Notices regarding the solicitation “FY 2017 Comprehensive School

Safety Initiative” 

February 15, 2017: Answers to questions have been posted. To assist applicants in completing 

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

opportunity. Visit https://nij.gov/funding/pages/solicitation-qa.aspx#NIJ-2017-11147 for 

questions and answers to help prepare your application. 

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

Office of Justice Programs Approval Expires 12/31/2018 

National Institute of Justice 

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

Justice (NIJ) is seeking applications for funding under the Comprehensive School Safety 

Initiative (CSSI). This program furthers the Department’s mission by funding rigorous research 

to produce practical knowledge that can improve the safety of schools and students. The 

initiative is carried out through partnerships among researchers, educators, and other 

stakeholders — including law enforcement and mental health professionals. Projects funded 

under the CSSI are designed to produce knowledge that can be applied to schools and school 

districts across the nation for years to come. This solicitation includes five funding categories 

with different expectations and requirements to accomplish the purposes of the CSSI. 

FY 2017 Comprehensive School Safety Initiative

Applications Due: March 24, 2017

Eligibility

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

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

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

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

education), and certain qualified individuals. Local education agencies (LEAs), public charter 

schools that are recognized as an LEA, and State education agencies (SEAs) are eligible to 

apply. 

For-profit organizations must agree to forgo any profit or management fee. Foreign 

governments, foreign organizations, and foreign colleges and universities are not eligible to 

apply. 

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

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

(“subgrantees”)1

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

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

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

open to applications submitted by entities other than the research entity, in cases where LEAs 

and SEAs partner with a researcher, NIJ strongly recommends that the research entity serve as 

the applicant (the “prime”) for CSSI awards, making subawards (“subgrants”) to project partners 

as needed for the project. 

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
NIJ-2017-11147

2

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

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

availability of appropriations. 

Deadline

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

due by 11: 59 p.m. eastern time on March 24, 2017. 

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

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

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

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

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

any problems that may have caused a rejection notification. 

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

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

Information. 

Contact Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, and from 10:00 a.m. until 

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

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

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

Grants.gov number assigned to this solicitation: NIJ-2017-11147

Release date: January 13, 2017 
NIJ-2017-11147

3

Contents

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

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

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

Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly Products .......................................15

B. Federal Award Information ....................................................................................................17

Type of Award .......................................................................................................................18

Financial Management and System of Internal Controls ........................................................19

Budget Information ................................................................................................................19

Cost Sharing or Match Requirement ......................................................................................20

Pre-Agreement Costs (also known as Pre-award Costs) .......................................................20

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver ...............................21

Prior Approval, Planning, and Reporting of Conference/Meeting/Training Costs ...................21

Costs Associated with Language Assistance (if applicable) ...................................................21

C. Eligibility Information .............................................................................................................22

D. Application and Submission Information ...............................................................................22

What an Application Should Include ......................................................................................22

How to Apply .........................................................................................................................34

E. Application Review Information .............................................................................................38

Review Criteria ......................................................................................................................38

Review Process .....................................................................................................................40

F. Federal Award Administration Information ............................................................................41

Federal Award Notices ..........................................................................................................41

Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements ............................................42

General Information about Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements ..............................43

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s) ...................................................................................43

H. Other Information..................................................................................................................43

Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552 and 5 U.S.C. 552a) ....................43

Provide Feedback to OJP ......................................................................................................44

Application Checklist .............................................................................................................45
NIJ-2017-11147

4

FY 2017 Comprehensive School Safety Initiative

(CFDA No. 16.560)

A. Program Description 

Overview 

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

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

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

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

professionals. Projects funded under the CSSI are designed to improve understanding that can 

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

includes five funding categories with different expectations and requirements to accomplish the 

purposes of the CSSI. 

Authorizing Legislation: Any awards under this solicitation would be made under statutory 

authority provided by a full-year appropriations act for FY 2017. 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 2017. 

Program-Specific Information 

NIJ has administered the CSSI since 2014. The initiative was a response to disturbing highprofile incidents of violence in our nation’s schools. Schools are mostly safe places — but when 

violence occurs in a school, it strikes a blow against a fundamental institution within our 

communities. Educators and public safety officials grapple with the challenge of creating and 

maintaining a safe and healthy learning environment for students. CSSI is an investment in 

building sound and objective knowledge to improve the safety of schools, students, and 

communities across the nation. 

CSSI is focused on K-12 public schools (including public charter schools). The initiative is 

concerned with all forms of violence that occur on school property during or outside of school 

hours, on the way to-and-from school or school-sponsored events, on school-sponsored modes 

of transport, or during school-sponsored events. 

Framing the Problems that CSSI Aims to Address 

CSSI funding may support and address a wide range of school safety activities. Within the 

program parameters and in furtherance of the goals and objectives detailed in this solicitation, 

applicants have considerable discretion in determining the kinds of school safety initiatives they 

propose to address. Applicants are strongly advised to review the previously funded projects.2

While studies looking at similar topics will be considered, NIJ may give priority in award 

 

2

 Interested applicants are encouraged to review descriptions of the 24 awards made by NIJ under CSSI in 2014 

available at http://nij.gov/topics/crime/school-crime/documents/comprehensive-school-safety-initiative-awards-fy2014.pdf#page=8, descriptions of the 25 awards made by NIJ under CSSI in 2015 at 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249228.pdf, and descriptions of the 25 awards made under CSSI in 2016 at 

https://nij.gov/Documents/NIJ-CSSI-FY-2016-Awards.pdf. 
NIJ-2017-11147

5

decisions to well-designed research that expands the range of issues and strategies beyond this 

current pool of funded projects. 

There are multiple authoritative sources that provide recommendations and guidance for those 

seeking to improve school safety. For example, the National Academy of Sciences published 

Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice,

3

 the U.S. Department of Justice’s 

Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) partnered with the U.S. Department of 

Education to develop Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, 

and Respect (SECURe) Rubrics,4

 six relevant professional associations released A Framework 

for Safe and Successful Schools;

5

the U.S. Department of Education released Guiding 

Principles: A Resource Guide for Improving School Climate and Discipline;

6 and in 2013, a 

collection of federal agencies comprised of the U.S. Departments of Education, Justice, Health 

and Human Services, and Homeland Security released a Guide for Developing High-Quality 

School Emergency Operations Plans.

7

 NIJ, through its National Law Enforcement Corrections 

Technology Center system, has produced a four-volume set titled Sharing Ideas & Resources to 

Keep Our Nation’s Schools Safe, which features innovative ideas and practices from the field. 

Applicants are encouraged to consider these resources and others when developing their 

projects. Applicants should also seek out and consider any available research and evaluation 

findings relevant to proposed projects. 

Every award made under CSSI must include a carefully developed research strategy with clear 

potential for producing findings that have practical benefits for schools, students, and 

communities at large. Research strategies should include clearly stated research questions, the 

most rigorous appropriate research design to answer those questions, a minimally intrusive data 

collection strategy, provisions for protecting students from unintended harm during the research 

process, and a plan for sharing findings with practitioners and policymakers who can most 

benefit from them. NIJ is open to supporting a wide range of appropriate and rigorous research 

designs to address and understand the full range of school and student safety issues and 

activities. 

With few exceptions, most studies on school safety require educators and other stakeholders 

within the schools and in the community to work closely with researchers to ask the right 

questions, prioritize challenges, identify solutions, collect data, and make sense of the findings. 

