15jrilocaltasol.pdf

OMB No. 1121-0329

U.S. Department of Justice Approval Expires 07/31/2016

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is seeking applications for 1) a technical assistance provider to work with BJA to oversee, coordinate, and assess the initiative, and 2) grants to local Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) sites. This program furthers the Department’s mission by helping state and local governments to analyze criminal justice system data, develop and implement policy options, and allocate scarce resources effectively while improving public safety and enhancing jurisdictions’ capacity to make data-driven policy decisions.

Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Assessment Technical

Assistance and Maximizing Local Reforms FY 2015 Competitive Grant Announcement

Eligibility

This solicitation has two categories.

Category 1: Eligible applicants are limited to national-scope private and non-profit organizations (including tribal nonprofit or for-profit organizations) and colleges and universities, both public and private (including tribal institutions of higher education). For-profit organizations must agree to forgo any profit or management fee.

For Category 1, BJA welcomes applications that involve two or more entities; however, one eligible entity must be the applicant and the others must be proposed as subrecipients. The applicant must be the entity with primary responsibility for administering the funding and managing the entire project. Only one application per lead applicant will be considered;

however, subrecipients may be part of multiple proposals.

Category 2: Eligible applicants are limited to local jurisdictions that participated in the federal Justice Reinvestment Initiative at the Local Level:

1. Alachua County, Florida

2. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

3. Charlottesville/Albemarle County, Virginia

4. Delaware County, Ohio

5. Denver City and County, Colorado

6. Grant County, Indiana

7. Eau Claire County, Wisconsin

8. Johnson County, Kansas

9. Lane County, Oregon

10. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

11. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

12. New York City, New York

13. San Francisco City and County, California

14. Santa Cruz County, California

15. Travis County, Texas

16. Yamhill County, Oregon

17. Yolo County, California http://www.justice.gov/ http://www.ojp.gov/ https://www.bja.gov/ https://www.bja.gov/

BJA-2015-4152

BJA may elect to make awards for applications submitted under this solicitation in future fiscal years, dependent on the merit of the applications and on the availability of appropriations.

For additional eligibility information, see Section C. Eligibility Information.

Deadline Applicants must register with Grants.gov prior to submitting an application. All applications are due to be submitted and in receipt of a successful validation message in Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on May 19, 2015.

All applicants are encouraged to read this Important Notice: Applying for Grants in

Grants.gov.

For additional information, see How To Apply in section D. Application and Submission Information.

Contact Information For technical assistance with submitting an application, contact the Grants.gov Customer Support Hotline at 800-518-4726 or 606-545-5035, or via e-mail to support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Support Hotline hours of operation are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except federal holidays.

Applicants that experience unforeseen Grants.gov technical issues beyond their control that prevent them from submitting their application by the deadline must e-mail the BJA contact identified below within 24 hours after the application deadline and request approval to submit their application. Additional information on reporting technical issues is found under “Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues” in the How To Apply section.

For assistance with any other requirement 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 responsecenter@ncjrs.gov; fax to 301-240-5830;

or web chat at https://webcontact.ncjrs.gov/ncjchat/chat.jsp. The NCJRS Response Center hours of operation are 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday and 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. eastern time on the solicitation close date.

Grants.gov number assigned to this announcement: BJA-2015-4152

Release date: March 31, 2015 http://www.grants.gov/applicants/apply_for_grants.jsp http://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Grants-govInfo.htm http://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Grants-govInfo.htm mailto:support@grants.gov http://www.grants.gov/applicants/apply_for_grants.jsp mailto:responsecenter@ncjrs.gov https://webcontact.ncjrs.gov/ncjchat/chat.jsp

Contents A. Program Description

Overview

Program-Specific Information

Goals, Objectives, and Deliverables

Mandatory Consideration

Evidence-Based Programs or Practices

B. Federal Award Information

Type of Award

Financial Management and System of Internal Controls

Budget Information

Cost Sharing or Match Requirement

Pre-Agreement Cost Approvals

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver

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

Costs Associated with Language Assistance (if applicable)

C. Eligibility Information

Cost Sharing or Match Requirement

Limit on Number of Application Submissions

D. Application and Submission Information

What an Application Should Include

How To Apply

E. Application Review Information

Selection Criteria

Review Process

F. Federal Award Administration Information

Federal Award Notices

Administrative, National Policy, and other Legal Requirements

General Information about Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s)

