15jristatetasol.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: State-Level Technical Assistance. This program furthers the Department’s mission by helping state governments to analyze criminal justice system data, develop and implement policy options, and allocate scarce resources effectively while improving public safety and enhancing state capacity to make data-driven policy decisions.

Justice Reinvestment Initiative:

State-Level Technical Assistance

FY 2015 Competitive Grant Announcement

Eligibility 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.

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.

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 April 23, 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 http://www.justice.gov/ http://www.ojp.gov/ https://www.bja.gov/ https://www.bja.gov/ 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

BJA-2015-4101

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-2015-4101

Release date: February 23, 2015 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:

State-Level Technical Assistance

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

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.

JRI is a public-private partnership between BJA, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and JRI technical assistance (TA) and assessment providers. 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 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.

“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:

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

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.

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

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.

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.

BJA’s role with respect to training and technical assistance provided under this solicitation 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.

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.

Reviewing and approving any proposed subawards for implementation projects.

Pew’s role with respect to training and technical assistance provided under this solicitation 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.

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.

Technical assistance under the JRI Model corresponds with the action steps enumerated above.

1. Stakeholder Engagement

The TA provider will work with governmental and non-governmental stakeholders of the state’s criminal justice system to: (A) orient them to the justice reinvestment process, including drafting a publication documenting the challenges states accepted into JRI seek to address and describing the process to come; (B) seek input on understanding justice system data and processes, interpreting analytic and qualitative findings, and assessing feasibility and providing information on the potential impact of policy recommendations; (C) involve and inform stakeholders in implementation in an ongoing way; and (D) set up processes for continued stakeholder engagement as technical assistance concludes. Such stakeholders typically include legislators, gubernatorial advisors, judges, corrections executives (both institutional and community supervision), prosecutors, defense counsel, law enforcement, parole board members, victims’ advocates, business leaders, nonprofit service providers, local private foundations, and leadership from departments that provide behavioral health treatment and recovery services.

2. Data Analysis

TA will be provided to state stakeholders to: (A) conduct a comprehensive analysis of state criminal justice data, including crime and arrest rates, conviction rates, pretrial, probation, parole, and prison and jail populations; (B) conduct a system assessment to ascertain the extent that policies, procedures, and practices adhere to the principles of effective correctional interventions; (C) assess the capability of justice system stakeholders to collect, analyze, and share information for purposes of making data-driven policy decisions related to corrections and sentencing; (D) evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the state spending on corrections and community corrections; and (E) present findings to the state in a comprehensible, clear, and concise manner.

This comprehensive analysis and evaluation shall include an analysis of the following:

Reported crime and arrest data.

Felony conviction data to understand the percent of offenders who are sentenced to prison for particular offenses.

Prison admissions and length-of-stay data over a three to five year time period to determine which cohorts of offenders are driving the growth of the population.

Development of a prison population projection using a simulation model to test the impact of various policy changes.

Current capacity and quality of institutional and community-based risk-reduction programs such as drug treatment, mental health, and other social services to reduce recidivism among offenders on community supervision.

Criminal justice expenditures and the development of practical, data-driven policy options, including high-performing programs that research shows can increase public safety, improve offender accountability, reduce recidivism, and manage the growth of corrections spending.

3. Policy Development

TA related to policy development will include: (A) developing data-driven policy options that can increase public safety and improve offender accountability and outcomes; (B) modeling impact of recommendations on prison populations, and community supervision populations as appropriate, and compare that impact to the cost of conducting the business of corrections as usual; and (C) documenting recommended policies in a publication for both state stakeholders and a national audience.