No single profession or discipline holds all of the answers to the complex challenges of creating 

and maintaining safe learning environments for children — therefore applicants should consider 

multidisciplinary approaches. NIJ expects applications for CSSI to prominently feature close 

collaboration and partnerships involving schools, researchers, and others as necessary (e.g., 

 

3

 National Academy of Sciences Preventing Bullying Through Science and Policy can be downloaded here: 

http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2016/Preventing-Bullying-Through-Science-Policy-and-Practice.aspx. 

4

 COPS and Department of Education SECURe Rubrics can be found here: 

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/supportingsafeschools. 

5 A Framework for Safe and Successful Schools was produced by National Association of Elementary School 

Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals, American School Counselor Association, National 

Association of School Psychologists, School Social Work Association of America, and the National Association of 

School Resource Officers and is available at 

https://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/Framework%20for%20Safe%20and%20Successful%20School%20Environm

ents_FINAL_0.pdf. 

6 Guiding Principles: A Resource Guide for Improving School Climate and Discipline is available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/guiding-principles.pdf. 

7 Guide for Developing High-Quality School Emergency Operations Plans is available at 

http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/planning/Documents/eops-k-8.pdf. 
NIJ-2017-11147

6

justice professionals, parents, and students) to implement and study the proposed issues and 

activities related to school and student safety. 

As noted on the title page, NIJ strongly recommends that research organizations be designated 

as the applicant (the “prime”) for CSSI awards, making subawards (“subgrants”) to participating 

stakeholders as appropriate for the proposed project. This arrangement is preferred in order to 

produce the highest quality research while reducing administrative burdens to SEAs, LEAs, and 

other stakeholders. Research organizations may be institutions of higher education, nonprofit or 

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

and evaluation. 

An applicant may propose to work with any combination of elementary, middle, or high schools, 

or may elect to focus solely on a single type of school or range of grades. An applicant should 

consider carefully the schools and grades that it will focus on based on the research questions it

proposes to address. Care should be taken to assure that proposed programmatic and research 

activities are developmentally appropriate for the impacted student population. Applicants are 

also encouraged to consider appropriate ways to involve students and parents in safety 

planning and activities. 

Applicants should consider interventions that include coordination with diverse partners 

including local law enforcement, behavioral and mental health professions, courts, criminal and 

juvenile justice professionals, as well as parents and youth. Proposed interventions should also 

take into account recent research findings related to disciplinary policies and practices that may 

be overly harsh or exclusionary. Such policies and practices have created what some refer to as 

a “school-to-prison pipeline” in which relatively minor student misconduct is subjected to 

suspensions, expulsions, and involvement with the criminal or juvenile justice system. 

Areas of Interest for School Safety Research

NIJ is particularly interested in applications that address the following: 

School Resource Officers 

Many questions surround the activities and functions of school resource officers (SROs), 

other law enforcement, and security officers (hereafter referred to as SROs) who 

operate/coordinate with schools. The body of research on the effectiveness of SRO 

programs is limited, both by the number of studies and by the rigor of the studies that have 

been conducted. The research that is available draws conflicting conclusions about whether 

SRO programs are effective at reducing school violence and/or if additional SROs result in 

more children being placed in the criminal justice system. NIJ seeks applications that will 

lead to the development and implementation of trainings and/or tools that will significantly 

improve the work of SROs. NIJ is interested in research that will answer the following 

questions: 

 What criteria are used to identify and select law enforcement officers to serve as 

SROs? What tools or strategies should be used in screening officers to become 

SROs? 

 How are SROs and other law enforcement officers trained to work in K-12 public 

schools? What types of training should SROs receive that would equip them to 
NIJ-2017-11147

7

understand child development, disabilities issues, and trauma so that they are able 

to effectively work with students? How does their training compare to their day-to-day 

activities? What training delivery method is most effective (e.g., online, episodic, inperson, follow-up coaching, mandatory trainings, voluntary interest based training)? 

 How are the activities of the SRO and other law enforcement officers being 

documented, beyond documentation of arrests? Which entity (for example, the LEA 

or the police department) is responsible for documenting those activities? 

 How should SROs’ performance be evaluated by their agency, the school and the 

communities they serve? 

 To what extent are SROs and other law enforcement officers involved in addressing 

school disciplinary matters that do not rise to the level of criminal or delinquent 

activity? How are those situations handled? Who initiates SRO involvement and 

why? 

 Are there differences in SRO turnover, discipline disparities, or arrest rates when 

comparing school districts that have their own police departments with school 

districts that have MOUs or contracts with local law enforcement agencies, or school 

districts that do not have formal arrangements with local law enforcement? 

 Do SRO assignment patterns (assigned to one school, assigned to several schools, 

roving, assigned to a “beat”) affect SRO turnover, discipline disparities, or arrest 

rates? 

 For SRO programs that are implementing fines, fees or civil citations in a program of 

graduated sanctions, what is the impact of those sanctions on school based arrest 

rates? 

Implicit Bias, School Discipline, and School Coordination with the Criminal Justice System 

Developing positive school climate and refining school discipline policies and practices are 

critical steps to improving academic achievement and supporting student safety and 

success. The U.S. Department of Education has analyzed its Civil Rights Data Collection 

(CRDC) and found that youth of color and youth with disabilities are disproportionately 

impacted by suspensions and expulsions.8

 They are more than three times as likely as their 

white peers without disabilities to be expelled and suspended. These data also demonstrate 

that these pushouts begin as early as pre-school. In addition to suspension and expulsion, 

recent examinations of the CRDC demonstrate that black children, boys, and children with 

disabilities are disproportionately subject to corporal punishment in the 19 States that still 

allow this practice.9

 The experiences of corporal punishment and suspension, often 

beginning in the early elementary school years, may create pathways from school-to-prison. 

Relying on harsh discipline, suspensions and expulsions may not be compatible with 

creating a positive school climate and safe learning environment. The growing body of 

research on school discipline should inform locally developed approaches to identifying 

 

8

 See http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/data.html for more information on CRDC. 

9

 A more thorough description of the use of corporal punishment in schools can be found in Gershoff, E.T. and Font, 

S. A. (2016) Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: Prevalence, Disparities in Use, and Status in State and 

Federal Policy. Social Policy Report, vol. 30, number 1.
NIJ-2017-11147

8

factors that may lead to exclusionary school discipline, poor school climate and the schoolto-prison pipeline. 

 NIJ seeks proposals for a model school behavior and discipline data system that: (1) 

considers what information a school would need to collect (e.g., student 

demographic data, incident information, referral statistics, consequence data, 

information about SRO involvement, and outcomes information); (2) determines how 

best to collect it (including methods to standardize teacher and administrator data 

entry); (3) allows for layperson-friendly data analytics modeling so educators can 

understand and use their own discipline data; (4) includes and shares information as 

appropriate from other public agencies, while complying with FERPA, HIPAA, and 

other federal laws that implicate student privacy. 

 NIJ encourages applicants to develop and evaluate innovative pilot programs that 

involve stakeholders — school districts, courts, law enforcement (including police, 

sheriff’s departments, and district attorneys’ offices), public defenders, family and 

child welfare system personnel, and communities (e.g., parents, students, local 

leaders) — working together to develop school-based protocols that allow for 

graduated sanctions for students’ misbehavior and limit school-based arrests. 

