aspx. 
8 

NIJ-2018-14001 

d. Justice System-Led Strategies6 Aimed at Young-Adult7 Offenders 

Despite comprising less than 10 percent of the U.S. population, young adults (18-24) 

comprise 28 percent of arrests, 26 percent of probationers, 12 percent of the prison 

population, and 28 percent of the jail population.8

 Further, after release, nearly half of 

young adults return to prison within three years.9

 The recidivism trends suggest that the 

current criminal justice response is not sufficient. Having a criminal justice system that 

appropriately responds to criminal behavior of young adults has the potential to increase 

public safety and reduce future violent criminal activity, resulting in safer communities. 

NIJ commissioned an environmental scan of programs and legislation across the nation 

that target this population. The scan revealed over 50 programs, strategies and 

approaches, and eight pieces of legislation. Because this is an emerging area, the scan 

highlighted research gaps and showed the dearth of evaluation evidence for these 

programs. 

With this solicitation, NIJ seeks to address that dearth of evidence by funding proposals 

for evaluations of justice system-led programs or strategies aimed at young-adult 

offenders. Applicants should propose the most rigorous research design possible. 

Research questions may include, but are not limited to:

 What is the impact of young-adult courts on reducing subsequent offending? 

 What is the impact of other justice system-led strategies aimed at young adults (e.g., 

special prosecution units, pretrial programs, front-end interventions) on reducing 

subsequent offending? 

 What are the costs and benefits associated with justice system-led programs or 

strategies that respond to crimes committed by young adults? 

3. Enhancing Investigations and Prosecutions 

a. Body-Worn Cameras 

In a sample of law enforcement agencies by the Major Cities Chiefs Association and 

Major County Sheriffs' Association, 95 percent of all police departments have a fully 

operational Body-Worn Camera program, or are committed to implementing one.10 The 

broad adoption and implementation of this technology has implications for prosecutors 

and the courts. 

 

6

 Justice system-led strategies refer to the range of strategies identified in NIJ’s Environmental Scan of 

Developmentally Appropriate Criminal Justice Responses to Justice-Involved Young Adults that are either young 

adult courts or fall under the auspices of the district attorney’s office or the probation department. 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249902.pdf. 

7

 Young adult commonly refers to individuals ages 18-24; however, these bounds are flexible. Applicants proposing 

an age range outside 18-24 should justify their decision to use an age range that includes those under the age of 18 

or those over the age of 24. 

8

 See Justice Policy Institute, Improving Approaches to Serving Young Adults in the Justice System. December 2016. 

9

 Matthew R. Durose, Alexia D. Cooper, and Howard N. Snyder, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 

2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (2014). 

10 Charles DeWitt, "Survey of Technology Needs: Body-Worn Cameras," Body-Worn Cameras: Building a Secure and 

Manageable Program for Law Enforcement, January 21, 2016. 
9 

NIJ-2018-14001 

To date, there has been limited research on the effect of body-worn cameras on criminal 

prosecutions or prosecution outcomes. Prior research has found that while prosecutors 

believe that evidence from Body-Worn Cameras would increase their preparation time, 

they also believe that it would improve their overall ability to prosecute cases.11

Prosecutors also believe that convictions and plea bargains would increase due to 

evidence resulting from this technology and that the use of body-worn camera evidence 

would not lead to an increase in dismissals or appeals.12 In 2014, researchers found that 

in domestic violence cases, prosecutors were more likely to file charges when bodyworn camera video was available.13 While these studies are encouraging, much 

research is still needed. 

With this solicitation, NIJ seeks proposals for research and/or evaluation projects to grow 

the body of knowledge concerning the effect of body-worn cameras on criminal 

prosecutions or prosecution outcomes. Specific research questions may include, but are 

not limited to the following: 

 How is information derived from body-worn cameras used by prosecutors for 

charging and prosecuting of criminal cases in court? 

 How is the strength of body-worn camera evidence assessed by prosecutors, and 

how does that affect their decision-making and case outcomes? 

 How do issues such as video redaction and segmentation of video affect evidentiary 

concerns regarding authenticity, best evidence, and reliability? 

b. Research on Juror Decision-Making 

Juries have a responsibility in court cases to render verdicts that are fair and based on 

the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, as well as jury instructions 

provided by judges. There are a number of factors at play when jurors analyze evidence 

and interpret jury instructions, including heuristic cognitive biases jurors use when 

evaluating the probative value of complex evidence, the influence of personal 

characteristics of the parties in the case, and/or emotions evoked during testimony that 

influence later consideration of the facts of the case.14 With this solicitation, NIJ seeks 

proposals for research and/or evaluation projects that explore juror decision-making and 

the process by which consensus is achieved, to inform court processes and trial 

strategies. Specific research questions may include, but are not limited to the following: 

 Do juror questionnaires accurately detect relevant bias, and what is the role of bias in 

juror decision-making? 

 Do jurors/juries evaluate types of evidence differently? 

 

11 Linda Merola et al., Body-Worn Cameras and the Courts: A National Survey of State Prosecutors, Report for the 

Laura and John Arnold Foundation (Fairfax, VA/USA: George Mason University, 2016), 27. 

12 Ibid, 29-30. 

13 Charles M. Katz et al., Evaluating the Impact of Officer Worn Body Cameras in the Phoenix Police Department 

(Tempe, AZ/USA: Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety, Arizona State University, 2014), 37. 

14 Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2011). Jury decision making: Implications for and from psychology. Current 

Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 63-67.
10

NIJ-2018-14001 

 To what extent do jurors comprehend judicial instructions, and how, if at all, does 

that level of comprehension impact decision-making? 

 What leads jurors/juries to consider extralegal factors during trial? 

 How do juror/jury perceptions of fairness of the legal offence being prosecuted 

influence their decision? 

 How does a jury generally come to a consensus decision? 

Additional Guidance Applicable to All Research Categories 

Randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies are a powerful, much needed tool for building 

scientific evidence about what works. Therefore, studies employing RCT methods to assess the 

effectiveness of programs and practices will be given higher priority consideration. RCT 

applications with strong designs measuring outcomes of self-evident policy importance are 

strongly encouraged. A strong RCT design should include low sample attrition, sufficient sample 

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

Taking RCT costs into consideration, applicants may want to consider studies using privacyprotected administrative data that are already being collected or implementing an intervention 

into a program already funded. 

 NIJ is especially interested in supporting research relevant to small, rural, and tribal 

jurisdictions. 

 Applications must demonstrate cultural competence by addressing regional, 

racial/ethnic, language, and other diversity issues in proposed research protocol and 

team capabilities, as applicable. 

 Each partnering agency must provide a letter of commitment clarifying information, staff, 

and other resources. 

 Each research team member (staff, contractor, consultant, agency partner, etc.) must be 

identified with a clearly specified role and projected level of effort, regardless of 

compensation. 

 Any potential conflict of interest must be addressed if any research team member may 

benefit financially from, or is/was involved in the development of, what is being 

researched. (Also see Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity.) 

 The research proposed must result in knowledge and tools that have potential value to 

other jurisdictions for a national impact. 

 Applications for research that leverage projects actively supported by federal, private, or 

other entities must clarify the proposed value added, how information collected and other 

resources funded by NIJ will remain separate, and plans for dissemination including 

public archive of work products. 
11

NIJ-2018-14001 

New Investigator/Early Career Opportunity 

NIJ is interested in supporting researchers who are early in their careers and new to NIJ’s 

research grant portfolios, specifically non-tenured assistant professors, or equivalent full-time 

staff scientist positions in a research institution, who propose research on topics relevant to 

NIJ’s Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) and/or Office of Science and Technology (OST). 

To that end, NIJ may, in appropriate circumstances, give special consideration in award 

decisions to applications proposing such researchers as principal investigators (PIs). To qualify, 

the proposed PI must at the time of application submission: 

 Hold a non-tenured assistant professor appointment at an accredited institution of higher 

education in the United States or an equivalent full-time staff scientist position at a 

research institution; and 

 Have completed a terminal degree or post-graduate clinical training within the ten (10) 

years prior to September 30, 2018, and 

 Have never previously received NIJ funding as a PI on a research project with the 

exception of Graduate Research Fellows or Data Resources Program grantees. 

 If seeking to be 

considered for the New Investigator/Early Career Opportunity, the applicant should identify that 

they are submitting a New Investigator/Early Career proposal on the title page of the application. 

Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly Products 

The goal of this solicitation is to strengthen NIJ’s knowledge base by producing findings with 

practical implications for enhancing criminal justice processes. The objective of this solicitation 

is to fund research and evaluation projects that employ high-quality, rigorous, social science 

methods and produce results with practical implications for reducing crime; enhancing 

investigations and prosecutions; and, promoting public safety. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submission Information. 

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

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

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

published, peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles, and/or (if appropriate) law review journal 
12

NIJ-2018-14001 

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

inventions, or similar scientific products. 

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

performance measures that demonstrate the results of the work completed. 

Performance Measures 

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

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

Information).

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

view the specific reporting requirements for this grant program. 

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

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

required data should it receive funding. 

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

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

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

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, 

and products of the work 

performed under the NIJ 

award (including, at 

minimum, a final research 

report).

If applicable, an annual 

audit report.

2. List of citation(s) to all 

scholarly products that 

resulted in whole or in 

part from work funded 

under the NIJ award.

3. If applicable, each data

set that resulted in whole 

or in part from work 

funded under the NIJ 

award.
13

NIJ-2018-14001 

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 quasiexperimental design that can address the risk of selection bias. 

Applications that include evaluation research should consider the feasibility of including 

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

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

practitioners and policymakers that aids decision-making. 

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

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

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

development. The intervention strategies, setting, other contextual factors, and resources 

should be taken into account when selecting an evaluation design. In all cases, applications are 

expected to propose the most rigorous evaluation design appropriate for the research questions 

to be addressed. 

Applicants are encouraged to review evidence rating criteria at

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

evaluation design elements. 

B. Federal Award Information 

NIJ expects to make multiple awards with an estimated total amount awarded of up to $3 

million. Of the $3 million proposed for this solicitation. NIJ expects that up to $500,000 will be 

available for relevant research in Indian Country. Awards will normally not exceed a three-year 

period of performance. 

An applicant should base its federal funding request and period of performance on the actual 

requirements of the research, and not necessarily on the anticipated amount of funding 

available in FY 2018 for awards under this solicitation nor to fit within a three-year period of 

performance. However, to expedite the budget approval process, applicants are encouraged to 

break out their budgets by project year or by phases in the event that NIJ choses to fund the 

project partially or incrementally. 

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, 2019. 

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 
14

NIJ-2018-14001 

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

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

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

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

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

would be productive. (If, in FY 2018, 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 continuation awards. In making 

decisions regarding continuation awards, OJP will consider, among other factors, the availability 

of appropriations, when the program or project was last competed, OJP’s strategic priorities, 

and OJP’s assessment of both the management of the award (for example, timeliness and 

quality of progress reports), and the progress of the work funded under the award.

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

additional requirements that may be imposed by law. 

Type of Award 

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

cooperative agreement. A cooperative agreement is a particular 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 2018 Awards” in the OJP Funding Resource Center at 

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

Financial Management and System of Internal Controls 

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

entities15) must, as described in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements16 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 

 

15 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.

16 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. 
15

NIJ-2018-14001 

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

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

Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 

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

Federal awards. 

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

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

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

noncompliance identified in audit findings. 

(e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable 

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

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

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

privacy and obligations of confidentiality. 

To help ensure that applicants understand applicable administrative requirements and cost 

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

Financial Management Online Training, available at https://ojpfgm.webfirst.com/. (This training 

is required for all OJP recipients.) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget Information 

What will not be funded: 

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

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

demonstration, evaluation, or analysis.) 

 Applications that are not responsive to this specific solicitation. 

Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement 

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

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

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. 
16

NIJ-2018-14001 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requiring Prior Approval” in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide at 

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

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver 

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

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

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

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

agency with a Certified SES Performance Appraisal System for that year.17 The 2018 salary 

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

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salarytables/18Tables/exec/html/ES.aspx. Note: A recipient may compensate an employee at a 

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

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

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

the percentage of time worked times the maximum salary limitation. 

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

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

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

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

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

budget. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, 

 

17 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. 
17

NIJ-2018-14001 

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

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

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

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

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

all food and beverage costs. 

Costs Associated With Language Assistance (if applicable) 

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

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

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

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

services, where appropriate. 

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

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

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

C. Eligibility Information 

For eligibility information, see title page. 

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

Include” in Section D. Application and Submission Information.

D. Application and Submission Information 

What an Application Should Include 

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

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

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

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

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

funds available. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

where it can be accessed. 
18

NIJ-2018-14001 

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

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

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

single file. 

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

applications are submitted in permitted formats. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

applying under this solicitation. 

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

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

SF-424. A new applicant entity should attach official legal documents to their applications 

(e.g., articles of incorporation, 501(c)(3) status documentation, organizational letterhead 

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

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

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

the SF-424 matches its current registration in SAM. See the How to Apply section for more 

information on SAM and DUNS numbers. 

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

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

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

2. Project Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

project in 250-400 words. Project abstracts not submitted in the template below should be—
19

NIJ-2018-14001 

 Written for a general public audience. 

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

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

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

program narrative. 

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

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

3. Program Narrative

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

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

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

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

count toward the 30-page limit. 

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

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

The following sections should be included as part of the program narrative.18

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. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Information,” above.
20

NIJ-2018-14001 

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

limit). 

d. Main Body

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

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

narrative: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

discuss previous research related to these problems. 

This section should also identify the proposed research questions and 

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

 Project Design and Implementation. Applicants should provide a detailed 

description of the strategies to implement this research project and address 

the research questions. Design elements should follow directly from the 

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

information noted on page 4. Applicants should describe the research 

methodology in detail and demonstrate the validity and usefulness of the data 

they will collect. Applicants should consider the rigor and soundness of the 

methodology and analytical and technical approaches for the proposed 

research and address the feasibility of the proposed project and potential 

challenges or problems in carrying out the activities. 

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

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

policy, practice, or theory in the United States. 

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

including planned scholarly products indicated in the project-specific 

information on page 11, and a plan for dissemination to appropriate 

audiences. Applicants should identify plans to produce or make available to 

broader interested practitioners and policy makers in a form that is designed 

to be readily accessible and useful to them. 

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

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

subgrantees (including consultants) that the applicant will use to implement 

and manage this effort and the federal funds under this award, highlighting 

any previous experience implementing projects of similar scope, design, and 

magnitude. Applicants should address: 
21

NIJ-2018-14001 

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

conduct of similar research efforts. 

o Experience and capacity to design and implement rigorous research and 

data analysis projects. 

o Experience producing and disseminating meaningful deliverables. 

Applicants should also outline the management plan and organization that 

connects to the goals and objectives of the project. 

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

 Bibliography/references. 

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

pertaining to the proposed project that are supplemental to such items 

included in the main body of the narrative. 

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

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

be significantly involved in substantive aspects of the proposed project 

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

proposed data analysis). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

application identifies any specific entities or organizations (other than the 

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

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

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

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

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

provide this list. 

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

"contracts" (rather than subawards) for purposes of federal grants 
22

NIJ-2018-14001 

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 entitled "Proposed non-competitive procurement contracts." 

For information on distinctions -- for purposes of federal grants administrative 

requirements -- between subawards and procurement contracts under 

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

 Proposed project timeline and expected milestones. 

 Human Subjects Protection paperwork (documentation and forms related to 

Institutional Review Board (IRB) review). (See

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

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

 Privacy Certificate (for further guidance go to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

above, for definition of “scholarly products.”) 

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

application has been submitted (if applicable). 

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

research project design, must submit an incentive or stipend approval 

request, as a separate document, according to the requirements set forth at 

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

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

special award conditions, that relevant 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-resourcesprogram/applying/Pages/data-archiving-strategies.aspx.)

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

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

should provide brief details about proposed data management and archiving, 

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

necessary to allow for future efforts by others to reproduce the project’s 

findings and/or to extend the scientific value of the data set through 

secondary analysis. Pertinent files and documentation include, among other 

things, qualitative and quantitative data produced, instrumentation and data 

collection forms, codebook(s), any specialized programming code necessary 

to reproduce all constructed measures and the original data analysis, 
23

NIJ-2018-14001 

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. 

 Letters of cooperation/support or administrative agreements from 

organizations collaborating in the project, such as law enforcement and 

correctional agencies (if applicable) 

4. Budget and Associated Documentation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

applicant does not have access to Microsoft Excel or experiences technical 

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

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

accessible Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) version. 

Both versions of the Budget Detail Worksheet can be accessed at 

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

a. Budget Detail Worksheet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. Budget Narrative

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

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

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

activities).