H. Other Information

Provide Feedback to OJP

Application Checklist

Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Assessment Technical Assistance and Maximizing Local Reforms

CFDA #16.827

A. Program Description

Overview Approximately 2.2 million people were incarcerated in federal, state, and local prisons and jails in 2013, a rate of 1 out of every 110 adults.1 After three years of declines, the prison population increased slightly in 2013, largely due to growth in state prison populations. These prisons face crowding and resource challenges. Accordingly, state spending on corrections has remained high. Over the last 25 years, state corrections expenditures have increased significantly—from $12 billion in 1988 to more than $55 billion in 2013.2

Similar trends are evident on the local level. The local jail population declined by 13,300 from 2012 to 2013, a decrease of 1.8 percent;3 however, the trend over time indicates an increase in jail use. From 2000 to 2013, the nation’s jail population increased by nearly 18 percent. As a result, many jails remain overcrowded yet lack resources dedicated to treatment or programming. Local expenditures on building and operating jails increased nearly 235 percent from 1982 to 2011, a figure that likely underrepresents local investments because it may not include costs such as employee pensions, inmate health care, and other costs outside corrections budgets.4 The returns on these investments in local jails are disheartening. Pretrial detention, even for short periods, has been found to correlate with reduced public safety and worse case outcomes.5 Additionally, when a small fraction of people consume a disproportionately large share of jail resources due to mental health problems, substance addiction, and homelessness—as is the case for several local JRI sites and other jail systems studied recently—local justice systems are not achieving the public safety outcomes that their communities expect.

Justice reinvestment emerged as a way to address these issues, both at the state and local level, through a targeted, data-driven policymaking process. BJA, in a public/private partnership with The Pew Charitable Trusts, launched the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) in 2010 as a multistaged process in which a jurisdiction increases the cost-effectiveness of its criminal justice system by investing in high-performing public safety strategies.

JRI is a public-private partnership between BJA, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and JRI technical assistance (TA) and assessment providers. Justice Reinvestment at the local level is funded

1 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States, 2013 (Dec. 2014), www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf.

2 National Association of State Budget Officers, State Expenditure Report: Examining Fiscal 2012-2014 State Spending (2014), www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/State%20Expenditure%20Report%20%28Fiscal%202012- 2014%29S.pdf.

3 Ibid.; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States, 2013 (Dec. 2014), www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf.

4 Ram Subramanian et al. Incarceration’s Front Door: The Misuse of Jail in America. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015, www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/incarcerations-front-door-report.pdf.

5 Christopher T. Lowenkamp et al., Investigating the Impact of Pretrial Detention on Sentencing Outcomes (Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2013).

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/State%20Expenditure%20Report%20%28Fiscal%202012-2014%29S.pdf http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/State%20Expenditure%20Report%20%28Fiscal%202012-2014%29S.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/incarcerations-front-door-report.pdf solely by BJA. Funding from BJA is authorized under the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. 113-235.

Program-Specific Information Under the JRI model, a multidisciplinary governmental working group analyzes the correctional population and its costs, develops cost-effective policy options, and implements reforms to manage correctional populations while enhancing public safety. JRI jurisdictions reinvest these cost savings into high-performing initiatives that make communities safer. In addition to reducing incarcerated populations, justice reinvestment encourages states to embrace a culture of greater collaboration, data-driven decisionmaking, and increased use of evidence-based practices.

“Justice reinvestment’’ refers to a data-driven approach that: (1) analyzes criminal justice trends to understand what factors are driving the growth in jail and prison populations; (2) develops and implements policy options to manage the growth in corrections expenditures and increase the effectiveness of current spending and investment to increase public safety and improve offender accountability; and (3) measures the impact of the policy changes and reinvestment resources and holds policymakers accountable for projected results.

The JRI Model consists of the following action steps:6

1. Engagement of stakeholders across branches of government, political parties, and key groups such as victim advocates, prosecutors, etc.

2. Analysis of data to identify criminal justice population and cost drivers.

3. Development of policy framework that can lead to enacted JRI legislation at the state level, or to strategy implementation at the local level.

4. Implementation of JRI legislation through high-performing programs and strategies to reduce incarceration costs and increase public safety.

5. Support sustainability through measurement of implementation of JRI strategy and reinvestment.

Goals, Objectives, and Deliverables The goals of JRI are as follows:

Identify drivers of corrections populations and costs.

Prevent unnecessary confinement and reduce recidivism.

Improve allocation of resources to yield more cost-beneficial impacts on public safety.