 NIJ similarly encourages applicants to develop and evaluate pilot programs that 

involve the stakeholders listed in the bullet above working together to build diversion 

programs that reduce misbehavior of students while (1) minimizing the severity of 

negative outcomes for students (e.g., arrest, out-of-home placement, secure 

detention, adjudication); (2) encouraging positive outcomes (counseling, communitybased alternatives to secure programs);and (3) minimizing costs to schools and the 

justice system. 

 NIJ seeks applications for studies that examine school pushouts (i.e., all of the 

reasons students are removed from the general education environment, regardless 

of educational justification). Such research might describe and analyze the spectrum 

of circumstances, consequences, and alternative education options available for 

students who experience school pushout, including, but not limited to, a selfcontained classroom, in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, an alternative 

school, a cyber-charter school, educational services during expulsion, a partial 

hospitalization program, a residential treatment facility, a juvenile justice facility, etc. 

 In relation to implicit bias, school discipline, and the school-to-prison pipeline, NIJ 

seeks studies that explore the student voice and students’ thoughts on these 

matters. How do students perceive justice system involvement in their schools and 

how are these perceptions related to their feelings about overall school safety? 

Disinvestment in Ineffective School Safety Programs 

 There is great effort invested in promoting the use of evidence-based 

programs/policies/practices (EBPs) and many schools do use EBPs to address 

school safety issues. However, the use of ineffective programs/policies/practices 

persists in schools at the same time as implementation of EBPs. Disinvestment in 

ineffective programs/policies/practices may help strengthen the use of EBPs. NIJ is 
NIJ-2017-11147

9

interested in the examination of several questions related to disinvestment in 

ineffective programs/policies/practices: 

o What barriers to success exist when trying to implement evidence-based 

programs/practices in school safety? 

o As a school incorporates EBPs to improve school safety, how does the use of 

programs and practices with no demonstrated effects, harmful effects, or limited 

benefits impact the use and/or outcomes of EBPs? 

o What challenges occur when school systems try to disinvest in particular 

programs/practices/policies? 

CSSI Funding Categories 

NIJ is soliciting applications for CSSI funding in five categories. The first three categories are 

focused on developing knowledge about what works to make schools safe using a tiered 

evidence approach. The tiered evidence framework is based on a continuum of evidence that 

builds from early stage evaluations of innovative programs to highly rigorous evaluations of 

programs that are ready to scale-up. Increasing amounts of funding are awarded to programs of 

research according to their level of evidence effectiveness. In recent years, multiple federal 

grant making agencies (e.g., Department of Education, Department of Health and Human 

Services, Department of Labor) have used tiered evidence frameworks to build increasingly 

rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of youth programs.10

The three categories focused on developing knowledge through this tiered evidence approach 

are: 

 Category 1 Developing Novel and Innovative School Safety Programs, Practices, 

and Strategies. 

 Category 2 Demonstration, Evaluation and Validation Tests for School Safety. 

 Category 3 Expanding the use of Effective Interventions through Scaling-up. 

This solicitation will also include funding categories to support research on causes and 

consequences of school safety issues as well as assessments of school safety issues in tribal 

communities. 

 Category 4 Research on School Safety. 

 Category 5 Understanding School Safety in Tribal Schools. 

Applications should feature close coordination involving SEAs or LEAs (including public charter 

schools that are recognized as LEAs) and a researcher or research organization that has 

considerable experience conducting research and evaluation, preferably, in school settings. NIJ 

 

10 The Youth.gov website provides summary information and links to federal programs that use a tiered evidence 

framework, including the Department of Education’s Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) http://youth.gov/evidenceinnovation/investing-evidence. 
NIJ-2017-11147

10

recommends that the research organization serve as the applicant and make one or more 

subawards to participating SEAs or LEAs. 

The goal of the partnership should be to implement school safety activities that are paired with 

objective, high-quality research and evaluation activities with emphasis on fidelity to the 

implementation of the program and rigorous research designs. Coordination should be based on 

a formal agreement that demonstrates value placed upon open communication and the sharing 

of information and ideas. NIJ strongly encourages applicants to include appropriate letters of 

support in their applications. For applications selected for award, recipients should produce a 

formalized (i.e., written and fully-executed by authorized representatives of all parties) 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) or agreement that outlines the roles and responsibilities 

of all entities. 

Applicants are strongly encouraged to review carefully the section entitled, “Budget and 

Associated Documentation” under Section D. Application and Submission Information, and its 

discussion of authorization and associated documentation required for any subawards. 

Applicants for Categories 1-3 should: 

 Dedicate up to 1/3 (one-third) of funding directly to research partners to develop and 

carry out a rigorous program of evaluation. No less than 2/3 (two-thirds) of funding 

should go towards the personnel, programs, equipment, materials, training, and other 

activities intended to advance school and student safety that will be subject to 

evaluation. A budget should be prepared for the full period of performance that clearly 

reflects the 1/3 and 2/3 split. See below in What an Application Should Include for more 

details on expectations and requirements. 

 Incorporate findings from any local school climate and safety assessments and, as 

appropriate, plan to update or align activities with existing frameworks for promoting safe 

school climates and existing school emergency operations plans. 

 Consider the availability and quality of local administrative data as it relates to school 

climate and school safety. An applicant may propose and evaluate improvements to 

relevant administrative data collection practices as part of the project design. 

 Submit along with the application an administrative agreement or, at a minimum, a letter 

of support from all project partners. At a minimum, this is to include LEAs or SEAs and 

research partners, but it may also include behavioral and mental health service 

providers, law enforcement, courts, municipal government partners, and others as 

appropriate. If an award is made, recipients should submit a fully executed, written 

agreement between the relevant LEAs or SEAs and the research partner. This 

agreement should provide details on the roles and responsibilities of each party, and on 

what will be done to ensure that the independence and objectivity of the research is 

maintained.11

 

11 An applicant, if funded, also must ensure, among other things, that any subaward has appropriate authorization, is 

clearly identified to the subrecipient, and includes all required information consistent with the Part 200 Uniform 

Requirements. See, e.g., 2 CFR 200.331. The "Part 200 Uniform Requirements” means the DOJ regulation at 2 

C.F.R Part 2800, which adopts (with certain modifications) the provisions of 2 C.F.R. Part 200. 
NIJ-2017-11147

11

An applicant that intends to propose a project for which the primary purpose is to demonstrate 

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

technologies should refer to NIJ’s Research, Development, and Evaluation of Technologies 

to Improve School Safety solicitation. Please refer to that solicitation to determine the best fit 

for your application. NIJ will not review duplicate applications to this solicitation and the 

Research, Development, and Evaluation of Technologies to Improve School Safety

solicitation and applicants are asked to submit the same project to only one of these. 

Category 1: Developing Novel and Innovative School Safety Programs, Practices, and 

Strategies 

Competition ID: NIJ-2017-11428

This category of the solicitation is aimed at providing scholars with an opportunity to develop 

new, innovative and evidence based programs, practices or strategies that have not yet 

undergone evaluation. The Developing Novel and Innovative School Safety Programs, 

Practices, and Strategies category is building on the foundation already established by NIJ’s 

three previous years of funding for CSSI. Since 2014, NIJ has consistently funded projects 

aimed at developing knowledge on what works to make schools safe. However, NIJ has not 

funded many grants to support new program development activities. Some current CSSI 

projects are focused on improving previously existing programs, combining two or more 

programs, or assessing practices such as implementation of school resource officers and 

exclusionary discipline. NIJ has a strong interest in developing new programs that have the 

potential to improve school safety and reduce the potential harms associated with addressing 

school safety issues. 