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

effectiveness of award expenditures. Budget narratives should generally describe cost 

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

example, a budget narrative should detail why planned in-person meetings are 
24

NIJ-2018-14001 

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

used to reduce costs, without compromising quality. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

c. Cofunding 

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

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

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

The application should identify generally any such contributions that the applicant 

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

will be supported with non-federal contributions. 

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

under Section B. Federal Award Information. 

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

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

mandatory and subject to audit. 

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

Contracts (if any) 

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

may propose to enter into procurement contracts under the award. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

applies. 

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

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

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

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

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

Toolkit for OJP Recipients.
25

NIJ-2018-14001

 Checklist to Determine Subrecipient or Contractor Classification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

subaward for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

entity.

1. Information on proposed subawards

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

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

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

authorization from OJP before it may make a subaward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 
26

NIJ-2018-14001

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

source) procurement contracts must meet the OJP requirements outlined at 

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

contract would exceed the simplified acquisition threshold -- currently, $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.

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

Simplified Acquisition Threshold (currently $150,000) must have written justification 

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

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

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

procurement over the $150,000 Simplified Acquisition Threshold must have prior 

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

documentation justifying the noncompetitive procurement must be submitted with the 

GAN and maintained in the procurement file.

e. Pre-Agreement Costs

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

5. Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable)

Indirect costs may be charged to an award only if:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

categories.
27

NIJ-2018-14001

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rate is eligible to use the "de minimis" rate.) For additional eligibility requirements please see 

Part 200 Uniform Requirements, as set out at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?node=se2.1.200_1414&rgn=div8.

6. Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

an authorizing resolution or comparable legal documentation from each tribal governing 

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

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

applicant disclosure of high-risk status)

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

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

Internal Controls Questionnaire (Questionnaire) at 

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

The Questionnaire helps OJP assess the financial management and internal control 

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

assessment process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OJP may affect the funding decision and/or result in additional reporting requirements, 
28

NIJ-2018-14001

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

requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 The date the applicant was designated high risk.

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

and email address).

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

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

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

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

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

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

document).

8. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

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

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

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) posted at

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

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

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

9. Additional Attachments

a. Applicant disclosure of pending applications19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(“subgrant”) federal funds).

 

19 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.
29

NIJ-2018-14001 

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

multiple funding sources in a complementary manner to implement comprehensive 

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

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

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

months: 

 The federal or State funding agency. 

 The solicitation name/project name. 

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

agency. 

SAMPLE

Federal or State 

Funding Agency 

Solicitation 

Name/Project 

Name

Name/Phone/E-mail for Point of Contact 

at Federal or State Funding Agency

DOJ/Office of 

Community 

Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS)

COPS Hiring 

Program

Jane Doe, 202/000-0000;

jane.doe@usdoj.gov

Health and Human 

Services/ 

Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health 

Services 

Administration

Drug-Free 

Communities 

Mentoring 

Program/North 

County Youth 

Mentoring Program

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

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

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

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

applications statement. 

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

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

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

cooperative agreements or for subawards under federal grants or cooperative 

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

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

submitted as part of this application.”

b. 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 
30

NIJ-2018-14001 

applicant must demonstrate independence and integrity regarding both this proposed 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

such conflicts of interest – whether personal or financial or organizational 

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

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

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

research. 

OR

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

the applicant has identified – including through review of pertinent information 

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

subrecipients – that could affect the independence or integrity of the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

technical assistance to that specific project or a location implementing the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

research product is a problem and must be disclosed. 

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

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

following two items: 

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

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

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

reached that conclusion. The applicant also is to include an explanation of the 
31

NIJ-2018-14001 

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. 
32

NIJ-2018-14001 

 

How to Apply 

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

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

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

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

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

days a week, except on federal holidays. 

Important Grants.gov update. Grants.gov has updated its application tool. The legacy PDF 

application package has been phased out and was retired on December 31, 2017. Grants.gov 

Workspace is now the standard application method for applying for grants. OJP applicants 

should familiarize themselves with the Workspace option now. For complete information and 

instructions on using Workspace (and other changes), go to the Workspace Overview page at 

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/workspace-overview.html. 

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 
33

NIJ-2018-14001 

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

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

any problems that may have caused a rejection notification. 

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

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

this solicitation is cancelled or modified, individuals who sign up with Grants.gov for updates will 

be automatically notified. 

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

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

Support. 

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

“optional.” OJP receives all files attached in both categories. Attachments are also labeled to 

describe the file being attached (e.g., Project Narrative, Budget Narrative, Other, etc.) Please 

ensure that all required documents are attached in the correct Grants.gov category and are 

labeled correctly. Do not embed “mandatory” attachments within another file. 

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

Upper case (A – Z)

Lower case (a – z)

Underscore (__)

Hyphen ( - )

Space

Period (.)

Special Characters Special Characters Special Characters

Parenthesis ( ) Curly braces { } Square brackets [ ]

Ampersand (&)* Tilde (~) Exclamation point (!)

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

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

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

*When using the ampersand (&) in XML, applicants must use the “&” format.

GMS does not accept executable file types as application attachments. These disallowed 

file types include, but are not limited to, the following extensions: “.com,” “.bat,” “.exe,” “.vbs,”

“.cfg,” “.dat,” “.db,” “.dbf,” “.dll,” “.ini,” “.log,” “.ora,” “.sys,” and “.zip.” GMS may reject applications 

with files that use these extensions. It is important to allow time to change the type of file(s) if 

the application is rejected. 

All applicants are required to complete the following steps: 

Unique Entity Identifier (DUNS Number) and System for Award Management (SAM)

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

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

requirements. SAM is the repository for certain standard information about federal financial 

assistance applicants, recipients, and subrecipients. A DUNS number is a unique nine-digit 

identification number provided by the commercial company Dun and Bradstreet. More detailed 

information about SAM and the DUNS number is in the numbered sections below. 
34

NIJ-2018-14001 

If an applicant entity has not fully complied with the applicable SAM and unique identifier 

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

not qualified to receive an award and may use that determination as a basis for making the 

award to a different applicant. 

Applying as an Individual 

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

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

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

applicable Grants.gov individual registration requirements.) 

Enter the FON at https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/IndCPRegister to complete the registration 

form and create a username and password for Grants.gov. (An applicant applying as an 

individual should complete all steps except 1, 2 and 4.) 

Registration and Submission Steps 

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

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

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

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

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 or maintain registration with SAM. All applicants for OJP awards (other than 

individuals) must maintain current registrations in the SAM database. Applicants will need 

the authorizing official of the organization and an Employer Identification Number (EIN). 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 (2 more 

weeks to acquire an EIN). 

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://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/organization-
35

NIJ-2018-14001 

registration.html. Individuals registering with Grants.gov should go to 

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/registration.html. 

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

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

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

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

that an organization can have more than one AOR.

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

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

Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for this solicitation is 16.560; National Institute 

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

opportunity number is NIJ-2018-14001.

6. Access Funding Opportunity and Application Package from Grants.gov. Select “Apply 

for Grants” under the “Applicants” column. Enter your email address to be notified of any 

changes to the opportunity package before the closing date. Click the Workspace icon to 

use Grants.gov Workspace.

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

in Grants.gov. Within 24-48 hours after submitting the electronic application, the applicant 

should receive two notifications from Grants.gov. The first will confirm the receipt of the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11:59 p.m. eastern time on May 14, 2018. 

Click https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/organization-registration.html for further 

details on DUNS numbers, SAM, and Grants.gov registration steps and timeframes. 

Note: Application Versions 

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

recent system-validated version submitted. 

Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues 

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

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

Support Hotline at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support.html or the SAM Help Desk

(Federal Service Desk) at https://www.fsd.gov/fsd-gov/home.do to report the technical issue and 

receive a tracking number. The applicant must e-mail the NIJ contact identified in the Contact 

Information section on the title page within 24 hours after the application deadline to request 

approval to submit its application after the deadline. The applicant’s e-mail must describe the 
36

NIJ-2018-14001 

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. 

 Failure to follow each instruction in the OJP solicitation. 

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

such as issues with firewalls or browser incompatibility. 

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

the top of the OJP Funding Resource Center at https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm. 

E. Application Review Information 

Review Criteria 

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

the following review criteria. Each individual criterion is assigned a different weight based on the 

percentage value listed. For example, the first criterion, Statement of the Problem, is worth 10 

percent of the score in the assessment of the application’s technical merit. 

Statement of the Problem and Research Questions (Understanding of the problem, research 

questions, and their importance) – 10% 

1. Demonstrated understanding of the problem. 

2. Demonstrated importance of research questions, goals and objectives, including 

alignment with the aims of the solicitation. 

