15JRIsol.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 Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Maximizing State Reforms. This program furthers the Department’s mission by challenging units of state government and federally recognized Indian tribes to design and implement a strategy to further the goals of a state’s justice reinvestment reform efforts, including the commitment to data-driven decisionmaking and investment in evidence-based practices and programs.

Justice Reinvestment Initiative:

Maximizing State Reforms

FY 2015 Competitive Grant Announcement

Eligibility Eligible applicants are units of state government and federally recognized Indian tribal governments (as determined by the Secretary of the Interior) that can demonstrate substantial completion of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative model (see the Selection Criteria on page 24 for the key components of the model). States that underwent a formal justice reinvestment process prior to BJA’s launch of the formal Justice Reinvestment Initiative are eligible to apply.

BJA will consider only one application per state or per tribal government. If more than one application is submitted for a state or tribal government, BJA will consider only the application that has received support from the Justice Reinvestment Initiative oversight council, committee, or task force charged with monitoring implementation and outcomes.

Eligible entities may submit applications on behalf of a consortium of governmental and nongovernmental partners to design and implement a strategy to further the goals of a state’s justice reinvestment efforts. This partnership is not mandatory; however, if a state proposes such a partnership, 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. The fiscal agent will be legally responsible for complying with all applicable federal rules and regulations in receiving and expending federal funds. The fiscal agent must demonstrate such capacity by showing experience engaging core criminal justice and other partners in statewide and/or local reform efforts.

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.

http://www.justice.gov/ http://www.ojp.gov/ https://www.bja.gov/ https://www.bja.gov/

BJA-2015-4058

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 March 10, 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 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.

Grants.gov number assigned to this announcement: BJA-2015-4058

Release date: January 12, 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

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:

Maximizing State 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 For the first time since 2009, the state prison population grew between 2012 and 2013; many prison populations remain near all-time high levels and face crowding or resource challenges. And state spending on corrections has remained high. Over the last 25 years, state corrections expenditures have increased exponentially—from $12 billion in 1988 to more than $55 billion in 2013, a significant increase even accounting for inflation.2

Justice reinvestment emerged as a way to address these issues 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 and reinvests savings into high-performing public safety strategies.

Under the JRI model, a governmental working group with bipartisan and interbranch representation 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 prison populations, justice reinvestment encourages states to embrace a culture of greater collaboration, data-driven decisionmaking, and increased use of evidence-based practices.

The JRI State Assessment Report, funded by BJA and authored by the Urban Institute, showed that the 17 assessed JRI states are making steady progress toward achieving the goals of JRI:

reducing correctional spending and reinvesting in recidivism-reduction strategies.3 Of the 17 states, 8 had JRI policies in effect for at least one year. All eight have experienced meaningful reductions in their prison populations, and five of them have met or exceeded their population reduction goals. Although projected savings vary across the 17 states and time periods, the report estimates that savings could amount to as much as $4.7 billion over a 10-year period.

While the full impact of justice reinvestment reforms is not yet known, the policies enacted in JRI states hold great promise to reduce prison populations and avert future growth. The Urban Institute continues to track outcomes in these 17 states and in the additional 7 states that have undertaken justice reinvestment efforts under JRI since the JRI State Assessment Report.

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 Urban Institute, JRI State Assessment Report (Jan. 2014), www.urban.org/publications/412994.html.

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.urban.org/publications/412994.html

The report revealed that many JRI states have issues in common and have focused on similar priorities. Each state’s criminal justice system is unique, requiring detailed and specific analysis to determine factors behind prison growth and corrections spending. However, many of the states found similar factors driving populations and costs—for example, parole and probation revocation rates; sentencing policies and practices that favored incarceration of low-risk offenders over alternatives and that resulted in long lengths of stay; insufficient or inefficient community supervision, services, and support; and parole system processing delays and denials. The policy responses to these issues also overlapped, sharing themes of evidence-based practices and data-driven decisionmaking, including risk and needs assessments;

accountability measures such as performance and outcome measure reporting; earned credits to encourage compliance with conditions of community supervision; intermediate and graduated sanctions; community-based treatment; sentencing changes; mandatory post-incarceration supervision requirements; problem-solving courts; and streamlined parole processes and expanded parole eligibility.