Applicants are encouraged to propose early-stage or exploratory research and evaluation 

projects to build evidence for novel and innovative school safety interventions. The innovation 

grants will support the development of interventions and pilot tests of the implementation of the 

developed interventions. This research may help to identify factors that are likely to mediate or 

moderate relationships between school safety activities and intended outcomes in particular 

settings or with particular populations. Innovation grants may also set the stage for more 

extensive or rigorous projects to follow; it may provide evidence for whether an intervention or 

strategy is ready to be subjected to a more rigorous efficacy or effectiveness evaluation. 

The innovation grants applicants are required to propose a logic model that describes the 

operation of the program. The logic model should clearly articulate and operationalize the 

inputs, activities, and outcomes of the intervention program. Applicants will also be asked to 

articulate testable hypotheses that are firmly situated in the research literature. 

Category 2: Demonstration, Evaluation and Validation Tests for School Safety 

Competition ID: NIJ-2017-11429

The purpose of category 2 is to support demonstrations and evaluations of programs, practices, 

policies, and strategies designed to enhance school and student safety. This category most 
NIJ-2017-11147

12

closely resembles the “Developing Knowledge about What Works to Make Schools Safe” 

category from previous CSSI solicitations. However, in keeping with the focus on funding 

research based on a continuum of evidence, this category will solicit applications for funding for 

rigorous evaluations of interventions that have already undergone some evaluation and have 

demonstrated promise for enhancing school and student safety. 

Applicants are asked to conduct independent evaluations of promising programs. They are also 

asked to develop the most robust research designs possible that will produce scientific evidence 

regarding the efficacy and cost/benefit of these programs. One example of a project that may be 

considered under this category is an evaluation of an intervention by an outside researcher 

when the program/model developer has evidence of positive outcomes via internal evaluations. 

Applicants may propose studies that test individual programs, practices, and strategies; or that 

test a combination of multiple approaches that have been previously evaluated. Applicants 

should consider including cost/benefit analysis. In cases where evaluations find that 

interventions have produced the intended benefit, cost/benefit analysis provides valuable and 

practical information for practitioners and policymakers that aids decision-making. There is no 

requirement to study programs from a specified list, however, applicants are strongly 

encouraged to examine NIJ’s CrimeSolutions.gov, the Institute of Education Sciences What 

Works Clearinghouse, and various other “what works” repositories to identify promising 

programs and practices that may be ready for additional validation. Applicants should submit a 

clearly articulated logic model for the program, practice, or strategy that is proposed for 

evaluation and validation. 

Category 3: Expanding the use of Effective Interventions through Scaling-up

Competition ID: NIJ-2017-11430

The purpose of category 3 is to expand and evaluate the implementation of interventions that 

have demonstrated positive results and have a strong evidence base. This category represents 

the final tier of evidence on the continuum of evidence. Interventions ready for scale-up will 

require strong evidence of proven effectiveness through multiple efficacy or effectiveness 

studies. Applicants in this category are encouraged to focus their efforts on specific 

interventions and expanding them beyond the school level to the district, regional, or State level. 

Applicants should provide a clear justification for the proposed scale of the project based on 

factors related to number of schools, number of students, characteristics of the program, 

evaluation design, and other issues as appropriate. The interventions must be ready for scaleup, in that training, materials, and other implementation support must be available at the time of 

application or must be proposed for development as part of the application. 

Applicants should describe the intervention that will be scaled up, and provide the research 

evidence to demonstrate that the intervention is ready to go to scale. Key project participants 

(e.g., LEAs, SEAs) should provide letters of support indicating their willingness to participate in 

the implementation and the research associated with the project. Applicants may request 

resources including entering into an agreement with the program developer or training 

organization to facilitate the project. The program narrative should include a clearly articulated 

logic model. The logic model should identify and operationalize the inputs, activities, and 

outcomes of the intervention program. The program narrative should also include a sound 

implementation strategy, and a rigorous evaluation plan of that strategy. This plan should 
NIJ-2017-11147

13

provide a realistic foundation for implementation based on the implementation science literature 

and be flexible enough for the necessary adjustments that have to be made as scaling up 

proceeds. 

Applicants are encouraged to consider basic principles in guiding the planning, analysis, and 

decision-making in these projects. First, be aware of system thinking. Expansion and 

institutionalization of interventions occurs in a complex network of interactions and influences, 

which should be taken into account in order to ensure scaling-up success. In school safety, 

systems thinking refers especially to the interrelationships between the intervention, trainers, 

schools, and the evaluation team. Striving for an appropriate balance among these elements is 

a major task in designing and implementing a scale-up strategy. 

Second, scaling up must be concerned with sustainable policy and program development 

including attention to institutionalizing the intervention in policies, program guidelines, budgets, 

and other dimensions of the school system. In this regard, applicants are encouraged to include 

cost/benefit analysis in the proposal. Cost/benefit analysis is an effective way to communicate 

and disseminate findings from evaluation research and aids in decision-making. 

Finally, these projects must assess scalability. Scalability refers to the ease or difficulty of 

scaling up the intervention, based on attributes of success which have previously been identified 

in research on implementation science and through practical experience. Applicants should 

consider carefully these important principles as they design the scale-up project. 

Category 4: Research on School Safety 

Competition ID: NIJ-2017-11431

The purpose of category 4 is to produce research findings with implications for school safety 

practice and policy with project periods of performance that are two-to-three years. This 

category is a combination of two categories from previous CSSI solicitations: “Causes and 

Consequences of School Violence” and the “Shorter Term Studies on School Safety.” In this 

category, NIJ is particularly interested in research that investigates common, but understudied 

practices and strategies related to school safety. 

Projects under this category will support research to improve our understanding of the potential 

root causes and related factors that contribute to school violence, as well as the impact and 

consequences of school violence. The studies should have the potential to produce advances in 

theory, methodology, and/or understanding of important constructs with clear potential 

implications for policy or practice related to school and student safety. Studies will answer 

questions about why school violence occurs, where and when it occurs, who is involved, and 

how schools and people are affected. Applicants are encouraged to consider a variety of 

research questions and research methods to improve the understanding of violence in schools, 

among students, and directed at students. Studies that can be implemented within shorter 

timeframes might include high-quality case studies or mixed methods comparative research. 

They may incorporate key member interviews, focus groups, secondary data analysis, surveys, 

document analysis, and other methods focused on the challenges, opportunities, and lessons 

learned from efforts to increase school and student safety under different circumstances. 
NIJ-2017-11147

14

Category 5: Understanding School Safety Issues in Tribal Schools 

Competition ID: NIJ-2017-11432

The purpose of category 5 is to assess school safety issues as they affect American 

Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) students and schools. NIJ is very interested in examining school 

safety issues in understudied communities and there is a dearth of research that systematically 

examines school safety in tribal schools or schools with high populations of AI/AN students.12 A 

secondary objective of category 5 is to inform possible future investments in developing and 

testing school safety interventions in schools with high populations of AI/AN students. 

AI/AN students face many unique challenges. According to the National Indian Education 

Association’s (NIEA) History of Natives in the American Education System (2016): 

 Violence and suicide are the first and second leading causes of death among AI/AN youth 

respectively. The suicide rate is 2.5 times the national rate for AI/AN students in the 15-24 

year old age group. 

