cve initiatives 3 cities nofo 20150821.pdf

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Template

Program Evaluation of the “Three Cities” CVE Initiatives

NOTE: If you are going to apply for this funding opportunity and have not obtained a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and/or are not currently registered in the System for Award Management (SAM), please take immediate action to obtain a DUNS Number, if applicable, and then to register immediately in SAM . It may take 4 weeks or more after you submit your SAM registration before your registration is active in SAM, then an additional 24 hours for Grants.gov to recognize your information. Information on obtaining a DUNS number and registering in SAM is available from Grants.gov at:

http://www.grants.gov/documents/19/18243/SAM_New_Grantee_Registration.pdf/8bf1c182 -8d35-47e0-99e2-a263fa3d9005

A. Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Description

Issued By

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science & Technology Directorate, Resilient Systems Division

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number 97.108

CFDA Title

Homeland Security Research, Testing, Evaluation and Demonstration of Technologies

Notice of Funding Opportunity Title

Program Evaluation of the “Three Cities” CVE initiatives

NOFO Number

DHS-ST-15-108-RSD-00001

Authorizing Authority for Program 6 U.S.C. 188(b)(C)

Appropriation Authority for Program P. L. 114-4, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015, Title IV, Science and Technology, Research, Development, Acquisition and Operations.

http://www.grants.gov/documents/19/18243/SAM_New_Grantee_Registration.pdf/8bf1c182-8d35-47e0-99e2-a263fa3d9005 http://www.grants.gov/documents/19/18243/SAM_New_Grantee_Registration.pdf/8bf1c182-8d35-47e0-99e2-a263fa3d9005

Program Type

New

Program Overview, Objectives, and Priorities

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Resilient Systems Division; Human Behavior and Identification Branch applies the social and behavioral sciences to improve the detection, analysis, and understanding of threats posed by individuals, groups, and radical movements in an effort to support the preparedness, response and recovery of communities impacted by catastrophic events; and to advance national security by integrating scientifically derived knowledge into homeland security policies and technologies.

1.2 Among those threats is violent extremism. The need to counter violent extremism (CVE) is described in a number of strategy documents within the national, departmental, directorate, and divisional levels such as the 2015 National Security Strategy, 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, and Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the U.S., and the DHS S&T Visionary Goals. Furthermore, the President’s Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) notes that the plan “represents the first time the United States Government has outlined an approach to address ideologically inspired violent extremism in the Homeland.” It further notes that the U.S. Government “will first develop key benchmarks to guide our initial assessment. Where possible, we will also work to develop indicators of impact to supplement these performance measures, which will tell us whether our activities are having the intended effects with respect to an objective or sub-objective. As we implement our activities, future evaluations will shift away from benchmark performance measures towards impact assessments.” (SIP; 2011).

1.3 Since publication of the SIP, the White House has coordinated the development of CVE pilot programs in three major U.S. cities (Greater Boston, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis-St. Paul; hereafter “the Three Cities CVE initiatives”). However, the effectiveness of those pilot programs remains unexplored, and—therefore— unknown. DHS S&T has identified CVE as a key DHS programmatic goal. This work will be conducted by engaging experts in the areas of program evaluation and CVE, engaging key stakeholders, and focusing the evaluation designs to deliver information that is useful both to front-line CVE-related practitioners and policy makers: the ultimate aims of which are threefold.

1.3.1 To improve the CVE-related activities of the “Three Cities” CVE initiatives.

1.3.1.1 Including, but not limited to, safeguarding civil liberties.

1.3.2 To provide policy makers with information necessary to decide what, if any, aspects of the “Three Cities” CVE initiatives seem worthy of implementation in other U.S. cities.

1.3.2.1 Including, but not limited to, discovery of both desirable and undesirable unintended consequences of those initiatives.