Category 1: Program Oversight, Coordination, and Outcome Assessment (OCOA).

Competition ID: BJA-2015-4153 BJA seeks an entity to provide program oversight, coordination, and outcome assessment. The successful OCOA provider will be expected to:

Assist BJA in overall coordination and assessment of the JRI.

Provide logistical support for a Justice Reinvestment Steering Committee composed of funding partners and technical assistance (TA) providers.

6 For a fuller discussion of the model and action steps, see the competitive grant announcement for Justice Reinvestment Initiative: State-Level Technical Assistance.

https://www.bja.gov/Funding/15JRIStateTAsol.pdf https://www.bja.gov/Funding/15JRIStateTAsol.pdf

Provide technical assistance, in conjunction with BJA, to TA providers to ensure adherence to the fidelity and basic principles of the justice reinvestment model.

Review recommendations and assessments from TA providers regarding candidate jurisdictions’ readiness for JRI.

Document and assess JRI activities and outcomes, to include: state- and local-level justice reinvestment efforts and technical assistance; JRI subaward grants made by TA providers to seed jurisdictions’ implementation of key strategies and programs that advance the JRI goals and priorities; grant activities awarded through Category 2 of this solicitation; JRI Maximizing State Reforms grantees; and juvenile justice system reform funded through JRI appropriations and administered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Based on these assessment activities, produce the following deliverables:

o Prepare the second state assessment report,7 to include information concerning: (1) the number and identity of states who have received JRI assistance; (2) the progress of the states in conducting analyses, developing policies/strategies/programs, and in implementing criminal justice reinvestment strategies; and (3) the reporting of relevant data from states implementing Justice Reinvestment policies/strategies/ programs including relevant criminal justice outcome measures, reductions in population or growth rates; the savings accrued and costs averted; the portion of costs saved or averted that has been or will be invested in high-performing strategies.8 o Draft other publications on topics of relevance for state and local policymakers, including a follow-up brief or report on the experiences of JRI local sites.9 o Develop and update content for the BJA JRI website.

o Interim documentation of assessment activities, for example, site visit assessment memoranda; and synthesis of 1) monthly reports from providers documenting TA activities by site and 2) data tracking implementation performance and outcomes.

o Develop and maintain up to date statistics and presentations demonstrating progress of JRI.

o Up to four assessments of policies enacted or implemented as a result of justice reinvestment efforts.10

Make ongoing recommendations to BJA on relevant criminal justice research and ways to continue to improve the effectiveness of JRI, including advice and assistance to BJA in synthesizing site-specific system indicators and implementation performance measures, and identifying standard measures for like strategies.

BJA’s role with respect to the OCOA provider includes the following activities:

Reviewing and approving major work plans, including changes to such plans, and key decisions pertaining to project operations.

Reviewing and approving major project-generated documents and materials used in the provision of project services.

7 The report envisioned would update and expand on the 2014 Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Assessment Report.

8 Such strategies include, for example, pretrial programs, pre- and post-plea diversion programs; substance abuse and mental health treatment programs; programs that address criminogenic needs; case management services; swift, certain, and fair sanctions for individuals under community supervision; and other programs that successfully reduce technical violations and recidivism.

9 The brief would update the 2014 The Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Experiences from the Local Sites.

10 Examples of such assessments include Mandatory Reentry Supervision: Evaluating the Kentucky Experience, and Reducing Incarceration for Technical Violations in Louisiana.

http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412994-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative-State-Assessment-Report.pdf http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412994-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative-State-Assessment-Report.pdf hhttps://www.bja.gov/Publications/UI-JRI-Local-Sites.pdf http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/06/PSPP_Kentucky_brief.pdf http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/06/PSPP_Kentucky_brief.pdf

Providing guidance in significant project planning meetings and participating in project sponsored training events or conferences.

Reviewing and approving any proposed publications prior to release or publication.

The role of the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Public Safety Performance Project with respect to JRI includes the following activities:

Providing co-leadership, input, and guidance on the full range of state-level JRI activities and related matters.

Providing technical assistance to select states to analyze data and develop policies, which, upon enactment of JRI policies, become eligible to apply for and receive implementation and sustainability assistance from a BJA-funded technical assistance provider.

Educating and engaging state and local government officials and the media in select JRI sites to help support informed decisionmaking around JRI policies.