 In Montana, AI/AN students are four times more likely to be expelled in comparison to their 

white peers. 

 In Utah, AI/AN students are 7.5 times more likely to be expelled in comparison to their white 

peers. 

 AI/AN students often live in isolated, rural areas, and some travel hundreds of miles to and 

from school. 

 Approximately 90 percent of AI/AN students attend public schools, and thus face similar 

racial and ethnic disparities as other minority students. 

 The AI/AN high school graduation rate is 69 percent — the lowest of any racial/ethnic 

demographic group across all schools. U.S. Department of Education data indicate that the 

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools fare even worse, with a graduation rate of 53 

percent, compared to a national average of 83 percent. 

According to the U.S. Government Accountability office (GAO), 33 percent of BIE schools were 

in poor physical condition.13 Some of the schools are outdated — particularly when it comes to 

control and monitoring of campus access; through fencing, entrance design, entryway/exit 

accessibility, lighting and electronic monitoring of commons areas. Furthermore, most BIE 

 

12 According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there are approximately 522,000 AI/AN students enrolled 

in elementary and secondary schools in the U.S. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_203.50.asp. No 

more than 10 percent of those students attend BIE schools with the remaining attending public schools. NIJ seeks 

assessments of school safety needs for students attending schools with a high percentage of AI/AN students. NIJ 

leaves it up to the applicant to define a high population of AI/NA students and to justify the selection of SEAs or LEAs. 

13 Indian Affairs: Key Actions Needed to Ensure Safety and Health at Indian School Facilities. GAO-16-313. 

Washington, D.C.: March 2016. 
NIJ-2017-11147

15

schools do not have satellite phones or dedicated phone lines that can be used during an 

emergency (cell phone towers get overloaded during an emergency). 

Under this funding category, NIJ intends to fund two-or-more projects to better understand the 

myriad issues that confront AI/AN students in BIE schools and in public schools on and off tribal 

lands. NIJ encourages applicants to examine the broader issues of school safety that are facing 

tribal schools including but not limited to: 

 Exposure to violence and its impact on students, particularly school truancy and school 

climate. This may include development or validation of trauma screens for AI/AN youth 

for use in schools and other settings (juvenile justice, social service agencies, and 

mental health). 

 Physical conditions of schools and the security needs of schools in rural areas. 

 School climate in schools with a high population of AI/AN youth. 

 Disparities in school discipline practices for AI/AN students. 

 Coordination with law enforcement — both tribal law enforcement and local law 

enforcement. 

 Access to mental and behavioral health services. 

Applicants will be required to submit tribal resolution documentation prior to award. NIJ adheres 

to three principles that serve as the foundation of these research and evaluation activities. 

These principles require that research and evaluation projects for tribal youth provide practical 

results that are locally relevant; include local community members in the decision-making and 

implementation of the projects; and acknowledge and respect local customs, traditions, values, 

and history. Thus, NIJ encourages participatory approaches to developing and carrying out 

research with tribal populations. Research teams must demonstrate a strong capacity for 

working with AI/AN populations and in tribal settings. 

Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, and Expected Scholarly Products 

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

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

through partnerships involving educators, researchers, and other stakeholders (e.g., law 

enforcement, behavioral, and mental health professionals) working toward the following 

objectives: 

 Increasing scientific knowledge about the root causes, characteristics, and 

consequences of school violence and other threats to school and student safety. 

 Developing, supporting, and rigorously evaluating a wide range of school and student 

safety programs, practices, and strategies. 

 Developing a comprehensive school safety framework based on the best available 

information and evidence and testing it in selected school districts. 
NIJ-2017-11147

16

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submission Information. 

In addition to these deliverables (and the required reports14 and data on performance measures 

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

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

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

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

inventions, or similar scientific products. 

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

performance measures set out in the table immediately below. 

Performance Measures

Objective Performance Measure(s) Data Recipient Provides

Conduct research in 

science, technology, 

engineering, and/or 

mathematics having clear 

implications for criminal 

justice policy and practice 

in the United States.

1. Relevance to the needs of the field as

measured by whether the project’s 

substantive scope did not deviate from the 

funded project or any subsequent agencyapproved modifications to the scope.

2. Quality of the research as demonstrated by 

the scholarly products that result in whole 

or in part from work funded under the NIJ 

award, such as published, peer-reviewed, 

scientific journal articles, and/or (as 

appropriate for the funded project) law 

review journal articles, book chapter(s) or 

book(s) in the academic press, 

technological prototypes, patented 

inventions, or similar scientific products.

3. Quality of management as measured by 

such factors as whether significant project 

milestones were achieved, reporting and 

other deadlines were met, and costs 

remained within approved limits.

1. Quarterly financial 

reports, semi-annual 

and final progress 

reports of the work 

performed under the 

NIJ award, and, if 

applicable, an annual 

audit report.

2. List of citation(s) to all 

scholarly products that 

resulted in whole or in 

part from work funded 

under the NIJ award.

3. If applicable, each data 

set that resulted in 

whole or in part from 

work funded under the 

NIJ award.

 

14 Please note that final reporting requirements differ in projects that involve program evaluations and those that do 

not. 
NIJ-2017-11147

17

Evaluation Research

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

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

appropriate for the research questions to be addressed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

elements.

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

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

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

decision-making.

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

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

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

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

design appropriate for the research questions to be addressed.

B. Federal Award Information

For category 1: NIJ estimates that a total of $7 million will become available. NIJ anticipates 

awards will be made in amounts up to $1 million with performance periods ranging from 24-48 

months. NIJ expects to make awards in this category in the form of grants.

For category 2: NIJ estimates that a total of up to $19 million will become available. NIJ 

anticipates awards will be made in amounts ranging from $500,000 to $3 million with 

performance periods ranging from 24-48 months. NIJ expects to make awards in this category 

in the form of grants.

For category 3: NIJ estimates that a total of up to $21 million will become available. NIJ 

anticipates awards will be made in amounts ranging from $3 million to $7 million with 

performance periods ranging from 24-48 months. NIJ expects to make awards in this category 

in the form of grants.

For category 4: NIJ estimates that a total of up to $13 million will become available. NIJ 

anticipates that it will make awards in amounts ranging from $200,000 to $1 million with 

performance periods ranging from 24-36 months. NIJ expects to make awards in this category 

in the form of grants.
NIJ-2017-11147

18

For category 5: NIJ estimates that a total of up to $2 million will become available. NIJ 

anticipates that it will make awards in amounts ranging from $500,000 up to $1 million with 

performance periods ranging from 24-48 months. NIJ expects to make awards in this category 

in the form of cooperative agreements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vary from those described above.)

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

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

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

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

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

work funded under the award.

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 it will make any awards from funding categories 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the form of a 

grant. However, NIJ reserves the authority to make selected awards from categories 1, 2, 3, and 

4 as cooperative agreements on a case-by-case basis, where NIJ determines that a cooperative 

agreement relationship is more appropriate for the implementation of the funded project.

NIJ expects that any award from category 5 under this solicitation will be made in the form of a 

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

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

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

discussion of what may constitute substantial federal involvement. As discussed later in the 

solicitation, important rules (including limitations) apply to any conference/meeting/training costs 

under cooperative agreements.