1.3.3 To reduce the threat of ideologically-motivated violence in the United States.

2.0 Project Description/Scope

2.1 During the base period of performance, Awardees will rely on the National

Strategy and the Strategic Implementation Plan as they conduct both formative evaluations and impact evaluations of Federal (including DHS), State, and local components of one of the “Three Cities” CVE initiatives. At the time of application, awardees will specify upon which of the following three cities their evaluations will focus: Greater Boston, Los Angeles, or Minneapolis-St. Paul. The program evaluation of the “Three Cities” CVE initiatives includes five complementary Technical Topic Areas (TTAs):

2.1.1 TTA #1, Coordination and Development of Progress Measures, and Outcome Measures

2.1.2 TTA #2, Formative Evaluation

2.1.3 TTA #3, Findings and Data from Formative Evaluation

2.1.4 TTA #4, Impact evaluation

2.1.5 TTA #5, Findings and Data from Impact Evaluation

2.2 TTA #1 aims to coordinate with awardees from the other two of the “Three

Cities” CVE initiatives, to employ common measures of progress and outcomes, as feasible. TTA #2 will require a formative evaluation1 of each city’s CVE initiative, to prepare it for the subsequent impact evaluation.2 TTA #3 will require an evaluation report of formative evaluation, including methods, results, and appendices containing all measurement instruments. TTA #4 will require an impact evaluation of each city’s CVE initiative and identify areas for improvement: to elucidate their effects on CVE. TTA #5 will require an evaluation report of the impact evaluation, including methods, results, and appendices containing all measurement instruments and determine findings.

2.3 Each TTA is discussed in detail below and specific objectives for each TTA are

1 Formative evaluation shall mean an evaluation that takes place prior to an impact evaluation, with the aim of improving the evaluated program's design and performance, via systematic evaluation of the program's processes, its theory(ies) of change, and the informational needs of the program's key stakeholders.

2 Impact evaluation shall mean an evaluation of the positive and negative, primary and secondary, long-term effects produced by a program: directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.

also provided. Of particular note, it is anticipated that both metrics and analysis techniques to measure the development progress will evolve during the project.

DHS S&T will use findings from this research, alongside data collected elsewhere, to provide a comprehensive set of best practices for CVE at all levels of government. This initiative will meet two DHS lines of effort in CVE. First, the findings will aid in identifying effective efforts to counter the threat of violent extremism by supporting the evaluation of current CVE programs.

Additionally, the program will encourage and enable our partners to counter violent extremism by enhancing community understanding of the threat and effective measures to counter violent extremism.

3.0 Technical Topic Areas

3.1 TTA #1: Coordination and Development of Progress Measures, and Outcome Measures

3.1.1 The provision of the coordination and development of progress and outcome measures would require the identification and engagement of primary intended users (PIUs) of the evaluation, including specification of those users’ informational needs, and their intended users of the evaluation. The development of these measures should focus both on the formative and impact evaluations, including articulation of the program’s theory (or theories) of change, and depiction (logic model) of the program showing the intended relationships between inputs, outputs, and outcomes.

3.1.2 Objective 1: Responses to this announcement should detail an approach to coordinate with Awardees from the other two (of three) the “Three Cities” CVE initiatives, and DHS S&T RSD, to employ common measures, as feasible, including the development of comparable progress measures, and outcome measures. This should include an approach to identify and engage PIUs of the evaluation, including specification of those users’ informational needs, and their intended uses of the evaluation. Progress measures and outcome measures are due 4 months from award date.

3.2 TTA #2: Formative Evaluation

3.2.1 To prepare for the impact evaluation (the primary objective of the

“Three Cities” CVE initiatives program evaluation) a formative evaluation will be conducted to help PIUs define what constitutes success. The formative evaluation will also define measurements to lay the ground work for the subsequent impact evaluation.

3.2.2 Objective 1: Focus the evaluation, including articulation of the program’s theory (or theories) of change, and depiction (i.e., logic model) of the program, showing the intended relationships between its inputs, outputs, and outcomes. The Awardee shall tailor the evaluation to the specific program and purpose of the evaluation, in consultation with the other Awardees, and DHS RSD.

3.2.3 Objective 2: Evaluation design, including measures of programmatic activities and outcomes. The Awardee will account for the focus of the evaluation in order to determine an appropriate evaluation strategy that is well-suited for the specific program. As feasible and cost effective, the impact evaluation shall employ experimental (or quasi-experimental) methods, unless RSD approves another approach.

3.2.4 Objective 3: Identify, assess and collect data. As part of the design stage, the Awardee shall assess the quality of available data, along with obstacles to, and the risks to, data acquisition. The normal expectation from the Government is that both quantitative and qualitative data may be relevant to the conduct of an evaluation, and—as feasible—both types of data shall be employed in the evaluations. Data of only one of those two types shall be used only if justified to the satisfaction of DHS RSD. To reduce costs, Awardee’s data collection shall utilize preexisting data, to the extent feasible. To the extent that privacy and other rules permit, data will be stored in a form that will allow DHS S&T to reuse it in any follow-on or future work without recompense.