Category 2: Maximizing Local Reforms. Competition ID: BJA-2015-4154 The FY 2015 Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Maximizing Local Reforms challenges local jurisdictions to cross the finish line with local JRI. Since 2010, BJA has supported implementation of the justice reinvestment model at the local level in 17 jurisdictions. A recent brief by the Urban Institute, The Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Experiences from the Local Sites, reported that, across these jurisdictions, systemwide data analyses found similar factors contributing to local corrections populations and costs: large numbers of defendants detained pretrial; delays in case processing; frequent jail users (including individuals with mental illness and who are homeless); low-level drug, alcohol, and traffic offenses; and probation and parole violations and high recidivism rates. The policy response to these issues also overlapped, including improving risk assessment tools; expanding jail diversion and alternative-to-jail programs; streamlining case processing; increasing access to reentry services and treatment;

and building data capacity and implementing evidence-based practices, such as intermediate sanctions and problem-solving courts.

At present, the JRI local sites are at various stages of implementation. The Urban Institute’s publication documents the experiences of the local sites and highlights the significant changes that are underway and the promise of the work that remains to be done. This solicitation aims to support sites that have followed the justice reinvestment model, described above, with fidelity, as well as to build the evidence base for strategies that allow local jurisdictions to reduce their jail populations and increase public safety.

BJA expects that the JRI governmental working group will designate an agency to act as the legal applicant for this grant program. The working group should determine the most appropriate focus for this project and the most suitable applicant and partners. BJA expects that applicants will document support by the local JRI governmental working group through a letter attached to the application (see Additional Attachments on page 18).

Allowable Uses for Award Funding Funds can be used to support one or more of the justice reinvestment strategies adopted by the local governmental working group. Some examples include:

Pre- and post-plea diversion programs to improve outcomes and reduce jail use.

Applicants may use grant funding to continue building or to expand programs that divert individuals from jail and address criminogenic needs. These diversion programs may https://www.bja.gov/Publications/UI-JRI-Local-Sites.pdf https://www.bja.gov/Publications/UI-JRI-Local-Sites.pdf target specific subpopulations, offense types, or criminogenic needs as indicated by research on effective interventions and the JRI data analysis.

Pretrial program to improve pretrial decisionmaking. Applicants may use grant funding to strengthen pretrial programs to reduce the jail population held pending trial and increase pretrial release using the least restrictive release conditions necessary to promote public safety and ensure defendants’ return to court. Applicants could propose to build a continuum of options to address the range of risk and needs presented by individuals at this stage in the criminal justice process.

Jail-based interventions. Applicants may use grant funds to provide or facilitate effective in-jail treatment or programming and re-entry services to address inmates’ needs.

Evidence-based supervision practices to reduce recidivism. Applicants may use grant funds to continue work to improve adherence to evidence-based supervision, including risk-based supervision, implementing more effective responses to supervision violations and compliance (e.g., positive reinforcements and early termination), and quality assurance measures such as fidelity monitoring and coaching.

Frequent front-end users. Applicants may use funds for evidence-based behavioral health and treatment interventions and other supports to address the special needs of persons with mental illness and/or substance use disorders who are frequent users of the criminal justice system.

Evaluation. Funds may also be used to support an evaluation of one or more of the applicant site’s justice reinvestment strategies.

For all strategies that incorporate treatment, applicants are encouraged to leverage opportunities to expand health insurance coverage and expand access and utilization of primary and behavioral healthcare treatment.

Mandatory Consideration Through this program, BJA aims to add to the evidence base on what works to reduce jail populations and improve public safety. Therefore, it is mandatory that applicants demonstrate that they have already engaged in evaluation efforts to assess efficacy of the strategies they have implemented, or that they propose to use grant or matching funds to conduct such an evaluation. See Selection Criteria on page 24.

Evidence-Based Programs or Practices OJP strongly emphasizes the use of data and evidence in policy making and program development in criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim services. OJP is committed to:

Improving the quantity and quality of evidence OJP generates integrating evidence into program, practice, and policy decisions within OJP and the field

Improving the translation of evidence into practice.

OJP considers programs and practices to be evidence-based when their effectiveness has been demonstrated by causal evidence, generally obtained through one or more outcome evaluations. Causal evidence documents a relationship between an activity or intervention

(including technology) and its intended outcome, including measuring the direction and size of a change, and the extent to which a change may be attributed to the activity or intervention. Causal evidence depends on the use of scientific methods to rule out, to the extent possible, alternative explanations for the documented change. The strength of causal evidence, based on the factors described above, will influence the degree to which OJP considers a program or practice to be evidence-based. The OJP CrimeSolutions.gov web site is one resource that applicants may use to find information about evidence-based programs in criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim services.