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

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

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

Cooperative Agreements - FY 2017 Awards” in the OJP Funding Resource Center.
NIJ-2017-11147

19

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 

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 here.

Budget Information

What will not be funded:

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

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

demonstration, evaluation, or analysis.)

 Applications that are not responsive to the categories of funding available in this specific 

solicitation.

 

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.
NIJ-2017-11147

20

Supplanting

Federal funds must be used to supplement existing State, local, or tribal funds for program 

activities, and must not supplant those funds that have been appropriated for the same purpose. 

Supplanting will be reviewed during the application process, post-award monitoring, and audit. If 

reviewers think that supplanting may have occurred, then the applicant or recipient will be 

required to supply documentation demonstrating that the reduction in non-federal resources 

occurred for reasons other than the receipt or expected receipt of federal funds.

Applicants or recipients are expected to notify NIJ — in writing — promptly, in the event that the 

applicant or recipient identifies potential supplanting so that, as the circumstances may require, 

appropriate action(s) can be taken to avoid or address its occurrence.

To help clarify the difference between supplementing and supplanting, we provide the following 

example:

State funds are appropriated to hire 50 new police officers, and federal funds are awarded for 

hiring 60 new police officers. At the end of the year, the State has hired 60 new police officers, 

and the federal funds have been exhausted. The State has not used its funds towards hiring 

new officers, but instead reduced its appropriation for that purpose and assigned or 

appropriated the funds to another purpose. In this case, the State has supplanted its 

appropriation with the federal funds. If supplanting had not occurred, 110 new officers would 

have been hired using federal funds for 60 officers and State funds for 50 officers.

Participant Support Costs and Incentives for Social Science Research

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

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

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

protocol.

Cost Sharing or Match Requirement

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

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

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

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

performance of the federal award.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

approved in advance by OJP, award funds may be used for pre-agreement costs, consistent 
NIJ-2017-11147

21

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

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

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver

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

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

employee of the recipient at a rate that exceeds 110% of the maximum annual salary payable to 

a member of the federal government’s Senior Executive Service (SES) at an agency with a 

Certified SES Performance Appraisal System for that year.

17 The 2017 salary table for SES 

employees is available at the Office of Personnel Management website. Note: A recipient may 

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

limitation is paid with non-federal funds. (Non-federal funds used for any such additional 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

budget.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

all food and beverage costs.

Costs Associated with Language Assistance (if applicable)

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

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

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

 

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.
NIJ-2017-11147

22

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

services, where appropriate.

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

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

Awards” in the OJP Funding Resource Center.

C. Eligibility Information

For eligibility information, see the title page.

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

Include” in Section D. Application and Submission Information.

D. Application and Submission Information

What an Application Should Include

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

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

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

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

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

funds available.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

narrative and detail information. Please review the “Note on File Names and File Types” under 

How to Apply to be sure applications are submitted in permitted formats.

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

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

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

applicants include resumes in a single file.

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

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

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

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

select "For-Profit Organization" or "Small Business" (as applicable).
NIJ-2017-11147

23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Project Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

project in 250-400 words. Project abstracts should be—

 Written for a general public audience.

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

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

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

program narrative.

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

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

3. Program Narrative

The program narrative section of the application should not exceed 30-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.
NIJ-2017-11147

24

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.

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

limit).

d. Main Body.

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

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

 Statement of the Problem.

 Project Design and Implementation.

 Potential Impact.

 Capabilities/Competencies.

Within these sections, the narrative should address:

 Purpose, goals, and objectives.

 Review of relevant literature.

 

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.
NIJ-2017-11147

25

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

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

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

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

a discussion of expected scholarly products.)

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

 Management plan and organization.

 Plan for Dissemination to Broader Audiences (if applicable to the proposed 

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

available to broader interested audiences — such as criminal/juvenile justice 

(and other related fields) practitioners or policymakers — summary 

information from the planned scholarly products of the proposed project (such 

as summaries or translational materials of articles in peer-reviewed scientific 

journals), in a form designed to be readily accessible and useful to those 

audiences. (Such dissemination might include, for example, trade press 

articles and webinars.)

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

 Bibliography/references

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

pertaining to the proposed project that are supplemental to such items 

included in the main body of the narrative

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

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

be significantly involved in substantive aspects of the proposed project

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

proposed data analysis)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

application identifies any specific entities or organizations (other than the 
NIJ-2017-11147

26

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

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

list.

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

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

administrative requirements the applicant also must list the entities with which 

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

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

For information on distinctions — for purposes of federal grants 

administrative requirements — between subawards and procurement 

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

 Proposed project timeline and expected milestones

 Human Subjects Protection paperwork (documentation and forms related to 

Institutional Review Board (IRB) review). (See

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

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

 Privacy Certificate (for further guidance go to

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

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

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

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

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

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

above, for definition of “scholarly products.”)

 Letters of cooperation/support or administrative agreements from 

organizations collaborating in the project, such as law enforcement and 

correctional agencies (if applicable)

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

application has been submitted (if applicable)

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

special award conditions, which may include a partial withholding of award 

funds) that data sets resulting in whole or in part from projects funded under 

this solicitation be submitted for archiving with the NACJD (See 

www.nij.gov/funding/data-resources-program/applying/Pages/data-archivingstrategies.aspx)
NIJ-2017-11147

27

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

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

should provide brief details about proposed data management and archiving,

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

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

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

secondary analysis. Pertinent files and documentation include, among other 

things, qualitative and quantitative data produced, instrumentation and data 

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

to reproduce all constructed measures and the original data analysis,

description of necessary de-identification procedures, and (when required) a 

copy of the privacy certificate and informed consent protocols.

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

associated with meeting archiving requirements.

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

the period of performance.

4. Budget and Associated Documentation

a. Budget Detail Worksheet

A sample Budget Detail Worksheet can be found at 

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

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

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

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

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

Worksheet should break out costs by year.

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

see the DOJ Grants Financial Guide.

b. Budget Narrative

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

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

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

activities).

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

effectiveness of award expenditures. Budget narratives should generally describe cost 

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

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

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

used to reduce costs, without compromising quality.

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

information and figures provided in the Budget Detail Worksheet. The narrative should 
NIJ-2017-11147

28

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 — for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements — a particular 

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

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

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

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

procurement "contracts" under awards differ markedly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

subaward for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements.

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

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

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

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

procurement “contract” under an award.
NIJ-2017-11147

29

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

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

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

OJP Part 200 Uniform Requirements web page.

1. Information on proposed subawards

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

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

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

authorization from OJP before it may make a subaward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative.

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

proposed noncompetitive contracts over $150,000)

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

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

purposes of federal grants administrative requirements — is considered a procurement 

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

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

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

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

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

identified and described separately from procurement contracts.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

justification that explains to OJP why, in the particular circumstances, it is appropriate to 
NIJ-2017-11147

30

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

justification are outlined in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide.

e. Pre-Agreement Costs

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

5. Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable)

Indirect costs may be charged to an award only if:

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

direct cost categories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

consortium bylaws allow action without support from all tribes in the consortium (i.e., without 
NIJ-2017-11147

31

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

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

Controls Questionnaire, as part of its application.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 The date the applicant was designated high-risk

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

and email address)

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

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

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

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

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

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

document).

8. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

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

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

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

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

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

9. Additional Attachments

a. Applicant disclosure of pending 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)

 

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.
NIJ-2017-11147

32

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

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

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

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

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

(“subgrant”) federal funds). 