4. Implementation Planning and Guidance

During the orientation to justice reinvestment, technical assistance providers will inform state leaders that the state will be eligible for implementation assistance, if state leaders can demonstrate that they have analyzed the data, developed responsive policies, and memorialized criminal justice changes via state legislation or other mechanism. An eligible state will be required to submit to the appropriate TA provider (provider) an application, in such form and manner and at such time as specified by guidelines published jointly by BJA and the provider. The goal of this assistance is to increase the state’s capacity to meet its justice reinvestment goals, which may include providing evidence-based programming and supervision, developing risk-based programs that focus on persons most likely to reoffend, and improving offender accountability.

TA tasks related to implementation will include: (A) assisting in planning to ensure timely and faithful implementation of adopted policies; (B) providing technical expertise and guidance regarding operational and programmatic aspects of implementation as well as stakeholder education regarding the enacted policy changes; and (C) making and monitoring subaward grants to seed implementation. These subawards will provide limited assistance to supplement a state’s funding of implementation efforts, and may be requested for the following uses:

Provide training of corrections and community corrections, judicial, behavioral health, and other key staff on evidence-based practices for reducing recidivism and training to assist jurisdictions in implementing and validating new risk and needs assessment tools, assist in developing quality assurance mechanisms for these practices, and/or stakeholder education regarding the enacted policy changes;

Assist in establishing high-performing programs, including 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 programs that provide incentive funding for local supervision agencies that successfully reduce technical violations and recidivism; and

Support newly established policies and practices that will avert growth in the prison population and, as a result, avert the need to appropriate funds for the construction or operation of new correctional facilities.

5. Supporting Sustainability

Concurrent with the implementation assistance described above, TA will aim to enhance sustainability of the policy changes, and will include development of robust performance and outcome measures, including measurement of costs saved or averted and amounts reinvested. The provider will also support a state-level, interbranch group tasked with oversight of the state’s implementation of justice reinvestment policies. This assistance will enable the state to identify and reinvest saved/averted corrections costs into high-performing programs that enhance public safety by strengthening the criminal justice system and provide the capacity to measure performance of policies and programs enacted or established as a result of JRI activities and the reinvestment of cost savings. Finally, upon conclusion of the TA, the provider will work with state stakeholders to establish a sustainability plan to establish goals and activities for continued data-driven decisionmaking and system improvements in keeping with the goals of justice reinvestment.

In addition to the deliverables described above, the successful applicant TA provider must complete the following deliverables:

In consultation with BJA, develop and disseminate to state-level government officials and policymakers materials required for states to indicate their interest in JRI participation.

Conduct an in-depth review and assessment of each application, including site visits, and make recommendations to BJA and the JRI Steering Committee (comprised of JRI TA providers and funders) relative to appropriate candidates to participate in JRI.

Provide highly effective TTA to successful applicants to complete the required data analysis and policy development; stakeholder meetings; data presentations; and policy recommendations to JRI steering groups.

Provide to BJA recommendations as to which jurisdictions are ready to receive implementation assistance.

Provide implementation TA to develop and implement key policies or programs informed by the data analysis; including detailed implementation plans and performance measures.

In consultation with BJA, make and monitor appropriate subaward grants to jurisdictions to seed implementation of key strategies and programs which advance the JRI goals and priorities.

Coordinate and collaborate with BJA and the organization responsible for assessing JRI (to be selected) to collect appropriate evaluation and assessment data from participating states in order to determine the effectiveness of the policies and programs implemented with JRI assistance and subaward funding.

Submit monthly progress reports and performance measurement data to the organization responsible for assessing the JRI (to be selected).

Cooperate with the organization responsible for assessing the JRI (to be selected) to ensure access to data, state JRI meetings, and state JRI service consumers.

Publish state-specific reports to document three milestones in the JRI process: 1) upon the state’s launch, a publication to lay out the challenges to be addressed through JRI; 2) after policy development and prior to a state’s enactment, a publication to memorialize the recommended policy options; and 3) post-implementation, a report on implementation results.

Make ongoing recommendations to BJA on relevant criminal justice research and ways to continue to improve the effectiveness of JRI.