The FY 2015 Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Maximizing State Reforms challenges states to cross the finish line with JRI. Funds can be used to target local sites to achieve greater impact; promote the use of evidence-based programs and strategies by third-party treatment and programming providers; enhance paroling authorities’ use of evidence-based policy, practice, and decisionmaking; create or expand the continuum of pretrial options in one or more jurisdictions; develop and pilot measures and analyses that account for population characteristics including crime type, risk level, age, and criminal history; establish or enhance performance incentive funding programs to encourage successful integration of evidence-based practices in community supervision; pilot or scale up swift and certain or intermediate and graduated sanctions; or other uses that further the state’s justice reinvestment goals (see Allowable Uses for Award Funds on pages 6-8).

BJA expects that a committee, task force, or working group tasked with oversight of the state’s justice reinvestment efforts will designate an agency to act as the legal applicant for this grant program. The state group should engage in a planning process to determine the most appropriate focus for this project and the most suitable applicant and partners. BJA expects that applicants will document support by the state’s JRI oversight group through a letter attached to the application (see Additional Attachments on page 19).

Funding for this initiative is anticipated through the FY 2015 appropriation.

Program-Specific Information

Goals, Objectives, and Deliverables The goal of this program is to cement or amplify the goals of states’ justice reinvestment reform efforts, deepening their investment in and commitment to use of data-driven decisionmaking and evidence-based practices and programs. The objectives of the program are the following:

Increase corrections costs saved or avoided by reducing unnecessary confinement.

Increase reinvestment in evidence-based practices that reduce recidivism.

Support justice reinvestment reform efforts by promoting and increasing collaboration and data sharing among agencies and officials who work in criminal justice, including state and local policymakers, law enforcement, prosecution, defense, pretrial, courts, probation, treatment, corrections, reentry, and parole.

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

Allowable Uses for Award Funds Allowable uses for award funds can include one or more of the following activities to increase or cement the gains achieved by state JRI sites:

Target local sites. Applicant states may identify one or more jurisdictions that are top feeders into the state prison system to target and amplify the impact of the state-level JRI policies enacted in legislation. Proposals that target jurisdictions within the state should document the proportion of state prison admissions that originate from those jurisdictions and design a program to reduce the number of admissions. Applicants may use funds to work collaboratively with local or tribal government leadership and criminal justice stakeholders to infuse evidence-based policy and practice into arrests, prosecutorial charging decisions, pretrial detention, sentencing and diversion, revocations from probation or parole, or other drivers of the corrections population.

Promote the use of evidence-based programs and strategies by third-party service providers that provide substance abuse, mental health, and behavioral health treatment; diversion programming; aftercare; and reentry services. For many individuals, community-based treatment is more effective and less costly than incarceration.

As agencies seek strategically and systematically to increase community-based services for individuals for whom such placement is safe and appropriate, it is vital to ensure that these services align with the principles of effective intervention, implement evidence-based principles with fidelity, meet the needs of the target populations, and achieve performance and outcome expectations. Accordingly, applicants may propose a project that enables them to hold community-based services accountable for providing high-quality, effective services.

Applicants can use funds to assess and/or enhance the extent to which service providers are using validated risk and needs assessment tools, ensuring appropriate treatment or programming dosage and responsivity, and implementing evidence-based programs and strategies with fidelity. Funds may be used to provide training in evidence-based practices to contracted service providers. Funds also may be used to plan for and implement a performance-based contracting system. Applicants are encouraged to leverage opportunities through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to expand health insurance coverage and expand access and utilization of primary and behavioral healthcare treatment.

Enhance paroling authorities’ evidence-based policy, practice, and decisionmaking.

In several JRI states, data analysis revealed that parole system processing delays and denials were a significant contributor to the growth of the state prison population. Applicants can use grant funding to enhance parole decisionmaking in a comprehensive fashion, including the use of empirically based tools to assess individuals’ risk and criminogenic needs, decisionmaking guidelines that provide structure and consistency to parole decisionmaking, training on evidence-based practices including engagement skills of parole board members, and collaborative partnerships with corrections and community supervision agencies and others to facilitate a safe transition to the community.

Create or expand the continuum of pretrial options in one or more jurisdictions including tribal jurisdictions, including supervision capacity. Several JRI states targeted changes to pretrial release and supervision decisions and processes to address this driver of the corrections population. Applicants may use grant funds to pilot, or expand capacity to provide, 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, including release on recognizance; release with telephone or SMS messages to remind defendants of court dates; release with conditions such as remaining drug- or alcohol-free, maintaining no contact with a person or place, or regular reporting by phone, kiosk, or in person; release with supervision or diversion (e.g., case management, home visits, and/or treatment); and pretrial detention. Applicants are encouraged to leverage opportunities through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to expand health insurance coverage and expand access and utilization of primary and behavioral healthcare treatment.