B. Federal Award Information

Category 1: BJA expects to make one award of up to $2,560,000 for a 36-month project period, beginning on October 1, 2015.

Category 2: BJA estimates that it will make up to four awards of up to $350,000, for an estimated total of $1.4 million for a 36-month project period, beginning on October 1, 2015.

BJA may, in certain cases, provide supplemental funding in future years to awards under this solicitation. Important considerations in decisions regarding supplemental funding include, among other factors, the availability of funding, strategic priorities, assessment of the quality of the management of the award (for example, timeliness and quality of progress reports), and assessment of the progress of the work funded under the award.

All awards are subject to the availability of appropriated funds and to any modifications or additional requirements that may be imposed by law.

Type of Award11 BJA expects that it will make any award from Category 1 of this solicitation in the form of a cooperative agreement, which is a particular type of grant used if BJA expects to have ongoing substantial involvement in award activities. Substantial involvement includes direct oversight and involvement with the grantee organization in implementation of the grant, but does not involve day-to-day project management. See Administrative, National Policy, and other Legal Requirements, under Section F. Federal Award Administration Information, for details regarding the federal involvement anticipated under an award from this solicitation.

BJA expects that it will make any award from Category 2 of this solicitation in the form of a grant.

Financial Management and System of Internal Controls If selected for funding, the award recipient must:

(a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity 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

11 See generally 31 U.S.C. §§ 6301-6305 (defines and describes various forms of federal assistance relationships, including grants and cooperative agreements (a type of grant)).

http://www.crimesolutions.gov/

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 non-federal entity's compliance with statute, 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 non-federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable federal, state, and local laws regarding privacy and obligations of confidentiality.

In order to better understand administrative requirements and cost principles, award applicants are encouraged to enroll, at no charge, in the Department of Justice Grants Financial Management Online Training available here.

Budget Information

Unallowable and Unreasonable Uses for Award Funds In addition to the unallowable costs identified in the Financial Guide, award funds may not be used for the following:

Prizes/rewards/entertainment/trinkets (or any type of monetary incentive)

Gift cards

Stipends

Vehicles

Food and beverage

Costs that do not support approved project activities

For questions pertaining to budget and examples of allowable and unallowable costs, see the Financial Guide at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/financialguide/index.htm.

Cost Sharing or Match Requirement Category 1 of this solicitation does not require a match. However, 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. Category 2 of this solicitation has a conditional match requirement, described below.

Category 2 Match Requirement (based on federal award amount) If a JRI local jurisdiction has measured and reinvested savings (see Selection Criteria on page 24), then a match is not required. If such a jurisdiction proposes a voluntary match amount, however, and OJP approves the budget, the total match amount incorporated into the approved budget becomes mandatory and subject to audit.

http://gfm.webfirst.com/ http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/financialguide/index.htm http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/financialguide/index.htm

If a JRI local jurisdiction has not measured and reinvested savings (see Selection Criteria on page 24), a match is required, and the following requirements apply:

The amount of the match must equal the amount of federal funds being sought.

Match funds are subject to the same regulations and restrictions as the federal funds for this program (see Federal Award Information on page 9).

Applicants must identify the source of the non-federal funds and how they will use the funds. If a successful applicant’s proposed match exceeds the required match amount, and OJP approves the budget, the total match amount incorporated into the approved budget becomes mandatory and subject to audit.

Applicants may satisfy this match requirement with cash, in-kind services, or a combination of the two.

Match funds must be used for one or more of the local jurisdiction’s reinvestment strategies identified in the justice reinvestment process. For example, match funding can be used to expand or improve community-based treatment only if the JRI local policy team identified community-based treatment as a reinvestment priority. Match funding could also be used for skills-based trainings for probation officers if the jurisdiction’s reinvestment strategies included more effective community supervision. Another example is use of match funding to support an evaluation of one of the justice reinvestment strategies.

Applicants must identify the target(s) of the reinvestment match with specificity, including, if applicable, names of agencies, service providers, or staff positions to be funded; a description of the kind of service to be provided or functions to be performed;

what period of time will be covered; and amounts of funding. Applicants must document these commitments by including relevant attachments to the application (see Additional Attachments on page 21).

Example: For a federal award amount of $350,000, the required reinvestment match is $350,000.