3.2.5 Objective 4: Conduct a formative evaluation of the city’s CVE initiatives, to prepare it for the subsequent impact evaluation. Key deliverables shall be due 10 months after award.

3.3 TTA #3: Findings and Data from Formative Evaluation

3.3.1 At the conclusion of the initial formative evaluation, Awardees are expected to have drawn actionable definitions of success and measurements metrics to be applied during the impact evaluation.

Finding shall be accompanied by a detailed description of methods, results, and measurement instruments for review.

3.3.2 Objective 1: To be responsive to this TTA, applicants should describe their technical approach to analyze the data, using appropriate statistical and qualitative methods, to assess performance of formative evaluation of the city’s CVE initiatives, to prepare for the subsequent impact evaluation.

3.3.3 Objective 2: To demonstrate results, Awardees will share findings with primary intended users—including, but not limited to, managers of the evaluated entities, to the program manager(s) of the component agency, and to DHS RSD —via reports and presentations. Awardees shall generate a main written report, and provide accompanying presentation slides, that set forth the research goals, explain the research strategies, describe the research the methods (including description of the design as implemented, the data used, and the analyses), the results of the analysis, including, as appropriate, tables, and key statistical outputs, along with a discussion of the study’s strengths and limitations, and recommendations for actions. The report will also include a brief executive summary and, as appropriate, statistical tables, summaries of the qualitative data, and appendices containing all measurement instruments. The basis for the recommendations, their rationales and the data behind them will be explained within these reports and presentations. Up to five such presentations, of up to 90 minutes in length, may be required by RSD.

3.3.4 Objective 3: Awardee shall be responsible for creation of a plan to disseminate all research findings pursuant to this formative evaluation, and that dissemination plan shall be made part of the award application. That plan shall provide for all deliverables to be made freely available, at a minimum, to managers of the evaluated entities, to the program manager(s) of the component agency, and to DHS RSD. Additionally, the dissemination plan should identify other key stakeholders (both governmental and non-governmental) who shall be offered the products resulting from this award, including a statement regarding the types of products that shall be made available to those stakeholders. Awardees are expected to deliver an evaluation report of formative evaluation, including methods, results, and appendices containing all measurement instruments. The evaluated entities will benefit by being able to demonstrate success through independent research. Other localities interested in advancing CVE programming will benefit by having access to a repository of effective programs.

Additionally, copies of all data files, and accompanying codebooks, shall be submitted both to the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), hosted by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR; at the University of Michigan), and DHS RSD. The evaluation report, presentation slides, and data files, from the formative evaluation will be due 12 months after award.

3.4 TTA #4: Impact Evaluation

3.4.1 The impact evaluation is the primary objective of this project. Using the methods, measurements, and definitions of success from the formative evaluation findings the Awardee will conduct an impact evaluation of CVE initiatives in their respective city. This impact evaluation will aim to answer fundamental questions regarding areas for improvement, effects on CVE, and impact assessments.

3.4.2 Objective 1: To be responsive to this TTA, applicants should identify an approach to conduct an impact evaluation of the city’s CVE initiatives, and identify areas for improvement: to elucidate their effects on CVE. Such impact evaluation shall employ a mixed method design, including experimental, and/or quasi-experimental, methods.

3.4.3 Objective 2: Identify, assess and collect data. As part of the design stage, the Awardee shall assess the quality of available data, along with obstacles to, and the risks to, data acquisition. The normal expectation from the Government is that both quantitative and qualitative data may be relevant to the conduct of an evaluation, and—as feasible—both types of data shall be employed in the evaluations. Data of only one of those two types shall be used only if justified to the satisfaction of DHS RSD. To reduce costs, Awardee’s data collection shall utilize preexisting data, to the extent feasible. To the extent that privacy and other rules permit, data will be stored in a form that will allow DHS S&T to reuse it in any follow-on or future work without recompense

3.4.4 Objective 3: Conduct a formative evaluation of the city’s CVE initiatives, to prepare it for the subsequent impact evaluation. Key deliverables include emergent findings brief, and others, as requested by RSD beginning 20 months after award.

3.5 TTA #5: Findings and Data from Impact Evaluation

3.5.1 At the conclusion of the impact evaluation, Awardees are expected to reach and justify operationally relevant conclusions that identify strengths and weaknesses in the respective city’s CVE initiatives. The findings expressed in this TTA will be instrumental in influencing future approaches to CVE initiatives in the United States. Due to the high demand for scientifically sound CVE program evaluations Awardees should expect to deliver multiple briefings addressing the basis for recommendations, and the rationale and data behind the findings from the impact evaluation.