Develop and deploy analyses that provide useful and accurate population and recidivism information and that account for population characteristics including crime type, risk level, and criminal history. Applicants should propose to create a model for comparing expected recidivism with actual recidivism that controls for salient characteristics of the population, such as crime type, risk, age, and criminal history. Using that model, applicants should propose to evaluate the effectiveness of at least one intervention or policy, for example, a prison-based cognitive behavioral therapy or substance abuse program, effectiveness of specialized caseloads, earned compliance credits, a vocational training program, or mandatory post-incarceration supervision. Such an evaluation would compare expected recidivism with actual recidivism, controlling for population characteristics, such as crime type and risk. Many JRI states share the goal of reserving prison space for those who have committed serious or violent crimes and those who pose a high public safety risk. Therefore, applicants may also use funding to develop and pilot a metric to indicate the percentage of the prison population comprising these individuals. A project of this kind should go beyond statutory definitions of “serious” or “violent” crimes to provide a more accurate picture of the prison population. In addition, as JRI states reduce the number of low-risk individuals confined in prison, recidivism rates may increase as a natural consequence of holding a higher proportion of high-risk individuals.

Applicants may use funding to develop separate recidivism scores for different risk levels and to analyze survival rates at various time intervals (i.e., survival or event history analysis to determine “time to failure”). Proposals in this category should include a plan to document the methodology, process, and lessons learned so that other jurisdictions can replicate the applicant’s results.

Establish or enhance performance incentive funding (PIF) programs to encourage successful integration of evidence-based practices in community supervision. PIF programs support community supervision agencies' use of evidence-based practices to reduce recidivism by rewarding such agencies when their use of evidence-based practices results in savings to the state in terms of reduced recommitments to the state prison system due to revocations of supervision. Applicants may use funding to seed or scale up PIF programs. For more information on performance incentive funding programs, applicants may refer to Performance Incentive Funding: Aligning Fiscal and Operational Responsibility to Produce More Safety at Less Cost.

Pilot or scale up intermediate and graduated responses, including swift and certain sanctions. Legislation in several JRI states established pilot programs for swift and certain sanctions modeled on programs like Hawai’i Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE), Texas Supervision with Intensive Enforcement (SWIFT), Sobriety 24/7 in South Dakota, and Alaska’s Probation Accountability and Certain Enforcement (PACE), or more http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/performance-incentive-funding-report.pdf http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/performance-incentive-funding-report.pdf broadly required intermediate and graduated responses to encourage supervision compliance. Applicants may propose funding to pilot intermediate and graduated response programs, which may incorporate positive reinforcements and swift and certain sanctions, in one or more jurisdictions. Applicants may also propose to scale up existing pilots to take these initiatives to a greater number of jurisdictions or statewide. These proposals should include a plan to collect relevant data and track outcomes. To learn more about swift and certain sanctions, applicants can refer to the following publications:

o Managing Drug-Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating

Hawaii’s HOPE o Effective Responses to Offender Behavior: Lessons Learned for Probation and Parole

Supervision

Develop and implement another evidence-based strategy to further the state’s justice reinvestment goals. Applicants may also develop another strategy, not listed here, that furthers the state’s justice reinvestment goals and is in keeping with the goals of JRI. These proposals should clearly articulate objectives and link them to one or more policy option(s) developed as part of the state’s justice reinvestment efforts. Such proposals should also clearly cite and describe the research supporting the proposed evidence-based strategy.

To support the program, successful grantees will receive technical assistance that is tailored to the strategies proposed.