For additional cost sharing and match information, see Section C. Eligibility Information.

Pre-Agreement Cost Approvals OJP does not typically approve pre-agreement costs; an applicant must request and obtain the prior written approval of OJP for all such costs. If approved, pre-agreement costs could be paid from grant funds consistent with a grantee’s approved budget, and under applicable cost standards. However, all such costs prior to award and prior to approval of the costs are incurred at the sole risk of an applicant. Generally, no applicant should incur project costs before submitting an application requesting federal funding for those costs. Should there be extenuating circumstances that appear to be appropriate for OJP’s consideration as pre-agreement costs, the applicant should contact the point of contact listed on the title page of this announcement for details on the requirements for submitting a written request for approval. See the section on Costs Requiring Prior Approval in the Financial Guide, for more information.

http://ojp.gov/financialguide/index.htm

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver With respect to any award of more than $250,000 made under this solicitation, recipients may not use federal funds to pay total cash compensation (salary plus cash bonuses) to any employee of the award recipient at a rate that exceeds 110 percent of the maximum annual salary payable to a member of the Federal Government’s Senior Executive Service (SES) at an agency with a Certified SES Performance Appraisal System for that year.12 The 2015 salary table for SES employees is available on the Office of Personnel Management web site. Note: A recipient may compensate an employee at a greater rate, provided the amount in excess of this compensation limitation is paid with non-federal funds. (Any such additional compensation will not be considered matching funds where match requirements apply.)

The Assistant Attorney General for OJP may exercise discretion to waive, on an individual basis, the limitation on compensation rates allowable under an award. An applicant requesting a waiver should include a detailed justification in the budget narrative of the application. Unless the applicant submits a waiver request and justification with the application, the applicant should anticipate that OJP will request the applicant to adjust and resubmit the budget.

The justification should include the particular qualifications and expertise of the individual, the uniqueness of the service the individual will provide, the individual’s specific knowledge of the program or project being undertaken with award funds, and a statement explaining that the individual’s salary is commensurate with the regular and customary rate for an individual with his/her qualifications and expertise, and for the work to be done.

Prior Approval, Planning, and Reporting of Conference/Meeting/Training Costs OJP strongly encourages applicants that propose to use award funds for any conference-, meeting-, or training-related activity to review carefully – before submitting an application – the OJP policy and guidance on conference approval, planning, and reporting available at www.ojp.gov/financialguide/PostawardRequirements/chapter15page1.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 such costs for cooperative agreement recipients and of some such costs for grant recipients; and (3) set cost limits, including a general prohibition of all food and beverage costs.

Costs Associated with Language Assistance (if applicable) If an applicant proposes a program or activity that would deliver services or benefits to individuals, the costs of taking reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to those services or benefits for individuals with limited English proficiency may be allowable. Reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to services or benefits may include interpretation or translation services where appropriate.

For additional information, see the "Civil Rights Compliance" section under “Solicitation Requirements” in the OJP Funding Resource Center.

C. Eligibility Information

For additional eligibility information, see Title page.

12 This limitation on use of award funds does not apply to the non-profit organizations specifically named at Appendix VIII to 2 C.F.R. part 200.

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/15Tables/exec/html/ES.aspx http://www.ojp.gov/financialguide/PostawardRequirements/chapter15page1.htm http://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm

Cost Sharing or Match Requirement For information on cost sharing and match requirement, see Section B. Federal Award Information.

Limit on Number of Application Submissions If an applicant submits multiple versions of the same application, BJA will review only the most recent system-validated version submitted. For more information on system-validated versions, see How To Apply.

D. Application and Submission Information

What an Application Should Include Applicants should anticipate that if they fail to submit an application that contains all of the specified elements, it may negatively affect the review of their application; and, should a decision be made to make an award, it may result in the inclusion of special conditions that preclude the recipient from accessing or using award funds pending satisfaction of the conditions.

Moreover, applicants should anticipate that applications that are determined to be nonresponsive to the scope of the solicitation, or that do not include the application elements that BJA has designated to be critical, will neither proceed to peer review nor receive further consideration. Under this solicitation, BJA has designated the following application elements as critical: Program Narrative, Budget Detail Worksheet, Budget Narrative, and, for Category 1 only, Résumés/Curricula Vitae of Key Personnel. Applicants 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,” “Project Plan,” “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 pre-applications, 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).

Intergovernmental Review: This funding opportunity is subject to Executive Order 12372.