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.

http://www.crimesolutions.gov/

B. Federal Award Information

BJA anticipates that it will make no more than three cooperative agreement awards to national-scope entities to implement JRI activities at the state level. Applicants may propose to provide either 1) data analysis and policy development, or 2) implementation and sustainability assistance, or both (see pages 5-8).

If applying for implementation and sustainability assistance activities, award recipients are expected to pass through an amount up to $500,000 per site via subaward grants to state jurisdictions that have enacted JRI policy changes to assist in implementation. Pass-through funding recipients and amounts must be approved by BJA before being committed.

BJA estimates that it will make up to 3 awards ranging from $1.5 million up to $8 million, depending on the type of assistance to be provided, for an estimated total of $10 million for a 60-month project period, beginning on October 1, 2015.

BJA may, in certain cases, provide supplemental funding in future years to awards under this solicitation; however, the project period may not be extended. 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 Award3 BJA expects that it will make any award from 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.

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).

3 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)).

(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 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.

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

4 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 http://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm

C. Eligibility Information For additional eligibility information, see Title page.

Cost Sharing or Match Requirement There is no cost sharing or match requirement for this solicitation. For additional 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 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,” “Timelines,” “Memoranda of Understanding,” “Resumes”) for all attachments. Also, OJP recommends that applicants include resumes in a single file.

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

The SF-424 is a required standard form used as a cover sheet for submission of 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 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12372.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_spoc/ 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 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.

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 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, 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. In addition, JRI TA providers must collect and report data regarding the following program-specific objectives, depending on the type of assistance to be provided:

http://www.bjatraining.org/

Pre-Enactment Performance Measures: Data Analysis and Policy Development

Objective Performance Measure(s) Data Grantee Provides

Assist jurisdictions engaging in justice reinvestment analyze data and devise data-driven policy options to efficiently manage corrections expenditures, increase public safety, and improve offender accountability through technical assistance

Percentage of project plan outcomes met

Number of agencies/ organizations receiving technical assistance

Percentage of participating agencies/organizations with established Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with each of the identified groups agencies/organizations successfully completing data analysis and policy development activities jurisdictions recommended for implementation assistance

Percentage of state and/or local agencies/organizations that rated the technical assistance as satisfactory or better

During the reporting period:

Number of project tasks to include, but not limited to:

JRI Participation Guidelines

Application Reviews

Recommendation Memos

Number of project tasks completed during the reporting period

Number of jurisdictions receiving data analysis and policy development technical assistance

Number of participating jurisdictions

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 participating jurisdictions completing data analysis and policy development activities to include, but not limited to:

Analysis of criminal justice data

Assessment of cost-effectiveness of the corrections expenditures

Development of data-driven policy options

Present data and recommendations to JRI steering groups

Number of participating jurisdictions recommended for implementation assistance

Number of state and/or local agencies/organizations that completed an evaluation of services

Number of state and/or local agencies/organizations that rated the services as satisfactory or better

Enhance the translation of evidence into practice by supporting the use of data

Number of analytic reports produced

Number of analytic reports submitted

A. Number of analysis reports produced B. Number of analysis reports delivered to policymakers analysis results to inform policy decisions

Number of meetings with stakeholder groups

C. Number of different stakeholder groups consulted during data analysis and policy development

D. Number of meetings with stakeholder groups held during data analysis and policy development

Post-Enactment Measures: Implementation and Sustainability

Objective Performance Measure(s) Data Grantee Provides

Provide jurisdictions with technical expertise and guidance to assist in the implementation and sustainment of their JRI strategies and programs

Number of onsite visits completed

Number of reports submitted agencies/organizations successfully completing implementation and sustainability activities

Number of onsite visits completed

Number of reports submitted to JRI assessment organization (to be selected)

Number of participating jurisdictions

Number of jurisdictions completing implementation and sustainability activities to include, but not limited to:

Establish policies and practices

Establish high-performing programs

Provide key staff with training on evidence-based practices

Provide key staff with training on implementing and validating tools

Establish a sustainability plan upon close of technical assistance

Establish, collect data, and report out performance measures, including cost savings and reinvestment

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 (www.ojp.gov/funding/Explore/SolicitationRequirements/EvidenceResearchEvaluationRe quirements.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.