3.5.2 Objective 1: Awardees will reach, and justify, operationally relevant conclusions that identify strengths and weaknesses in the city’s CVE initiatives, as operationally relevant. Awardees will also be responsible for tying the evaluations’ conclusions to policy relevant objectives and will make recommendations to capitalize upon those strengths and mitigate those weaknesses. Awardees shall make arguments for causality between program activities and their outcomes.

Specifically, Awardees shall present the following:

i. Evidence that outcomes varied reliably;

ii. Identification of the most likely alternative explanations;

iii. Evidence in favor of causal explanations, and that casts doubt on alternative explanations;

3.5.3 Additionally, Awardees shall discuss the role of social policy agencies toward improving the city’s CVE initiatives. Given that a broad range of CVE program components are affected by policy decisions, the recommendations for such agencies, toward CVE, should be made explicit. An evaluation report, presentation slides, and data files from the impact evaluation are due 24 months after award.

3.5.4 Objective 2: Awardees will be responsible for a follow-up meta-evaluation within 3-6 months following the main report. Awardees shall compose and submit to DHS RSD, a follow-up report detailing both their insights from the evaluation experience, and an assessment of the usefulness of the evaluation, based on whether PIUs use the evaluation as intended. Meta-evaluation permits Awardees and PIUs (including DHS RSD) to enhance their learning from their experience, and to assess the usefulness of the evaluation. This entails Awardees following-up with PIUs to gain their feedback, including feedback regarding any unintended consequences of the evaluation. Such meta-evaluation is intended to develop both a body of CVE evaluation knowledge, and CVE evaluation expertise: both of which can enhance the quality of subsequent CVE program evaluations. This is an especially important practice for a field as new, and critical, as CVE evaluation.

3.5.5 Objective 3: Awardee shall be responsible for creation of a plan to disseminate all research findings pursuant to this impact evaluation, and that dissemination plan shall be made part of the award application. That plan shall provide for all deliverables to be made freely available, at a minimum, at a minimum, to managers of the evaluated entities, to the program manager(s) of the component agency, and to DHS RSD. Additionally, the dissemination plan should identify other key stakeholders (both governmental and non-governmental) who shall be offered the products resulting from this award, including a statement regarding the types of products that shall be made available to those stakeholders. Additionally, copies of all data files, and accompanying codebooks, shall be submitted both to the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), hosted by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR;

at the University of Michigan), and DHS RSD. The evaluation report, presentation slides, and data files from the formative evaluation will be due by the conclusion of the award timeframe.

4.0 Example Project Structure

4.1 Performance/Delivery Period

4.1.1 The Program Evaluation of the “Three Cities” CVE initiatives is structured into five distinct TTAs that aim to holistically reach, and justify operationally relevant conclusions that identify the strengths and weaknesses in the city’s CVE initiatives. These findings will be instrumental in future development of similar programs, policies, or initiatives relating to CVE.

4.1.2 The Period of Performance for this award performance is 30 months, which includes 24 months for research and 3-6 months for follow-up meta-evaluation

4.1.3 The awardee shall be responsible for submitting, as part of the full proposal, a listing of deliverables and a schedule for their delivery, associated with this effort. The example schedules below are for illustrative and recommendation purposes only, and may be used as a guide, at the applicant’s discretion.

Project Area (TTA) Example Task Description Example Key

Deliverable Example Due Date

TTA #1

Coordination and Development of progress measures, and outcome measures

Coordinate with Awardees from the other two of the “Three Cities” CVE initiatives, to employ common measures, as feasible.

Progress measures and outcome measures.

4 months after award

TTA #2

Formative evaluation

Conduct a formative evaluation of the city’s CVE initiatives, to prepare it for the subsequent impact evaluation

Emergent findings brief, and others, as requested by RSD.

10 months

TTA #3

Findings and data

Evaluation report of formative evaluation, including methods, results, and appendices containing all measurement instruments.

Additionally, copies of the data files shall be submitted in SPSS format, to

DHS RSD.

Evaluation report, presentation slides, and data files, from the formative evaluation.