3. Demonstrated awareness of the state of current research.
37

NIJ-2018-14001 

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

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

aim(s) of the proposed project. 

2. Feasibility of proposed project. 

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

actions to minimize and/or mitigate them. 

4. Feasibility of completing the deliverables noted in the solicitation. 

Potential Impact – 20% 

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

justice in the United States, such as: 

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

problem. 

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

criminal/juvenile justice problem. 

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). 

2. Demonstrated ability of the applicant organization to implement the proposed strategies 

and manage the effort. 

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

(including the applicant organization) and the scope and strategies of the proposed 

project. 

Budget

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

the context of scientific and technical merit. 

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

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

3. Use of existing resources to conserve costs. 

4. Alignment of the proposed budget with proposed project activities. 
38

NIJ-2018-14001 

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

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

the planned scholarly products of the project. 

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

Peer reviewers may comment—in the context of scientific and technical merit—on the proposed 

plan (if any) to produce or to make available to broader interested audiences, such as 

criminal/juvenile justice practitioners or policymakers, summary information from the planned 

scholarly products of the project. 

Review Process 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

applicable). 

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

 The application must include all items designated as “critical elements.”

 The 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 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. 
39

NIJ-2018-14001 

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 the applicant. 

The evaluation of risks goes beyond information in SAM, however. OJP itself has in place a 

framework for evaluating risks posed by applicants for competitive awards. OJP takes into 

account information pertinent to matters such as —

1. Applicant financial stability and fiscal integrity. 

2. Quality of the applicant’s management systems, and applicant’s ability to meet 

prescribed management standards, including those outlined in the DOJ Grants Financial 

Guide. 

3. Applicant’s history of performance under OJP and other DOJ awards (including scholarly 

products, and compliance with reporting requirements and award conditions), as well as 

awards from other federal agencies. 

4. Reports and findings from audits of the applicant, including audits under the Part 200 

Uniform Requirements. 

5. Applicant's ability to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements, and to effectively 

implement other award requirements. 

All final award decisions for 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. The NIJ Director may also take into consideration whether 

the principal investigator is new to their career and new to NIJ’s research grant portfolios, and 

meets the criteria outlined on page 11 of this solicitation. 

F. Federal Award Administration Information 

Federal Award Notices

Award notifications will be made by September 30, 2018. 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 
40

NIJ-2018-14001 

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 and 

submission of the fully-executed 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 and regulations (including applicable requirements 

referred to in the assurances and certifications executed in connection with award acceptance). 

OJP strongly encourages prospective applicants to review information on post-award legal 

requirements and common OJP award conditions prior to submitting an application. 

Applicants should consult the “Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements - FY 2018 Awards”, available in the OJP Funding 

Resource Center at https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm. In addition, applicants should examine the 

following two legal documents, as each successful applicant must execute both documents 

before it may receive any award funds. (An applicant is not required to submit these documents 

as part of an application.) 

 Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility 

Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements. 

 Certified Standard Assurances. 

The webpages accessible through the “Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to 

OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements - FY 2018 Awards” are intended to give applicants for 

OJP awards a general overview of important statutes, regulations, and award conditions that 

apply to many (or in some cases, all) OJP grants and cooperative agreements awarded in FY 

2018. Individual OJP awards typically also will include additional award conditions. Those 

additional conditions may relate to the particular statute, program, or solicitation under which the 

award is made; to the substance of the funded application; to the recipient's performance under 

other federal awards; to the recipient's legal status (e.g., as a for-profit entity); or to other 

pertinent considerations. 

As stated above, NIJ expects that it will make any award under this solicitation in the form of a 

grant or cooperative agreement. Any award made as a cooperative agreement will include a 

condition in the award document that sets out the nature of the “substantial federal involvement” 

in carrying out the award and program. Generally stated, under OJP cooperative agreement 

awards, responsibility for the day-to-day conduct of the funded project rests with the recipient. 

OJP, however, may have substantial involvement in matters such as substantive coordination of 

technical efforts and site selection, as well as review and approval of project work plans, 

research designs, data collection instruments, and major project-generated materials. In 
41

NIJ-2018-14001 

addition, OJP often indicates in the award terms and conditions that it may redirect the project if 

necessary. 

In addition to an award condition that sets out the nature of the anticipated “substantial federal 

involvement” in the award, cooperative agreements awarded by OJP include an award condition 

the requires specific reporting in connection with conferences, meetings, retreats, seminars, 

symposium, training activities, or similar events funded under the award. 

General Information about Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements 

In addition to the deliverables and expected scholarly products described in Section A. Program 

Description, any recipient of an award under this solicitation will be required to submit the 

following reports and data. 

Required reports. Recipients typically must submit quarterly financial reports, semi-annual

progress reports, final financial and progress reports, and, if applicable, an annual audit report in 

accordance with the Part 200 Uniform Requirements or specific award conditions. Applicants 

should anticipate that progress reports will be required to follow the non-budgetary components 

of the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) template/format. General information on 

RPPRs may be found at www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rppr/. Future awards and fund drawdowns 

may be withheld if reports are delinquent. (In appropriate cases, OJP may require additional 

reports.) 

Awards that exceed $500,000 will include an additional condition that, under specific 

circumstances, will require the recipient to report (to FAPIIS) information on civil, criminal, and 

administrative proceedings connected with (or connected to the performance of) either the OJP 

award or any other grant, cooperative agreement, or procurement contract from the federal 

government. Additional information on this reporting requirement appears in the text of the 

award condition posted on the OJP webpage at https://ojp.gov/funding/FAPIIS.htm. 

Data on performance measures. In addition to required reports, an award recipient under this 

solicitation also must provide data that measure the results of the work done under the award. 

To demonstrate program progress and success, as well as to assist DOJ with fulfilling its 

responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), Public 

Law 103-62, and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Public Law 111–352, OJP will require 

any award recipient, post award, to provide performance data listed as part of regular progress 

reporting. Successful applicants will be required to access OJP’s performance measurement 

page at www.ojp.gov/performance to view the specific reporting requirements for this grant 

program. 

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s) 

For questions directed to the Federal Awarding Agency, see NCJRS contact information on the 

title page. 

For contact information for Grants.gov, see the title page. 
42

NIJ-2018-14001 

H. Other Information 

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

All applications submitted to OJP (including all attachments to applications) are subject to the 

federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and to the Privacy Act. By law, DOJ may withhold 

information that is responsive to a request pursuant to FOIA if DOJ determines that the 

responsive information either is protected under the Privacy Act or falls within the scope of one 

of nine statutory exemptions under FOIA. DOJ cannot agree in advance of a request pursuant 

to FOIA not to release some or all portions of an application. 

In its review of records that are responsive to a FOIA request, OJP will withhold information in 

those records that plainly falls within the scope of the Privacy Act or one of the statutory 

exemptions under FOIA. (Some examples include certain types of information in budgets, and 

names and contact information for project staff other than certain key personnel.) In appropriate 

circumstances, OJP will request the views of the applicant/recipient that submitted a responsive 

document. 

For example, if OJP receives a request pursuant to FOIA for an application submitted by a 

nonprofit or for-profit organization or an institution of higher education, or for an application that 

involves research, OJP typically will contact the applicant/recipient that submitted the 

application and ask it to identify -- quite precisely -- any particular information in the application 

that the applicant/recipient believes falls under a FOIA exemption, the specific exemption it 

believes applies, and why. After considering the submission by the applicant/recipient, OJP 

makes an independent assessment regarding withholding information. OJP generally follows a 

similar process for requests pursuant to FOIA for applications that may contain law-enforcement 

sensitive information. 

Provide Feedback to OJP 

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

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

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

IMPORTANT: This e-mail is for feedback and suggestions only. OJP does not send replies from 

this mailbox to messages it receives in this mailbox. Any prospective applicant that has specific 

questions on any program or technical aspect of the solicitation must use the appropriate 

telephone number or e-mail listed on the front of this solicitation document to obtain information. 

These contacts are provided to help ensure that prospective applicants can directly reach an 

individual who can address specific questions in a timely manner. 