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

Leveraging multiple funding sources in a complementary manner to implement 

comprehensive programs or projects is encouraged and is not seen as inappropriate 

duplication. 

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

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

months: 

 The federal or State funding agency 

 The solicitation name/project name 

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

SAMPLE

Federal or State 

Funding Agency 

Solicitation 

Name/Project 

Name

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

Federal or State Funding Agency

DOJ/Office of 

Community 

Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS)

COPS Hiring 

Program

Jane Doe, 202/000-0000; 

jane.doe@usdoj.gov

Health and Human 

Services/Substance 

Abuse & Mental 

Health Services 

Administration

Drug-Free 

Communities 

Mentoring 

Program/North 

County Youth 

Mentoring 

Program

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

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

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

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

statement. 

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

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

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

cooperative agreements or for subawards under federal grants or cooperative 

agreements) that request funding to support the same project being proposed in this 
NIJ-2017-11147

33

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 

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.
NIJ-2017-11147

34

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

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

following two items:

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

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

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

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

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

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

conflicts of interest pertinent to 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.

How to Apply

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

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

register and submit an application at www.Grants.gov. Applicants that experience technical 

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

4726 or 606–545–5035, which operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except on federal 

holidays.

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

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

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

application submission deadline. In addition, OJP urges applicants to submit applications at 
NIJ-2017-11147

35

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

Grants.gov for updates will be automatically notified.

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

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

Support.

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

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

documents are attached in either Grants.gov category.

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

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

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

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

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

Characters Special Characters

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

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

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

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

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

Period (.) When using the ampersand (&) in XML, applicants must use the 

“&” format.

GMS does not accept executable file types as application attachments. These disallowed 

file types include, but are not limited to, the following extensions: “.com,” “.bat,” “.exe,” “.vbs,” 

“.cfg,” “.dat,” “.db,” “.dbf,” “.dll,” “.ini,” “.log,” “.ora,” “.sys,” and “.zip.” GMS may reject applications 

with files that use these extensions. It is important to allow time to change the type of file(s) if 

the application is rejected.

All applicants are required to complete the following steps:

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

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

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

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

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

making the award to a different applicant.

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

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

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

applicable Grants.gov individual registration requirements.)
NIJ-2017-11147

36

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

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

complete all steps except 1, 2 and 4.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1-2 business days.

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

repository for certain standard information about federal financial assistance applicants, 

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

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

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

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

can take as long as 10 business days to complete.

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

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

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

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

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

3. Acquire an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) and a Grants.gov 

username and password. Complete the AOR profile on Grants.gov and create a username 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that an organization can have more than one AOR.

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

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

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

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

opportunity number is NIJ-2017-11147.
NIJ-2017-11147

37

6. Select the correct Competition ID. Some OJP solicitations posted to Grants.gov contain 

multiple purpose areas, denoted by the individual Competition ID. If applying to a solicitation 

with multiple Competition IDs, select the appropriate Competition ID for the intended 

purpose area of the application.

 Category 1: Developing Novel and Innovative School Safety Programs, Practices, 

and Strategies – NIJ-2017-11428

 Category 2: Demonstration, Evaluation and Validation Tests for School Safety – NIJ2017-11429

 Category 3: Expanding the use of Effective Interventions through Scaling-up – NIJ2017-11430

 Category 4: Research on School Safety – NIJ-2017-11431

 Category 5: Understanding School Safety Issues in Tribal Schools – NIJ-2017-11432

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 March 24, 2017.

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

timeframes.

Note: Application Versions

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

recent system-validated version submitted.

Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues

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

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

Support Hotline or the SAM Help Desk (Federal Service Desk) to report the technical issue and 

receive a tracking number. The applicant must e-mail the NIJ contact identified in the Contact 

Information section on the title page within 24 hours after the application deadline to request 

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

technical difficulties, and must include a timeline of the applicant’s submission efforts, the 
NIJ-2017-11147

38

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 web page.

E. Application Review Information

Review Criteria

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

the following review criteria.

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

1. Demonstrated understanding of the problem.

2. Demonstrated awareness of the state of current research.

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

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

aim(s) of the proposed project.

2. Feasibility of proposed project.

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

actions to minimize and/or mitigate them.
NIJ-2017-11147

39

Potential Impact – 15%

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

justice in the United States, such as:

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

problem.

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

criminal/juvenile justice problem.

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

applicant organization and proposed project staff) – 20%

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

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

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

involved in substantive aspects of the proposed project).

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

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

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

Plan for Dissemination Strategy to broader audiences – 5%

Peer reviewers should comment — in the context of scientific and technical merit — on the 

proposed plan (if any) to produce or to make available to broader interested audiences, such as 

criminal/juvenile justice practitioners or policymakers as well as practitioners in other, related 

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

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

safety audiences, including researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.

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

school safety practitioners and policymakers.

3. If applicable, a clear strategy leading to the adoption into practice of any equipment or 

software.

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
NIJ-2017-11147

40

4. Alignment of the proposed budget with proposed project activities

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

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

the planned scholarly products of the project.

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 underserved populations, geographic diversity, 

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

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

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

federal cost principles.

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

reviews information related to the degree of risk posed by applicants. Among other things to 

help assess whether an applicant that has one or more prior federal awards has a satisfactory 

record with respect to performance, integrity, and business ethics, OJP checks whether the 
NIJ-2017-11147

41

applicant is listed in SAM as excluded from receiving a federal award. In addition, if OJP 

anticipates that an award will exceed $150,000 in federal funds, OJP also must review and 

consider any information about the applicant that appears in the non-public segment of the 

integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently, the Federal Awardee 

Performance and Integrity Information System; "FAPIIS").

Important note on FAPIIS: An applicant, at its option, may review and comment on any 

information about itself that currently appears in FAPIIS and was entered by a federal awarding 

agency. OJP will consider any such comments by the applicant, in addition to the other 

information in FAPIIS, in its assessment of the risk posed by applicants."

The evaluation of risks goes beyond information in SAM, however. OJP itself has in place a 

framework for evaluating risks posed by applicants for competitive awards. OJP takes into 

account information pertinent to matters such as—

1. Applicant financial stability and fiscal integrity.

2. Quality of the management systems of the applicant, and applicant’s ability to meet 

prescribed management standards, including those outlined in the DOJ Grants Financial 

Guide.

3. Applicant’s history of performance under OJP and other DOJ awards (including scholarly 

products, and compliance with reporting requirements and award conditions), as well as 

awards from other federal agencies.

4. Reports and findings from audits of the applicant, including audits under the Part 200 

Uniform Requirements

5. Applicant's ability to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements, and to effectively 

implement other award requirements

All final award decisions will be made by the Director of the National Institute of Justice, who 

may take into account not only peer review ratings and NIJ recommendations, but also other 

factors as indicated in this section.

F. Federal Award Administration Information

Federal Award Notices

Award notifications will be made by September 30, 2017. OJP sends award notifications by 

email through GMS to the individuals listed in the application as the point of contact and the 

authorizing official (E-Biz POC and AOR). The email notification includes detailed instructions 

on how to access and view the award documents, and steps to take in GMS to start the award 

acceptance process. GMS automatically issues the notifications at 9:00 p.m. eastern time on 

the award date.