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.

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.

http://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/SolicitationRequirements/EvidenceResearchEvaluationRequirements.htm http://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/SolicitationRequirements/EvidenceResearchEvaluationRequirements.htm http://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/BudgetDetailWorksheet.pdf http://www.ojp.gov/financialguide/index.htm http://ojp.gov/financialguide/index.htm

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 Guide. For assistance with identifying your cognizant agency, please contact the Customer Service Center at 1-800-458-0786 or at ask.ocfo@usdoj.gov. If DOJ is the cognizant federal agency, applicants may obtain information needed to submit an indirect cost rate proposal at www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/IndirectCosts.pdf.

6. Applicant Disclosure of High Risk Status

Applicants are to disclose whether they are currently designated high risk by another federal grant making agency. This includes any status requiring additional oversight by the federal agency due to past programmatic or financial concerns. If an applicant is designated high risk by another federal grant making agency, you must email the following information to OJPComplianceReporting@usdoj.gov at the time of application submission:

The federal agency that currently designated the applicant as high risk

Date the applicant was designated high risk

The high risk point of contact name, phone number, and email address, from that federal agency

Reasons for the high risk status

OJP seeks this information to ensure appropriate federal oversight of any grant award.

Unlike the Excluded Parties List, this high risk information does not disqualify any organization from receiving an OJP award. However, additional grant oversight may be included, if necessary, in award documentation.

7. Additional Attachments

a. Applicant Disclosure of Pending Applications

Applicants are to disclose whether they have pending applications for federally funded grants or subgrants (including cooperative agreements) that include requests for funding to support the same project being proposed under this solicitation and will cover the identical cost items outlined in the budget narrative and worksheet in the application under this solicitation. The disclosure should include both direct applications for federal funding (e.g., applications to federal agencies) and indirect applications for such funding (e.g., applications to State agencies that will subaward federal funds).

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

Leveraging multiple funding sources in a complementary manner to implement comprehensive programs or projects is encouraged and is not seen as inappropriate duplication.

mailto:ask.ocfo@usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/IndirectCosts.pdf mailto:OJPComplianceReporting@usdoj.gov

SAMPLE

Applicants that have pending applications as described above are to provide the following information about pending applications submitted within the last 12 months:

The federal or state funding agency

The solicitation name/project name

The point of contact information at the applicable funding agency.

Applicants should include the table as a separate attachment, with the file name “Disclosure of Pending Applications,” to their application. Applicants that do not have pending applications as described above are to include a statement to this effect in the separate attachment page (e.g., “[Applicant Name on SF-424] does not have pending applications submitted within the last 12 months for federally funded grants or subgrants (including cooperative agreements) that include requests for funding to support the same project being proposed under this solicitation and will cover the identical cost items outlined in the budget narrative and worksheet in the application under this solicitation.”), with the file name “Disclosure of Pending Applications,” to their application.

b. Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity If a proposal involves research and/or evaluation, regardless of the proposal’s other merits, in order to receive funds, the applicant must demonstrate research/evaluation independence, including appropriate safeguards to ensure research/evaluation objectivity and integrity, both in this proposal and as it may relate to the applicant’s other current or prior related projects. This documentation may be included as an attachment to the application which addresses BOTH i. and ii. below.

i. For purposes of this solicitation, applicants must document research and evaluation independence and integrity by including, at a minimum, one of the following two items:

a. A specific assurance that the applicant has reviewed its proposal to identify any research integrity issues (including all principal investigators and sub-recipients) and it has concluded that the design, conduct, or reporting of research and evaluation funded by BJA grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts will not be biased by any personal or…