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

resume to ojppeerreview@l-secb.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.
43

NIJ-2018-14001 

Application Checklist 

Research and Evaluation on the Administration of Justice 

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 34) 

_____ Acquire or renew registration with SAM (see page 34) 

To Register with Grants.gov: 

_____ Acquire AOR and Grants.gov username/password (see page 34) 

_____ Acquire AOR confirmation from the E-Biz POC (see page 35) 

To Find Funding Opportunity:

_____ Search for the funding opportunity on Grants.gov (see page 35) 

_____ Access Funding Opportunity and Application Package (see page 35) 

_____ Sign up for Grants.gov email notifications (optional) (see page 33) 

_____ 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 16) 

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 35) 

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

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

(see page 35) 

Overview of Post-Award Legal Requirements: 

_____ Review the Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements - FY 2018 Awards in the OJP Funding Resource Center at 

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

Scope Requirement:

_____ The federal amount requested is within the allowable limit(s). 

Eligibility Requirement: See cover page. 

What an Application Should Include: 

_____ Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) (see page 18) 

_____ Project Abstract (if applicable) (see page 18) 

_____ Program Narrative (critical element) (see page 19) 

_____ Budget Detail Worksheet (critical element) (see page 23) 

_____ Budget Narrative (critical element) (see page 23) 

_____ Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable) (see page 26) 

_____ Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable) (see page 27) 
44

NIJ-2018-14001 

_____ Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire (see page 27) 

_____ Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) (see page 28) 

_____ Additional Attachments 

_____ Applicant Disclosure of Pending Applications (see page 28) 

_____ Curriculum vitae or resume (critical element) (see page 21) 

_____ Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity (see page 29) 

_____ Request and Justification for Employee Compensation; Waiver (if applicable) 

(see page 16) 
i

Funding Webinar Transcript 

On April 4, 2018, NIJ hosted a webinar that provided an overview of the solicitation 

“Research and Evaluation on the Administration of Justice.”

Following are the transcript and slide presentation from that webinar. 

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to today's webinar, 

“Research and Evaluation on the Administration of Justice,” sponsored by the National 

Institute of Justice. At this time, I would like to begin the webinar and introduce you to your 

presenters today — Dr. Brett Chapman and Dr. Linda Truitt, both with the National 

Institute of Justice.

DR. LINDA TRUITT: Hello, everyone, this is Linda. Welcome to our first webinar on NIJ’s

solicitation for Research and Evaluation on the Administration of Justice. In this webinar,

my colleague Brett Chapman and I will provide guidance on this FY 2018 solicitation,

specifically regarding goals, priority topics of interest, grants, and application expectations,

with references to resources and details on the application and review process, including 

some feedback commonly heard from past application reviewers. There are several NIJ 

staff behind the solicitation and we will do our best to represent everyone. We offer this 

webinar as an added resource, and anyone can access the archive transcript and 

overheads of this webinar for future reference. However, please note that all necessary 

details regarding applications are documented in the solicitation. A linked solicitation is 

provided in the chat function. The solicitation can be accessed anytime by NIJ's website or 

through the Grants.gov website, where all applications are submitted online. Following our 

presentation, we will review any questions received during the webinar.

Please note that we are limited to solicitation clarification and may suggest that you submit 

outfitting questions to NIJ's contractor at NCJRS after the webinar. Please understand that 

we are not permitted to discuss potential research projects with applicants. At the end of 

today’s presentation, you will find contact information and instructions on how to submit 

questions. Sometimes, we archive frequently asked questions with answers on NIJ's 

website as FAQs, so you may want to look there first. A link to the FAQ webpage is also 

provided in the chat function.

And then we move along to the next slide; this regards Solicitation Goals. So, this is a new 

solicitation for NIJ that brings together several lines of research in support of Department 

of Justice's priorities to reduce violent crime and to strengthen investigation and 

prosecution efforts. It solicits applications for funding investigator-initiated, interdisciplinary 

research and evaluation projects related to the administration of justice. This builds upon 

NIJ's court portfolio that supports research to identify tools, programs, and policies that 

satisfy criminal justice goals, including public safety, cost-efficiency, and fair and equitable 

treatment of victims and defendants. The areas range from Eyewitness Evidence to Frontend Intervention Strategies and Enhancing Investigation and Prosecution.
ii

The next slide outlines the topics that NIJ has identified, and there are several listed here.

These are described in this solicitation with background information and illustrations of the 

kinds of research questions of interest to NIJ, if you look at the solicitation (starting on 

page 4). So, I'll only briefly discuss those here today.

So, for the first, Eyewitness Identification, here, NIJ is interested in taking what we know 

from the science on human memory and applying it to the challenge of accuracy in 

eyewitness identification. Research has shown that the conditions under which a memory 

is formed (stress, fatigue, etc.) can influence how accurately you recall information later. In 

addition, how someone is prompted to recall events — you're given feedback on your 

answer or choose between options — can also impact accuracy of memory recall. NIJ is 

interested in proposals that look at how these conditions at the time of the crime — an 

estimated variable — can influence later identification as well as proposals that look at 

how investigator cues and procedures — also known as systemic variables — can 

influence identification accuracy. This is all in pursuit of a larger goal of minimizing false 

identifications that compromise eyewitness identification evidence.

Next is Diversion and Deflection. This references both law enforcement deflection preand post-arrest programs and prosecutor-led diversion programs. These programs are 

intended to address certain low-level offenders prior to court involvement and hopefully 

redirect them away from the criminal justice system to reserve resources for more serious 

offenders. Programs may target substance use disorder, serious mental illness, and/or 

other rehabilitated services and support needs. NIJ is interested in impact of deflection 

and diversion programs on the individual and the community, their cost-efficiency, and the 

challenges and solutions to program success.

Next is Pretrial Notification Protocols and Court Appearance Compliance. NIJ has a long 

history of criminal court research and court-based program evaluation, including a study 

on pretrial notification protocols. Failure to appear — also known as FTAs — for court 

hearings is a problem for law enforcement schedules to testify, the judge and the court 

staff and busy dockets, and so on. The repercussions for missed court hearings may also 

include warrants, violation of pretrial release, and other negative consequences for the 

defendant. Past research and notification protocols and compliance receive a lot of 

interest from a variety of courts dealing with similar problems, whether citations or 

misdemeanors or felony cases. NIJ is interested in research on the effectiveness and 

cost-efficiency of different protocols on reducing FTAs, and what case or defendant 

variables influence protocol success.

For Bail Reform, NIJ's history includes a long-standing interest in pretrial release and 

detention. Past expert planning meetings identified several concerns: risk assessment, 

public safety, community supervision, and related needs and issues. Over the last several 

years, states have considered legislation allowing more opportunities for conditional 

pretrial release based on assessments of FTA and/or public safety risks. Programs’ goals 

include reducing pretrial detention and reserving monetary bail as a last resort. NIJ is 

interested in research that examines pretrial assessments and their success in predicting 

FTA, pretrial release violations, and new offenses. We're also interested in assessment 
iii

implementation. When are results used or overridden, and on what basis? And what are 

the effects on volume of conditional release versus monetary bail or detention? How do 

pretrial release conditions and supervision affect outcomes? And, finally, what is the costefficiency of assessment and other bail reform measures?

Next, we have Justice System-Led Strategies Aimed at Young-Adult Offenders. So,

following an environmental scan of programs that target young adults — they're defined as 

age 18 to 24 — NIJ identified a need for research that more closely examines this group 

as high risk for arrest, incarceration, and recidivism. NIJ is interested in evaluation of 

research on Court-based and other Front-end Interventions, specifically their impact on 

recidivism and program cost-efficiency. The solicitation provides a link to the 

environmental scan, funded by NIJ, for more information. Please note that proposals to 

study post-disposition programs should be submitted to NIJ's other solicitation on 

“Research and Evaluation in Corrections.”

Next is Investigation and Prosecutions, and specifically, we relate this to Body-Worn 

Cameras. This is another area where court and law enforcement interests overlap — the 

effects of body-worn cameras on criminal prosecution and case outcomes. Cases may 

range from domestic violence to other violent and criminal offenses. NIJ is interested in 

research on how information derived from cameras is used by prosecutors, how camera 

evidence strengthens/affects prosecutor decision-making, and how redaction and other 

video manipulation affect authenticity and other evidentiary concerns.

Finally, NIJ is interested in research that examines the influence of Juries on case 

outcomes in terms of individual cognition and group interaction. Some of the questions 

identified regard potential bias and detection via juror questionnaires, how jurors assess 

different types of evidence, influence of judicial instructions and juror comprehension, 

consideration of extralegal factors and perceived fairness of charges, and the process of 

jury consensus decisions.

Strong applications for research that address the administration of justice in the U.S. and 

the Department of Justice priorities may also be considered. Also, please review the 

guidance provided in the solicitation (around page 10) regarding randomized controlled 

trial designs and other research application considerations.