Applicants may find the names and addresses of their state’s Single Point of Contact (SPOC) at the following website: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_spoc/. Applicants whose state appears on the SPOC list must contact their state’s SPOC to find out about, and comply with, the state’s process under Executive Order 12372. In completing the SF-424, applicants whose state appears on the SPOC list are to make the appropriate selection in response to question 19 once the applicant has complied with their state’s E.O. 12372 process. (Applicants whose state does not appear on the SPOC list are to make the http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12372.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_spoc/ appropriate selection in response to question 19 to indicate that the “Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review.”)

2. Project Abstract Applications should include a high-quality project abstract that summarizes the proposed project in 400 words or less. Project abstracts should be—

Written for a general public audience.

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

Single-spaced, using a standard 12-point font (Times New Roman) with 1-inch margins.

Include the legal name of the applicant and the project’s title, goals, design elements, and deliverables.

As a separate attachment, the project abstract will not count against the page limit for the program narrative. BJA requests that the abstract be submitted as a text file, such as Word .doc format.

For Category 2 only, abstracts should also include information on how the application addresses the Mandatory Consideration described on page Error! Bookmark not defined..

3. Program Narrative The program narrative must respond to the solicitation and the Selection Criteria (a-e) in the order given. For more detailed information regarding the Selection Criteria for this solicitation, see page 24. The program narrative must be double-spaced, using a standard 12-point font (Times New Roman is preferred) with no less than 1-inch margins, and must not exceed 20 pages. Number pages “1 of 20,” “2 of 20,” etc. If the program narrative fails to comply with these length-related restrictions, BJA may consider such noncompliance in peer review and in final award decisions.

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

a. Statement of the Problem

b. Project Design and Implementation

c. Capabilities and Competencies

d. Impact/Outcomes, Evaluation, and Sustainment

e. Plan for Collecting the Data Required for this Solicitation’s Performance Measures

To assist the Department with fulfilling its responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), Public Law 103-62, and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Public Law 111–352, applicants that receive funding under this solicitation must provide data that measure the results of their work done under this solicitation. OJP will require any award recipient, post award, to provide the data requested in the “Data Grantee Provides” column so that OJP can calculate values for the “Performance Measures” column. Post award, Category 1 (OCOA) recipients will be required to submit performance metric data quarterly through BJA’s online Training and Technical Assistance Reporting Portal located at www.bjatraining.org.

http://www.bjatraining.org/

Performance measures for Category 2 (Maximizing Local Reforms) of this solicitation are as follows:

Objective Performance Measure(s) Data Grantee Provides

Increase corrections costs saved or avoided by reducing unnecessary confinement

Percent increase in costs saved since the previous fiscal year

Percent increase in costs avoided since the previous fiscal year

Percent increase in funds reinvested since the previous fiscal year

Percent decrease in the confined (jail) population

Number of strategies implemented to reduce unnecessary confinement

During the current fiscal year:

Corrections costs attributable to confined population prior to project implementation

Corrections population forecast for the current fiscal year

A. Corrections costs saved due to a decrease in the confined population

B. Corrections costs avoided due to a confined population that is smaller than forecast by population projections

C. Amount reinvested in strategies or programs that were identified as targets as part of the state’s justice reinvestment efforts

During the reporting period:

A. Number of new admissions to prison

B. Number of offenders released from prison

C. As of the last day of the reporting period, number of individuals confined in prison

Number of strategies implemented to reduce unnecessary confinement by type, to include but not limited to,

a) Prosecutorial charging decisions

b) Arrest decisions

c) Pretrial detention

d) Sentencing and diversion

e) Probation or parole

f) Risk and needs assessment

g) Other drivers of the corrections population

Increase reinvestment in evidence-based practices that reduce recidivism

Number of new or updated policies, procedures, strategies, or interventions implemented in accordance with the governing evidence-based principles

Number of programs assessed as successfully implementing an evidence-based model

Number of new or updated policies, procedures, strategies, or interventions implemented in accordance with the governing evidence-based principles

Number of programs assessed as successfully implementing an evidence-based model

Support justice reinvestment reform efforts by promoting and increasing

Percentage of project plan outcomes met

During the reporting period:

A. Number of project tasks B. Number of project tasks completed collaboration among agencies and officials who work in criminal justice

Percentage of participating agencies/organizations with established Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with each of the identified groups