For each successful applicant, an individual with the necessary authority to bind the applicant 

will be required to login; execute a set of legal certifications and a set of legal assurances; 

designate a financial point of contact; thoroughly review the award, including all award 

conditions; and sign and accept the award. The award acceptance process requires physical 
NIJ-2017-11147

42

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

Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements

If selected for funding, in addition to implementing the funded project consistent with the OJPapproved application, the recipient must comply with all award conditions, as well as all 

applicable requirements of federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders (including 

applicable requirements referred to in the assurances and certifications executed in connection 

with award acceptance). OJP strongly encourages prospective applicants to review information 

on post-award legal requirements and common OJP award conditions prior to submitting an 

application.

Applicants should consult the “Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements - FY 2017 Awards”, available in the OJP Funding 

Resource Center. In addition, applicants should examine the following two legal documents, as 

each successful applicant must execute both documents before it may receive any award funds.

 Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility 

Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements.

 Standard Assurances.

Applicants may view these documents in the Apply section of the OJP Funding Resource 

Center.

The web pages accessible through the “Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable 

to OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements - FY 2017 Awards” are intended to give applicants 

for OJP awards a general overview of important statutes, regulations, and award conditions that 

apply to many (or in some cases, all) OJP grants and cooperative agreements awarded in FY 

2017. Individual OJP awards typically also will include additional award conditions. Those 

additional conditions may relate to the particular statute, program, or solicitation under which the 

award is made; to the substance of the funded application; to the recipient's performance under 

other federal awards; to the recipient's legal status (e.g., as a for-profit entity); or to other 

pertinent considerations.

As stated above, NIJ expects any award under this solicitation as either a grant or a cooperative 

agreement. A cooperative agreement will include a condition in the award document that sets 

out the “substantial federal involvement” in carrying out the award and program. Generally 

speaking, under cooperative agreements with OJP, responsibility for the day-to-day conduct of 

the funded project rests with the recipient. OJP, however, may have substantial involvement in 

matters such as coordination efforts and site selection, as well as review and approval of work 

plans, research designs, data collection instruments, and major project-generated materials. In 

addition, OJP often indicates in the award condition that it may redirect the project if necessary.

In addition to a condition that sets out the “substantial federal involvement” in the award, 

cooperative agreements awarded by OJP include a condition the requires specific reporting in 

connection with conferences, meetings, retreats, seminars, symposium, training activities, or 

similar events funded under the award.
NIJ-2017-11147

43

General Information about Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements

In addition to the deliverables and expected scholarly products described in Section A. Program 

Description, any recipient of an award under this solicitation will be required to submit the 

following reports and data.

Required reports. Recipients typically must submit quarterly financial reports, semi-annual

progress reports, final financial and progress reports, and, if applicable, an annual audit report in 

accordance with the Part 200 Uniform Requirements or specific award conditions. Applicants 

should anticipate that progress reports will be required to follow the non-budgetary components 

of the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) template/format. General information on 

RPPRs may be found at www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rppr/. Future awards and fund drawdowns 

may be withheld if reports are delinquent. (In appropriate cases, OJP may require additional 

reports.)

Awards that exceed $500,000 will include an additional condition that, under specific 

circumstances, will require the recipient to report (to FAPIIS) information on civil, criminal, and 

administrative proceedings connected with (or connected to the performance of) either the OJP 

award or any other grant, cooperative agreement, or procurement contract from the federal 

government. Additional information on this reporting requirement appears in the text of the

award condition posted on the OJP web site at http://ojp.gov/funding/FAPIIS.htm.

Data on performance measures. In addition to required reports, each recipient of an award 

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

the award. To demonstrate program progress and success, as well as to assist DOJ with 

fulfilling its responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

(GPRA), Public Law 103-62, and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Public Law 111–352,

OJP will require any recipient, post award, to provide the data listed as “Data Recipient 

Provides” in the performance measures table in Section A. Program Description, under 

"Performance Measures," so that OJP can calculate values for this solicitation's performance 

measures.

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s)

For questions directed to the Federal Awarding Agency (OJP), see NCJRS contact information 

on page 2.

For contact information for Grants.gov, see page 2.

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.
NIJ-2017-11147

44

In its review of records that are responsive to a FOIA request, OJP will withhold information in 

those records that plainly falls within the scope of the Privacy Act or one of the statutory 

exemptions under FOIA. (Some examples include certain types of information in budgets, and 

names and contact information for project staff other than certain key personnel.) In appropriate 

circumstances, OJP will request the views of the applicant/recipient that submitted a responsive 

document.

For example, if OJP receives a request pursuant to FOIA for an application submitted by a 

nonprofit or for-profit organization or an institution of higher education, or for an application that 

involves research, OJP typically will contact the applicant/recipient that submitted the 

application and ask it to identify — quite precisely — any particular information in the application 

that applicant/recipient believes falls under a FOIA exemption, the specific exemption it believes 

applies, and why. After considering the submission by the applicant/recipient, OJP makes an 

independent assessment regarding withholding information. OJP generally follows a similar 

process for requests pursuant to FOIA for applications that may contain law-enforcement 

sensitive information.

Provide Feedback to OJP

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

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

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

IMPORTANT: This e-mail is for feedback and suggestions only. OJP does not send replies from 

this mailbox to messages it receives in this mailbox. Any prospective applicant that has specific 

questions on any program or technical aspect of the solicitation must use the appropriate 

telephone number or e-mail listed on the front of this solicitation document to obtain information. 

These contacts are provided to help ensure that prospective applicants can directly reach an 

individual who can address specific questions in a timely manner.

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

resume to ojppeerreview@lmsolas.com. (Do not send your resume to the OJP Solicitation 

Feedback email account.) Note: Neither you nor anyone else from your organization or entity 

can be a peer reviewer in a competition in which you or your organization/entity has submitted 

an application.
NIJ-2017-11147

45

Application Checklist

FY 2017 Comprehensive School Safety Initiative

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 36)

_____ Acquire or renew registration with SAM (see page 36)

To Register with Grants.gov:

_____ Acquire AOR and Grants.gov username/password (see page 36)

_____ Acquire AOR confirmation from the E-Biz POC (see page 36)

To Find Funding Opportunity:

_____ Search for the funding opportunity on Grants.gov (see page 36)

_____ Select the correct Competition ID (see page 37)

_____ Download Funding Opportunity and Application Package (see page 36)

_____ Sign up for Grants.gov email notifications (optional) (see page 35)

_____ 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 21)

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 37)

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

_____ See NCJRS contact information on the title page

Overview of Post-Award Legal Requirements:

_____ Review the "Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements – FY 2017 Awards" in the OJP Funding Resource Center.

Scope Requirement:

_____ The federal amount requested is within the allowable limit(s).

Eligibility Requirement: For eligibility information, see the title page.

What an Application Should Include:

_____ Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) (see page 22)

_____ Project Abstract (if applicable) (see page 23)

_____ Program Narrative (critical element) (see page 23)

_____ Budget Detail Worksheet (critical element) (see page 27)

_____ Budget Narrative (critical element) (see page 27)

_____ Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable) (see page 30)

_____ Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable) (see page 30)
NIJ-2017-11147

46

_____ Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire (see page 31)

_____ Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) (see page 31)

_____ Additional Attachments

_____ Applicant Disclosure of Pending Applications (see page 31)

_____ Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity (see page 33)

_____ CVs/Resumes of key personnel (critical element) (see page 25)

_____ Request and Justification for Employee Compensation; Waiver (if applicable)

(see page 21)