Next, we wanted to cover Expected Deliverables. Shown here are the lists of 

administrative and other grant requirements, including quarterly financial and semi-annual 

project updates. Details are provided in the solicitation, and special conditions with 

financial withholding are attached to grant awards. In addition to the research report and 

data deposit deliverables required for a public archive, NIJ expects the grantee to produce 

law review or scientific journal articles, trade journals, or other dissemination for 

practitioners, and similar work products during and after the grant period.

Next, we cover “what will not be funded,” and this is in detail in the solicitation. We indicate 

the kinds of research or budget proposal that NIJ will not fund. As shown here, reasons 

include “nonresponsive to the solicitation” — primarily for equipment purchases without a 
iv

clear research justification, research already funded by another agency, and training or 

support unrelated to the proposed research.

Next are Recommended Resources. So, both during application preparation and after 

grant award, we recommend you reviewing some of the public documents that provide 

information on good practice relating to grant and budget management. The last one, NIJ 

Grants, directs you to a host of information, ranging from preparing your budget proposal 

to human subjects and privacy protection concerns.

I will now turn over the presentation to Brett, who will provide some helpful information on 

the application Review Process. Please do pay attention to the Selection Criteria and 

other guidance found in the solicitation as you prepare your application. And always try to 

put yourself in the shoes of the application reviewer. Brett ...

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: Thank you, Linda. I just want to walk you through the Application 

Process. If you look at the solicitation, I’ll just note, at the top, that there's plenty of 

information, from start to finish in that solicitation, that will give you an idea of what you 

need to consider, what you need to do, which you need to review as you're preparing your 

proposal for submission. On pages 43 and 44, you will see the Application Checklist, and 

we recommend that you look at these things to make sure that you're submitting 

everything that we require in the process. And that means to include SF-424, the Project 

Abstract, the Budget Worksheet and Narrative — those are separate documents — and 

the Indirect Cost Rates Agreement for your institution, any Tribal Authorization 

Resolutions if they apply, the Financial Management Questionnaire, and the Disclosure of 

Lobbying Activities. And I'll get into some of these documents in a minute.

So, continue with the Checklist. These are just a number of other things that should be 

included in the package that you submitted: curriculum vitae, résumé, the Research 

Evaluation Independence and Integrity Questionnaire. Some of these, you have to make 

sure (and I'll get into this in a minute) the specific documents are submitted on time or you 

will fail the BMR.

So, now, also in the solicitation, it will walk you through the Grants.gov process because 

that's where you will be submitting these proposals and what you want to do. Give yourself 

time. I cannot emphasize that enough. Do not wait until the last minute to get things like 

SAM — registration with SAM to get your DUNS number — or you will panic at the last 

minute and something is gonna fall apart and fall through the cracks. So, typically, people 

wait until that last minute to do a number of these things. You shouldn't do that.

Now, in terms of the Review Process, I want to mention first: the BMR. As the proposals, 

the packages come in, we are going to conduct what is called BMR to make sure that your 

package meets the bare minimum requirements, so these four documents are essential. If 

one or more of these documents is not included in your package, you will fail BMR, and 

your proposal will not receive any further consideration for funding. The Program 

Narrative, the Budget Detail Worksheet, the Budget Narrative and the CVs, résumés, or 
v

biographical sketches are required at the time of the submission. Again, any one or more 

of these are not in the package, you will not be considered for funding.

Now, the Selection Criteria — now, don't be fooled by the percentages here because 

these are all equally important. Sure, we weight them a little differently in terms of score, 

but one thing we find is proposals tend to fall apart when these criteria do not align well in 

the proposal. So, the Statement of Problem and the Research questions. With the 

problem ... typically, we get proposals ... well, there's really no Problem. Someone must 

have researched something where there's no Problem. That's kind of a problem for us.

The Project Design and Implementation. Really, this is the meat of the proposal because 

here, you're telling us (1) what you're going to do and (2) how you plan to do it, so it's very 

important. That's where we assess the quality and technical merit of your proposal. What's 

the impact of your proposed research? Does it have any kind of implications for the 

criminal justice system? That's very important. Do you have capable and confident staff on 

the proposal? These things have to be documented and articulated well in your proposal 

so that we get a sense that the people on staff on the proposed project can do the work.

And then the Budget and Dissemination plans. Although we do not score them, 

percentage-wise, they are very important.

Dissemination. Where are you proposing to, or how are you proposing to, disseminate this 

information? What vehicles, what outlets in the criminal justice system — whether it's the 

police chief, or ACA International [formerly American Collectors Association], or other 

relevant outlets. How are you gonna get this information out to the widest audience?

So, the Review Process: we have an external review and an internal review. We're gonna 

conduct the BMR, on every package that we get in, to make sure that you've met those 

basic minimum requirements and that your proposal can move on. Then, if you have met 

BMR, we will have your proposals reviewed by external peer reviewers — technical and 

practitioners. Then the review process moves internally to the scientific staff at NIJ; that 

includes myself and Dr. Truitt. Then it moves on to mid-level managers, other leadership, 

and the final decisions will rest with the NIJ Director.

So, these are a number of things that typically come up in the review process where 

applications do not do very well, and I really could save ourselves going through these by 

saying, “Details, details, details.” It's very important that you give us a sense of what you 

want to do and how you are going to do it. As Linda just said, put yourself in the shoes of 

the reviewer. They get this proposal — if it's 30 pages and they can't make any sense of it, 

it's going to fail. And these are some of the things we see where, for example, the 

proposal is vague. It doesn't really describe the date that it will be collected ... we may get 

things like that. That's not good for us because we can't tell whether you will be able to get 

the data that you're proposing to analyze. “The proposal failed to demonstrate significance 

of the proposed work.” Well, if there's really no significance in the work, we probably 

wouldn't fund it. “The proposal failed to demonstrate an understanding of potential pitfalls 

and limitations.” This is very important because we see that people promise all these 

things in the proposal. But they don't demonstrate an awareness of what happens if you 
vi

encounter certain pitfalls, or what are the limitations of your proposed research that could 

impact your funding. Too many details are missing; that happens commonly. We get these 

proposals where people spend a lot of time on things that are really unnecessary, and 

they miss the important details and they fail to include them in the proposal. “There's no 

impact for the criminal justice system in the real world.” And this happens a lot. You 

wouldn't believe this, but the proposal is typically disorganized and poorly written and 

lacks coherence. So those are not very good things if they come our way.

The Statement of the Problem fails to identify gaps in the literature, or in the Statement the 

literature review is insufficient. I've seen where you may get a proposal with a few cites 

and then that's it, where we know that there is much more literature to be articulated but 

sometimes potential applicants fail to demonstrate that, or the scope of the proposed 

research is extremely limited.

Turning to the Research Design, this is where you're going to score very highly or do very 

poorly. (1) If the design is not well articulated, that can be a problem, or the proposed 

research design and methods do not logically flow from the Statement of the Problem or 

the literature review. The proposed Research Questions are not derived from the literature 

review. Your proposed sample size should be supported by the appropriate power 

analysis. Sometimes, we get these sample sizes stating that n = 100, but there's no 

explanation on how the applicant came to that number. The feasibility of the protocol is not 

addressed in terms of access to the necessary qualitative or quantitative information, or 

the comparison group is biased in a systematic way.

Oftentimes, the Research Design may be too ambitious or too complex. The design is not 

clearly laid out. The sampling strategy may be flawed. And again, the quantitative 

analyses were vague and unclear. Applicants sometimes will say, “We propose to conduct 

a series of analyses” without giving us any additional information. So, again, our reviewer 

cannot ascertain whether your proposed research is valuable to the proposal because it's 

unclear what those designs or what these analyses may be. So, be very clear what those 

analyses are and what will benefit you well.

Competencies. Oftentimes, we’ll get a PI who — it's not really clear that they can do the 

work. They may have significant experience in other areas, but they may lack it in policing, 

courts, corrections, or any area where they're submitting the proposal to, so that can be a 

problem. Or the PI may have limited experience in managing large-scale projects. Also,

the research team has a limited track record of publishing scholarly research. Now, these 

are not necessarily damning, but they can cause you to lose points on your proposal. The 

Dissemination plan may lack specificity. (And that really should be in another section, by 

the way, but we'll keep it there for now.) And, as I said at the top, no criminology or 

criminal justice outlets are identified in the Dissemination plan.

So, I guess we are here at the Questions and Answers section. Do you have any 

questions? We can answer those. I haven't seen any pop up, and if you want to ask me 

questions, feel free to fire away.
vii

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Actually, we do have one question. And it is, on page 15 of the 

solicitation, under “What will not be funded,” there is a bullet describing expenses related 

to equipment, materials, or supplies. Can you clarify and describe examples of what would 

versus would not be supported with the funding? (Linda touched on that earlier in the 

presentation.)