Number of deliverables that meet expectations as determined by

BJA

Number of participating jurisdictions with MOUs established with following groups:

a) County executive or manager

b) County board of supervisors or commissioners

c) Judicial branch

d) Law enforcement

e) Prosecutors

f) Other key stakeholders

Number of deliverables that meet expectations as determined by BJA

Enhance the translation of evidence into practice by supporting the use of data analysis results to inform policy decisions

Number of analytic reports produced

Number of analytic reports submitted

Number of meetings with stakeholder groups

A. Number of analysis reports produced B. Number of analysis reports delivered to policymakers C. Number of different stakeholder groups consulted D. Number of meetings with stakeholder groups held E. Number of meetings at which steering committee or task force members received implementation progress updates supported by data

BJA does not require applicants to submit performance measures data with their application. Performance measures are included as an alert that BJA will require successful applicants to submit specific data as part of their reporting requirements. For the application, applicants should indicate an understanding of these requirements and discuss how they will gather the required data, should they receive funding.

Note on Project Evaluations Applicants that propose to use funds awarded through this solicitation to conduct project evaluations should be aware that certain project evaluations (such as systematic investigations designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge) may constitute “research” for purposes of applicable DOJ human subjects protection regulations. However, project evaluations that are intended only to generate internal improvements to a program or service, or are conducted only to meet OJP’s performance measure data reporting requirements likely do not constitute “research.”

Applicants should provide sufficient information for OJP to determine whether the particular project they propose would either intentionally or unintentionally collect and/or use information in such a way that it meets the DOJ regulatory definition of research.

Research, for the purposes of human subjects protections for OJP-funded programs, is defined as, “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge” 28 C.F.R. § 46.102(d). For additional information on determining whether a proposed activity would constitute research, see the decision tree to assist applicants on the “Research and the Protection of Human Subjects” section of the OJP Funding Resource Center web page (ojp.gov/funding/Explore/SolicitationRequirements/EvidenceResearchEvaluationRequire ments.htm). Applicants whose proposals may involve a research or statistical component also should review the “Data Privacy and Confidentiality Requirements” section on that web page.

http://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm http://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/SolicitationRequirements/EvidenceResearchEvaluationRequirements.htm http://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/SolicitationRequirements/EvidenceResearchEvaluationRequirements.htm

4. Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative

a. Budget Detail Worksheet A sample Budget Detail Worksheet can be found at www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/BudgetDetailWorksheet.pdf. Applicants that submit their budget in a different format should include the budget categories listed in the sample budget worksheet (i.e. A. Personnel, B. Fringe Benefits, C. Travel, etc.).

For questions pertaining to budget and examples of allowable and unallowable costs, see the Financial Guide at www.ojp.gov/financialguide/index.htm.

b. Budget Narrative The budget narrative should thoroughly and clearly describe every category of expense listed in the Budget Detail Worksheet. OJP expects proposed budgets to be complete, cost effective, and allowable (e.g., reasonable, allocable, and necessary for project activities).

Applicants should demonstrate in their budget narratives how they will maximize cost effectiveness of grant expenditures. Budget narratives should generally describe cost effectiveness in relation to potential alternatives and the goals of the project. For example, a budget narrative should detail why planned in-person meetings are necessary, or how technology and collaboration with outside organizations could be used to reduce costs, without compromising quality.

The narrative should be mathematically sound and correspond with the information and figures provided in the Budget Detail Worksheet. The narrative should explain how the applicant estimated and calculated all costs, and how they are relevant to the completion of the proposed project. The narrative may include tables for clarification purposes but need not be in a spreadsheet format. As with the Budget Detail Worksheet, the Budget Narrative should be broken down by year.

c. Non-Competitive Procurement Contracts In Excess of Simplified Acquisition Threshold If an applicant proposes to make one or more non-competitive procurements of products or services, where the non-competitive procurement will exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (also known as the small purchase threshold), which is currently set at $150,000, the application should address the considerations outlined in the Financial Guide.

d. Pre-Agreement Cost Approvals For information on pre-agreement costs, see Section B. Federal Award Information.

5. Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable)

Indirect costs are allowed only if the applicant has a current federally approved indirect cost rate. (This requirement does not apply to units of local government.) Attach a copy of the federally approved indirect cost rate agreement to the application. Applicants that do not have an approved rate may request one through their cognizant federal agency, which will review all documentation and approve a rate for the applicant organization, or, if the applicant’s accounting system permits, costs may be allocated in the direct cost categories.

For the definition of Cognizant Federal Agency, see the “Glossary of Terms” in the Financial…