12 months after award

TTA #4

Impact evaluation

Conduct an impact evaluation of the city’s CVE initiatives, and identify areas for improvement: to elucidate their effects on CVE. Such impact evaluation shall employ a mixed-method design, including experimental, and/or quasi-experimental, methods

Emergent findings brief, and others, as requested by RSD.

Beginning 20 months after award

TTA #5

Findings and data

A. Evaluation report of impact evaluation, including methods, results, and appendices containing all measurement instruments.

Additionally, copies of the data files shall be submitted in SPSS format, to

DHS RSD.

B. Follow-up meta evaluation detailing insights from the evaluation experience, and an assessment of the usefulness of the evaluation, based on whether PIUs use the evaluation as intended.

Evaluation report, presentation slides, and data files, from the impact evaluation.

A. 24 months

B. 27-30 months

Request for Proposals

In fiscal year (FY) 2015, a total of up to $1.1 million in Federal funding is available for the entirety of the “Three Cities” CVE initiatives evaluations over a 30 month period of performance to complete all awards. (Subject to availability of funds)

B. Federal Award Information

Award Amounts, Important Dates, and Extensions

Available Funding for the NOFO: Up to $500,000 per award, and up to $1,100,000 for all awards included in program (subject to the availability of funds). Funds will be awarded in 12-month increments.

Projected number of Awards: 3 (three) awards.

Period of Performance: Up to 30 months.

Any period over 30 months is an “extension.” Extensions to the period of performance are allowable. Please refer to Section H. Additional Information – Extension, for more information regarding what steps recipients must follow and what information must be included in the justification for such request to be considered.

Projected Period of Performance Start Date(s): 09/30/2015

Projected Period of Performance End Date(s): 03/30/2018

First Budget Period Dates: 09/30/2015 - 03/30/2018

Funding Instrument: Discretionary – Competitive - Cooperative Agreement

DHS Substantial Involvement

The “Program evaluation of the “Three Cities” CVE initiatives program requires substantial DHS involvement with awardee to include:

•DHS and recipient collaborate or jointly participate in the development of work plans and modifications thereto, disapproving and approving sub-projects, and coordinating standards development activities.

•Highly prescriptive DHS requirements prior to award, limiting recipient’s discretion with respect to scope of services offered, coupled with close DHS monitoring and operational involvement during performance over and above the normal exercise of Federal stewardship responsibilities, to ensure compliance with these requirements.

Additionally, DHS responsibilities under the cooperative agreement, in addition to the usual monitoring and technical assistance, include the following:

1. Providing technical assistance, including oversight of the selection of eligible research participants (in participating jurisdictions), and providing technical assistance workshops.

2. Assisting in the establishment of interagency partnerships, collaborations, consultations, and cooperation, within the Federal government, that might be necessary for carrying out the project.

3. Conducting periodic programmatic reviews of progress and products, including quarterly reviews.

4. Oversight of the development of training materials, the provision of training, the coordination of self-certification activities, and any evaluations thereof

5. Attending and participating in applicable meetings initiated by federal, state, and local stakeholders, including meetings with program staff of the evaluated entities, their subcommittees, and working groups, as applicable. RSD subject matter experts may periodically attend, participate in such meetings, and advise the local program managers.

C. Eligibility Information

Eligible Applicants

For-profit organizations other than small businesses

Nonprofits with 501(c)(3) IRS status, other than institution of higher education Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) IRS status, other than institution of higher education Private institutions of higher education Public and State controlled institutions of higher education Small businesses

Eligibility Criteria

To be eligible for this program, must meet the below requirements.

1. Applicants must not be a Government organization. At the time of application, applicants that propose to become the PM must have at least three years of experience performing program evaluations.

2. National laboratory employees may participate in planning, conducting, and analyzing the activities directed by the applicant, but may not direct projects on behalf of the applicant organization.

3. The standards organization may provide funds through its assistance agreement with DHS to an FFRDC for project-specific, non-federal research personnel, supplies, equipment, facilities, data, and other expenses directly related to activities under this cooperative agreement.

4. Federal agencies may not apply. Federal employees are not eligible to serve in a principal leadership role on a grant or cooperative agreement, and may not receive salaries or in other ways augment their agency's appropriations through awards made by this program.

a. Nonetheless, federal employees may interact substantively with awardees in the form of cooperation.

b. Cooperation involves consulting on the planning, management, and coordination of standards organization and/or information sharing and analysis organization activities, sharing or comparing information, indicators, samples, equipment, facilities, data, models, or other support during the conduct of the standards development and related activities in which the interaction is substantial and requires the award of a cooperative agreement, rather than a grant.

c. Substantial involvement occurs when the collaboration or cooperation of a federal employee or facility is necessary to achieving the overall goals of the activities supported by this cooperative agreement.