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; and 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

Amount and Length of Award BJA estimates that it will make up to four awards of up to $1,750,000 for an estimated total of $7,000,000 for a 36-month project period, beginning on or about October 1, 2015.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncjrs.gov%2Fpdffiles1%2Fnij%2Fgrants%2F229023.pdf&ei=ouhXVL-AMpGqyASs8oDICw&usg=AFQjCNEAt9ctTDFur7IUi0muscGAK648vQ https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncjrs.gov%2Fpdffiles1%2Fnij%2Fgrants%2F229023.pdf&ei=ouhXVL-AMpGqyASs8oDICw&usg=AFQjCNEAt9ctTDFur7IUi0muscGAK648vQ http://www.appa-net.org/eWeb/docs/APPA/pubs/EROBLLPPS-Report.pdf http://www.appa-net.org/eWeb/docs/APPA/pubs/EROBLLPPS-Report.pdf http://www.crimesolutions.gov/

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 Award4 BJA expects that it will make any award from 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 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:

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

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 If a state has measured and reinvested savings (either projected or actual costs saved or avoided) into evidence-based strategies to reduce recidivism and make communities safer (see Selection Criteria on page 24), then a match is not required. If such a state 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.

Match Requirement (based on federal award amount) If a state 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 8).

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 state’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 legislation or task force identified community-based treatment as a reinvestment priority. As another example, match funding could be used for skills-based trainings for probation officers if the state’s reinvestment strategies included more effective community supervision.

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 19).

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

Example: For a federal award amount of $1,750,000, the required reinvestment match is $1,750,000.

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.

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.5 The 2015 salary table for SES employees is available at www.opm.gov/salary-tables. 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

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

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, and Budget Narrative. 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. 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,” http://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm

“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 web site: 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 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 following clearly labeled and delineated information:

o legal name of the grant recipient and the title of the project;

o project’s goals and deliverables and how the goals relate to the state’s JRI goals;

o project design elements including the allowable uses of funds that will be incorporated into the project; and o if applicable, the projected number of participants to be served through the project and target population characteristics and target geographical area, if applicable.

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.

Permission to Share Project Abstract with the Public: It is unlikely that BJA will be able to fund all promising applications submitted under this solicitation, but it may have the opportunity to share information with the public regarding promising but unfunded applications, for example, through a listing on a webpage available to the public. The intent of this public posting would be to allow other possible funders to become aware of such proposals.

In the project abstract template, applicants are asked to indicate whether they give OJP permission to share their project abstract (including contact information) with the public.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12372.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_spoc/

Granting (or failing to grant) this permission will not affect OJP’s funding decisions, and, if the application is not funded, granting permission will not guarantee that abstract information will be shared, nor will it guarantee funding from any other source.

If the applicant elects to grant permission, please submit a version of the abstract (in addition to the Word version) using the detailed template available at ojp.gov/funding/Apply/ Resources/ProjectAbstractTemplate.pdf.

Note: OJP may choose not to list a project that otherwise would have been included in a listing of promising but unfunded applications, should the abstract fail to meet the format and content requirements noted above and outlined in the project abstract template.

3. Program Narrative The program narrative must respond to the solicitation and the Selection Criteria (a-e) in the order given. 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 15 pages. Number pages “1 of 15,” “2 of 15,” 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: See “Selection Criteria” on page 24 for more information about what each section should include.

a. Statement of the Problem

b. Project Design and Implementation

c. Capabilities and Competencies

d. 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. Performance measures for this solicitation are as follows:

http://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/ProjectAbstractTemplate.pdf http://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/ProjectAbstractTemplate.pdf

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 (prison) 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 collaboration among agencies and

Percentage of project plan outcomes met

During the reporting period:

A. Number of project tasks B. Number of project tasks completed 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) Governor’s office

b) Legislature

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/ EvidenceResearchEvaluationRequirements.htm). Applicants whose proposals may http://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm http://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/SolicitationRequirements/EvidenceResearchEvaluationRequirements.htm http://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/SolicitationRequirements/EvidenceResearchEvaluationRequirements.htm involve a research or statistical component also should review the “Data Privacy and Confidentiality Requirements” section on that web page.

e. Impact/Outcomes, Evaluation, and Sustainment

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, D. Equipment, E. Supplies, F. Construction, G. Consultants/Contracts, H. Other Costs, I. Indirect Costs)

Budgets clearly itemize the project’s spending plan for the project period. Computations should be mathematically sound and detailed. Budgets should also reframe from including unallowable and costs that are not necessary for JRI project activities (e.g., unreasonable costs).

The budget categories and amounts included in the budget detail worksheet should mirror the amounts in the budget narrative.

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

See “Selection Criteria” on page 24 for more detail on what a budget for the Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Maximizing State Reforms Program should include.

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, including the match requirement, if applicable (see Match Requirement on page 10).The narrative should explain how the applicant estimated and calculated all costs, and how they are relevant to the completion of the proposed project.