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: Well, for example, if you proposed funding for a significant 

amount of money to go to technology but the technology is not well integrated in the 

proposed research, that could be one. There are any number of areas where your 

application which you are proposing would not be deemed allowable. I could go on all day 

with examples but, again, your research has to be well integrated, and any cost in terms of 

budget items had to be well integrated with the proposed research. I think that's about the 

best I can answer that question.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: There's another question. I think the nuts and bolts of it is, as a 

first-year Ph.D. student, are they eligible to apply? (If the person that asked that question

... as I'm not getting to your full question, please submit clarification, but I believe that's 

what you're asking.) “As a Ph.D. student and a first-year, am I eligible to apply?”

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: Not under this solicitation. I think the Graduate Research 

Fellowship would probably be a more appropriate solicitation for you to apply under, in the 

future, because that one is now closed. So that's one. You might want to check — you can 

actually go to our website, www.ojp.nij.gov. Although it's not open, you can look at expired 

solicitations, and it will pull up the one that we most recently released and that will give 

you a lot of information in terms of how you would apply to that as a Ph.D. student.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: All right. And we do have a few other questions that came 

through. “How will junior scholars in their early stage who do not have very much 

experience in managing large grants be treated differently, for example, an assistant 

professor who just started a tenure-track position?”

DR. LINDA TRUITT: So, one of the things that you will notice in our solicitation this fiscal 

year regards the question of New Investigator/ Early Career, and so that is addressed on 

page 11 of this solicitation. And what we're doing is encouraging those who are, I think, in 

that sort of situation where they don't have a long history of publications and other work.

And spelled out here are some of the Eligibility requirements, if you will. So, you hold the 

non-tenure assistant professor appointment, your terminal degree is within the past 10 

years, and you have not received NIJ funding as a PI in a research project with the 

exception of a couple of solicitations like the GRF, Graduate Research Fellowships. So, 

that is something that we are encouraging. And we can't say too much about how that will 

factor in. We don't have a specific weighting or other way. We are just saying that they 

should identify it as such, preferably in a title page of the application. And then NIJ will be 

able to consider that in the funding decision-making.

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: Yeah. And that you're not treated differently per se. Again, if you 

consider the Selection Criteria, it's judged based on what you bring to the table in that 
viii

proposal. So, it's an even playing field — and I don't think you're suggesting anything else 

—everyone is judged the same, but people just bring different experiences and the quality 

of the proposals are different as they come in. And that's, in part, what the final decisions 

are based on.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Another question: “Are we allowed to submit proposals that 

overlap in two of the areas identified in the RFP, say, eyewitness and jury decisionmaking? Would this have any impact on the likelihood of getting funded?”

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: No, it wouldn't ... oh, let me rephrase. Not necessarily, as long 

as you can show how those two proposals differ. Because if they're very much the same, 

that could have an impact, possibly.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: I think they want one proposal that touches both.

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: Sure. That's fine.

DR. LINDA TRUITT: Yeah, so they're not mutually exclusive.

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: Right.

DR. LINDA TRUITT: So these are priority interest areas that NIJ has identified that are 

consistent with the Administration and Department's priorities. They are meant to convey 

what we think are very important matters and are ready for rigorous research. There's no 

reason that you can't combine one or more of those. Again, as Brett was describing, just 

be really careful about how you set that up, and make sure that if you are covering 

multiple areas, you have adequate resources to do that.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: “For New Investigator/ Early Career opportunities, the 

solicitation says they must have completed their terminal degree. Is terminal degree only a 

doctoral level degree, i.e., a master's level does not apply?”

DR. LINDA TRUITT: The ruling has been, if you are in a line of discipline where the 

natural termination of your education ... so, for example, a juris doctorate. So, it's your law 

degree; it could be the terminal degree in your career progression. You could argue —

given your discipline of study and, relevantly, this application research — that you are at 

that point where you've reached the terminal point of your education. And if that’s a 

master's degree, you will simply make that point. I think there's a couple of examples like 

that, that had to with medical school, clinical positions, and that sort of thing. So, just be 

very careful, making that crystal clear to the reviewer.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Another question. “If you apply for a particular solicitation and 

do not receive it, can you apply for other solicitations as they become available with the 

same proposal?”
ix

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: If you don't receive funding — you said “receive it,” but are you 

saying ...? Again, you have to be very careful because if you apply to another solicitation, 

you have to make sure it's responsive to that solicitation. There could be some overlap, 

but we want these proposals to be responsive to our solicitation. So, if it's responsive to 

another solicitation, nothing would prevent you from submitting to that solicitation.

DR. LINDA TRUITT: Right. So, particularly, if it’s this fiscal year, and you're talking about 

this array of solicitation funding opportunities, you want each solicitation application to be 

very specific and targeted. What we cannot do is taking an application and molding it 

around the solicitation. It's really up to you to be specific as to what your target is and the 

rationale for applying it to that. It doesn't count against you, but it's probably a good idea if 

you do decide to do that. If you know it now, put it in the first one. If you know it by the 

second one, make a note of that. So you're acknowledging it, and if we're aware of that, it 

makes it a little bit easier.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: At this time, I do not see any other questions. We'll give 

everyone a few minutes. Just to let you know, I did change the slide. There's some contact 

information showing right now. It is for the National Criminal Justice Reference Service 

and their Response Center. You'll see a toll-free number, email, fax, number, web chat, 

and you can submit any questions you have after this webinar to NCJRS, and they will 

respond to you. If they have to, they will contact Brett and Linda, and get an answer back 

to you.

Also, as a reminder, these slides and the transcript for this webinar will be posted or 

attached to the NIJ solicitation in approximately 10 business days.

Another question came through. “Would a law enforcement agency be considered a 

researcher?”

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: Yes. And that's my area, so I love to get those kind of questions.

Again, it's going ... the research is what's key, so nothing would prevent a law 

enforcement agency from submitting a proposal. Again, we're going to judge what we 

have on paper and the quality of that research being proposed, so whether you're from a 

law enforcement agency does not matter. We're thinking of the quality of the proposal, so 

we welcome those proposals.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: “Last year, NIJ was accepting open submissions for earlycareer investigator awards. This appears to be different. Will NIJ go back to the previously 

opened submission, or is this how this award will be considered in the future as part of the 

RFP?”

DR. LINDA TRUITT: So, yes, correct. In FY17 and before, there was a dedicated 

solicitation for New Investigator/ Early Career research. As you could see now, looking at 

the FY18 solicitations, there is a section in each of them about this consideration; all of the 
x

solicitations had been released. You should not be seeing another open-ended New 

Investigator solicitation that would be apart from these.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: “Is the funding applicable for only existing interventions, frontend interventions, or can it be used to evaluate the impact of a novel or innovative 

intervention?”

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: I don't think there's any restriction on what you're proposing —

again, to the extent that it responds to the RFP. So, whether it's novel or whether it's an 

existing [intervention], I don't think anything would prevent you from applying.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: “Will it be difficult to receive funding for quasi-experimental 

research versus research with random assignments?”

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: No, not difficult. Look, our Director is a big fan of randomized 

controlled trials, and he has made that very clear, but I don't think that if you submit a 

different proposal, you automatically will be shot down, so I would not say that. I would not 

jump to that conclusion but, again, our Director has gone on record as being a fan of 

RCTs, so, no. But, if it's difficult — I don't want to use those words, “would it be difficult.”

You would be judged accordingly and — similarly to all the other proposals that we 

receive or would receive — the ones that are considered to be the strongest ones would 

be the ones that have the highest probability of receiving funding.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: All right. Somebody is asking a clarifying question from an 

earlier question, obviously. “If we have research plans — if you have research plans in 

one or more areas under the proposal, are you accepting multiple solicitations from the 

same PI? I'm assuming that these would be totally different. Different topic, but the same 

person submitting them.”

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: Again, nothing would prevent someone from submitting multiple 

proposals. Let's say, hypothetically, if that person rose to the top, then of course it 

becomes ... there's a management issue there, because if you applied for, let's say, four 

proposals and you looked favorable across all four, then the question becomes, "Can you 

manage all four where you do receive funding?" But nothing in the RFP would prevent one 

PI to submit multiple proposals. We get that a lot of times across solicitations.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: “Are all proposals that intersect one of the solicitation’s stated 

interests in a different area of the justice system — example, family law, immigration law 

— acceptable?”