Other Eligibility Criteria

DHS will not consider applications that do not adhere to one or more of the following requirements:

1. Deadlines. DHS will not accept late applications. Without exception, applications must be received by Grants.gov on or before the deadline in this announcement or they will not be considered.

2. Application relevance. Applications that do not address the purpose of this announcement will not be considered.

3. Compliance and completeness. Applications must substantially comply with the application submission instructions and requirements in this announcement or they will not be considered.

4. Funding limits. Applications exceeding the funding limits will not be considered.

5. Proof of non-profit status. The applicant and any proposed sub-awardee must provide documentation of non-profit and/or public status. Any of the following constitutes acceptable proof of non-profit status:

• A reference to the applicant organization’s listing in the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code.

• A copy of a currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate.

• A statement from a State taxing body, State attorney general, or other appropriate State official certifying that the applicant organization has a non-profit status and that none of the net earnings accrue to any private shareholders or individuals.

• A certified copy of the organization’s certificate of incorporation or similar document that clearly establishes non-profit status.

• Any of the items in the subparagraphs immediately above for a State or national parent organization and a statement signed by the parent organization that the applicant organization is a local non-profit affiliate.

• A signed statement on official letterhead by an official authorized to apply for grant funds on behalf of the public entity shall suffice.

In addition, DHS will not consider multiple applications from a single organization serving as the lead. If more than one application is submitted by a single organization as the lead, the later in time will be considered, unless the later application clearly indicates a unique role for that organization, other than as lead for this activity.

Non-Responsive Applications

Your application will be rejected if:

1. Form SF-424 – Application for Federal Assistance is missing.

2. Form SF-424A – Budget is missing.

3. Form SF-424B – Assurances - Non-Construction Programs is missing.

4. The applicant’s Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) is not registered with the System for Award Management (SAM).

5. The application does not include a Budget Narrative.

6. The application does not include a Project Abstract.

7. The Project Narrative is missing.

Maintenance of Effort

There is no maintenance of effort requirement for this program. Requests for funds under this announcement shall not be used to take the place of activities described in the application that are currently supported with other funding. Also, grant funds shall not be used to support activities that are a normal part of the organization’s operations.

Cost Share or Match

There is no cost share or match requirement for this program.

D. Application and Submission Information

Submission Dates and Other Key Dates and Times

NOFO Posted to Grants.gov: 08/24/2015 06:00:00 PM EST

Application Submission Deadline: 09/20/2015 11:59:59 PM EST Daylight savings time Anticipated Funding Selection Date: 09/28/2015 Anticipated Award Date: 09/30/2015

NOTE: The application must be received in Grants.gov by the date and time listed above. If an application is received after the deadline, it will not be considered. Applicants will receive a confirmation from Grants.gov once the application is successfully submitted.

All applications are time stamped by the Grants.gov system when submitted and recipients are notified accordingly. The federal office will download all applications that are received by the deadline date and time as indicated on the NOFO.

Other Key Dates

Address to Request Application Package

Applications will be processed through the Grants.gov portal. Application forms and instructions are available at Grants.gov. To access these materials, go to http://www.grants.gov , select “Applicants” then “Apply for Grants,” read the registration requirements and register if necessary (Allow up to four weeks after you submit before your registration is active in SAM, then an additional 24 hours for Grants.gov to recognize your information). In order to obtain the application package select “Download a Grant Application Package.” Enter the CFDA and/or the funding opportunity number located on the cover of this NOFO, select “Download Package,” and then follow the prompts to download the application package.

Grant Application Package - Enter the CFDA and/or the funding opportunity number located on the cover of this NOFO, select “Download Package,” and then follow the prompts to download the application package.

Applications will be processed through the Grants.gov portal. If you experience difficulties accessing information or have any questions, please call Grants.gov customer support at 1- 800-518-4726.

The Telephone Device for the Deaf (TDD) and/or Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) number available for this Announcement is: 1-800-518-4726 (Grants.gov Help Desk).

To request a hardcopy of the full NOFO, please email or fax a request to:

Janet Bailey Grants Officer Janet.Bailey@hq.dhs.gov Phone: 202-447-0362

Content and Form of Application Submission

Event Suggested Deadline For Completion

Obtaining DUNS Number 09/18/2015

Obtaining a valid EIN 09/18/2015

Updating SAM registration 09/18/2015 http://www.grants.gov/

Content and Form of Application Submission Applicants must submit all required forms and required documents listed in this section.

See the Grants.gov Applicant User Guide for instructions on how to attach forms and documents. Applicant should ensure that the final submitted application package includes all required forms and documents. Applicants should avoid the use of special characters in attachment file names.

REQUIRED FORMS

Complete the required forms in accordance with the application instructions on Grants.gov. If submitting any information that is deemed proprietary, privileged or confidential commercial or financial, please denote the beginning and ending of such information with asterisks (***).

1. Form SF-424 – Application for Federal Assistance

This form must be completed within the application package on Grants.gov. You must download and install Adobe Reader in order to view this form. Applicants are only required to complete fields which are highlighted.

2. Form SF-424A – Budget

This form must be completed within the application package on Grants.gov. You must download and install Adobe Reader in order to view this form. Applicants are only required to complete fields which are highlighted. Provide budget amounts by object class (personnel, fringe benefits, travel, etc.). Include all five years of budget amounts in Section E. Funds may be requested as long as the item and amount are necessary to perform the proposed work and are not precluded by the cost principles or program funding restrictions.

3. Certifications/Assurances

These forms must be completed within the application package on Grants.gov.

You must download and install Adobe Reader in order to view these forms.

Applicants must submit:

a. Form SF-424B – Assurances – Non-Construction Programs; and

b. Certification Regarding Lobbying. If paragraph two of the certification applies, then complete and submit the SF-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying which is provided as an optional form in the application package.

By signing and submitting an application under this announcement, the applicant is providing: Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements; Certification http://www.grants.gov/documents/19/18243/GrantsgovApplicantUserGuide.pdf

Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters – Primary Covered Transactions; and Certification that the applicant is not delinquent on any federal debt.

REQUIRED DOCUMENTS

Project Information

a. Project Abstract (3 single-spaced page maximum) Provide the information below in a separate document, suitable for public dissemination.

The project abstract must not include any proprietary/confidential information. Attach the Project Abstract to the application package.3

General Information

1. Organization legal name

2. Organization legal address (Number and street, city, state, zip code)

3. Head of the organization (Name, title, address, phone number, email address)

4. Authorized official, the person at the organization authorized to sign to receive award (Name, title, address, phone number, email address)

5. Grant project manager, the person who will manage the operations of the grant project and will serve as project manager primary point of contact (Name, title, address, phone number, email address)

6. Type of organization (e.g., non-profit, small business, private, public and state controlled institutions of higher education, etc.)

7. Project description (200 words or less) Provide a brief summary of the following:

• The organization’s experience coordinating and conducting program evaluations and impact assessments.

• Proposed grant project activities and outcomes.

3 See the Grants.gov Applicant User Guide for instructions on how to attach forms and documents. The “Attachment” Section begins on page 88 of the Applicant User Guide.

http://www.grants.gov/documents/19/18243/GrantsgovApplicantUserGuide.pdf

8. Total federal funding requested (Up to $1,200,000 / $400,000 per award)

9. Congressional district (based on the legal address of the applicant organization)

10. Number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) Indicate the number of intended grant- funded FTEs. Include part-time work as percentages of FTEs. Include any grant-funded sub-awardee FTEs.

Tips: Write for a general audience and avoid use of scientific/technical jargon to the extent possible. Please define any technical terminology that is discipline-specific and include a list of any acronyms used. Be concise and direct in descriptions.

b. Project Narrative (30 double-spaced page maximum)

Provide a response for each item in the chart below following the order listed. Items 5.a. – 5.c. below are the mandatory headings that must be included in the Project Narrative. An application that is missing one or more of the three required headings will be deemed non-responsive and will not be reviewed. The items and attachments listed in each section are required, and any item or attachment that is omitted will result in points deducted.

Format Requirements

• You must follow the order specified below,

• Include the title “Project Narrative” at the top of the first page.

• Ensure that the application can be printed on 8 ½” x 11” single-sided paper.

• Use double-spacing.

• Font size must be at least 12 point, preferably Times New Roman font.

• Margins must be at least one (1) inch at the top, bottom, left and right of the paper.

• Project narrative pages must be numbered “1” of “XX.”

• Pages should be numbered consecutively and are limited to a total of 30 pages.

• Do not include any marks from the “Track Changes” tool in your word processing program.