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: Yes. I think the best answer I could give you there is yes, you 

can submit it. And again, the extent of which it receives additional funding consideration 

will depend, in large part, on the substance contained therein. So, I can't say you couldn’t

submit it, but if another proposal is responsive to the Administration's interest and their 
xi

goals and their priorities, then you would receive consideration — review consideration 

and then, hopefully, funding consideration.

DR. LINDA TRUITT: Thank you all for taking the time to join us today. As we're showing 

here, you can always get a transcript and the slides. Submit any questions you have 

outstanding to NCJRS and they'll get those to us. And I think that's about all.

DR. BRETT CHAPMAN: Yeah, thank you for joining. We hope that we were helpful in 

moving you along to submitting your proposals. We look forward to seeing some good 

proposals and reviewing them, and spending some money! So, we thank you, and have a 

good afternoon.
Funding Opportunities through NIJ for the 

Administration of Justice, Fiscal Year 2018

April 4, 2018 | TIME 3:00 PM EST

The webinar will begin shortly.
• Live-captioning is available for the hearing impaired. Please click on the “Media Viewer” to 

log in.

• Difficulty hearing via your computer? Click on “Communicate” at the top left, and then 

“Audio Connection” to adjust the speakers. Still can’t hear? Dial in using the information 

located in the meeting invite.

• Need technical assistance? Please use the Chat Box, and send your issue to the Host.

• Questions about the presentation? Submit questions at any time by using the Q&A box and 

selecting all panelists. Questions will be answered at the end of the presentation.

• A transcript of this presentation, and the related slides will be posted to the NIJ website.

Important Information for Today’s Webinar
Today’s Presenters: 

Brett Chapman, Social Science Analyst and Linda Truitt, Senior Social Science Analyst 

Office of Research and Evaluation

Funding Opportunities through NIJ for the 

Research and Evaluation on the Administration of 

Justice, Fiscal Year 2018

Solicitation: NIJ-2018-14001

Solicitation Post Date: March 16, 2018

Solicitation Close Date: May 14, 2018 11:59 PM EDT
Webinar Overview

• Goals of the Research and Evaluation on the Administration 

of Justice solicitation

• Topic Areas of Interest

• Expected Deliverables

• Recommended Resources

• Application Process

• Review Process & Selection Criteria

• Common Panel Criticisms

• Q&A Session
Goals of Research and Evaluation on the 

Administration of Justice solicitation

This solicitation supports the U.S. Department of Justice’s priorities 

of reducing violent crime and enhancing investigations and 

prosecutions. 

This solicitation seeks investigator-initiated, interdisciplinary 

research and evaluation projects related to the administration of 

justice in three areas: (1) eyewitness evidence; (2) front-end 

intervention strategies; and (3) enhancing investigations and 

prosecutions. 
• Eyewitness Identification Evidence

– Cognitive Neuroscience

– Research on Estimator and System Variables

• Front-end Intervention Strategies

– Diversion and Deflection Programs

– Pretrial Notification Protocols and Court Appearance Compliance

– Bail Reform

– Justice System-Led Strategies Aimed at Young-Adult Offenders

• Enhancing Investigations and Prosecutions

– Body-Worn Cameras

– Research on Juror Decision-Making

Topic Areas of Interest
Expected Deliverables

• Standard grant reporting requirements

– Quarterly and final financial reports

– Semi-annual research performance progress reports

• Final Research Report

• Associated data sets or files, if appropriate

• Community and scholarly products

• Peer-reviewed journal articles

• Presentations to appropriate scientific and practitioner conferences
What will not be funded

• Applications...

– that are not responsive to this specific solicitation

– whose primary purpose is to purchase equipment, materials, or supplies*

– whose work is funded under another federal award

– that request training in support of programs or direct services unrelated to or 

associated with the proposed project

– that request programs or services unrelated to the scope of the project or 

existing programs or services being evaluated

* However: “A budget may include these items for consideration if they are 

necessary to conduct research, development, demonstration, evaluation, or 

analysis.” 
Recommended Resources

• OJP Funding Resource Center

– https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm

• DOJ Grants Financial Guide

– https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/index.htm

• DOJ Grants Financial Management Online Training

– https://ojpfgm.webfirst.com/

• NIJ Grants

– https://www.nij.gov/funding/pages/welcome.aspx
APPLICATION PROCESS
Application Checklist | Requirements

– See pages 43-44 of the solicitation

• What an Application Should Include: 

– Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424)

– Project Abstract 

– Program Narrative (critical element) 

– Budget Detail Worksheet & Narrative (critical elements) 

– Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable) 

– Tribal Authorizing Resolution or Executive Order 

– Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire

– Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL)
• Additional Attachments 

– Applicant Disclosure of Pending Applications 

– Curriculum vitae or resume (critical element) 

– Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity 

– Request and Justification for Employee Compensation; Waiver 

(if applicable)

– Complete list of the individuals named or otherwise identified 

anywhere in the application 

Application Checklist | Requirements

– See pages 43-44 of the solicitation
Application Submission 

• Grants.gov

– Register in advance of deadline

– Acquire a unique entity identifier (currently, a DUNS number).

– Acquire or maintain registration with SAM 

– Submit application packet at least 72 hours prior to deadline

– Mandatory and Optional Attachments

• Files labeled to describe the file being attached (e.g., program 

narrative, budget narrative, CVs or résumés, etc.)
REVIEW PROCESS
Basic Minimum Requirements

1. Program narrative 

2. Budget detail worksheet

3. Budget narrative

4. CVs, résumés, or biographical sketches of key 

personnel
Selection Criteria

• Statement of the Problem and Research Questions - 10%

– Understanding of the problem, research questions, and their importance 

• Project Design and Implementation - 50%

– Quality and technical merit

• Potential Impact - 20%

– Ability to change a stated criminal justice problem

• Capabilities/Competencies - 20%

– Demonstrated productivity, and experience of the applicant organization 

and proposed project staff

• Budget 

• Dissemination plans
External and Internal Review

• BMR/Responsiveness Review

– Submitted by an eligible applicant

– Responsive to the scope of the solicitation

– Basic Minimum Requirements included

• External Peer Reviewer

• Technical and practitioner reviewers

• Internal Review

– NIJ scientific staff and leadership

– Department subject matter experts

• All funding decisions are at the discretion of the NIJ Director
Critiques Raised During Peer Review Process

• Overall Problems in Applications

– The proposal vaguely describes how the data will be collected and 

analyzed. 

– Proposal fails to demonstrate the significance of the proposed work.

– The proposal failed to demonstrate an understanding of the potential 

pitfalls and limitations of the proposed research.

– Too many details in the proposal are missing.

– The proposal fails to demonstrate how it will impact criminal justice policy 

and practice in the real world.

– Proposal is disorganized in its presentation, poorly written or lacked 

coherence.
Critiques Raised During Peer Review Process

• Statement of the Problem

– Statement fails to identify gaps in the current literature.

– The literature review is insufficient.

– The scope of the proposed research is extremely limited.
Critiques Raised During Peer Review Process

• Research Design

– The overall research design is not well articulated.

– The proposed research design/methods approach does not logically flow 

from the problem statement and literature review.

– The proposed research questions are not derived from the literature 

review.

– The proposed sample size should be supported by a power analysis.

– The feasibility of the proposed protocol is not addressed, in terms of 

access to the necessary qualitative and quantitative information.

– The comparison group is biased in a systematic way.
Critiques Raised During Peer Review Process

• Research Design (continued)

– The research design is to too ambitious and too complex.

– The proposed research design is not clearly laid out.

– The proposed sampling strategy is flawed.

– The proposed quantitative analyses are vague and unclear.
Critiques Raised During Peer Review Process

• Capabilities and Competencies

– The Principal Investigator (PI) does not demonstrate familiarity or 

proficiency with the proposed quantitative analysis.

– The information provided is too limited to suggest that the PI can manage 

research projects.

– The research team has a limited track record of publishing scholarly 

research.

– The dissemination plan lacks specificity and/or is not innovative.

– No criminology/criminal justice outlets are identified in the dissemination 

plan.
DISCUSSION

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Contact Information

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Response Center

Toll-free +1 (800) 851-3420 

TTY +1 (301) 240-6310 for hearing impaired only

Email Grants@ncjrs.gov

Fax +1 (301) 240-5830

Web chat https://webcontact.ncjrs.gov/ncjchat/chat.jsp 

NIJ FAQs https://www.nij.gov/funding/Pages/faqs.aspx