• Attach the completed Project Narrative to the application package.

Project Narrative Items

a. Program Evaluation Development (18 page max) Experience and Expertise Describe:

• Your non-governmental organization, leadership and management, and the organization’s experience/ ability to engage and work across the broad community of organizations engaged in sharing information related to Countering Violent Extremism programs and initiatives.

• Your organization’s recent experience developing metrics for success and evaluation frameworks for social programs Indicate dates, total years of experience, the community served and relevant outcome of your activities.

• You plan for engaging with the NGOs and government actors necessary to complete this effort.

• Describe your background with CVE or related activities.

TTA #1: Coordination and Development of Progress Measures, and Outcome Measures

Propose a plan to coordinate and develop progress measures, and outcome measures.

• The provision of the coordination and development of progress and outcome measures would require the identification and engagement of primary intended users (PIUs) of the evaluation, including specification of those users’ informational needs, and their intended users of the evaluation. The development of these measures should focus both on the formative and impact evaluations, including articulation of the program’s theory (or theories) of change, and depiction (logic model) of the program showing the intended relationships between inputs, outputs, and outcomes.

• Objective 1: Responses to this announcement should detail an approach to coordinate with Awardees from the other two (of three) of the “Three Cities” CVE initiatives, and DHS RSD, to employ common measures, as feasible, including the development of comparable progress measures, and outcome measures. This should include an approach to identify and engage primary intended users (PIUs) of the evaluation, including specification of those users’ informational needs, and their intended uses of the evaluation. Progress measures and outcome measures are due 4 months from award date.

b. TTA#2 Formative Evaluation (7 page max)

Please describe:

• To prepare for the impact evaluation (the primary objective of the “Three Cities”

CVE initiatives program evaluation) a formative evaluation will be conducted to help PIUs define what constitutes success. The formative evaluation will also define measurements to lay the ground work for the subsequent impact evaluation.

• Objective 1: Focus the evaluation, including articulation of the program’s theory (or theories) of change, and depiction (i.e., logic model) of the program, showing the intended relationships between its inputs, outputs, and outcomes. The Awardee shall tailor the evaluation to the specific program and purpose of the evaluation, in consultation with the other Awardees, and DHS RSD.

• Objective 2: Evaluation design, including measures of programmatic activities and outcomes. The Awardee will account for the focus of the evaluation in order to determine an appropriate evaluation strategy that is well-suited for the specific program. As feasible and cost effective, the impact evaluation shall employ experimental (or quasi-experimental) methods, unless RSD approves another approach.

• Objective 3: Identify, assess and collect data. As part of the design stage, the

Awardee shall assess the quality of available data, along with obstacles to, and the risks to, data acquisition. The normal expectation from the Government is that both quantitative and qualitative data may be relevant to the conduct of an evaluation, and—as feasible—both types of data shall be employed in the evaluations. Data of only one of those two types shall be used only if justified to the satisfaction of DHS RSD. To reduce costs, Awardee’s data collection shall utilize preexisting data, to the extent feasible. To the extent that privacy and other rules permit, data will be stored in a form that will allow DHS S&T to reuse it in any follow-on or future work without recompense.

• Objective 4: Conduct a formative evaluation of the city’s CVE initiatives, to prepare it for the subsequent impact evaluation. Key deliverables shall be due 10 months after award.

c. TTA #3: Findings and Data from Formative Evaluation

Please Describe:

• At the conclusion of the initial formative evaluation, Awardees are expected to have drawn actionable definitions of success and measurements metrics to be applied during the impact evaluation. Finding and data from the formative evaluation will be reported to DHS RSD with a detailed description of methods, results, and measurement instruments for review.

• Objective 1: To be responsive to this TTA, applicants should describe their technical approach to analyze the data, using appropriate statistical and qualitative methods, to assess performance of formative evaluation of the city’s CVE initiatives, to prepare for the subsequent impact evaluation. Awardees are expected to deliver an evaluation report of formative evaluation, including methods, results, and appendices containing all measurement instruments in addition to copies of the data files that shall be submitted in SPSS format, to DHS RSD. Evaluation report, presentation slides, and data files, from the formative evaluation will be due 12 months after award.

• Objective 2: To demonstrate results, awardees will share findings with primary intended users via reports and presentations. Awardees shall generate a main written report, and provide accompanying presentation slides, that set forth the research goals, explains the research strategies, describes the research the methods (including description of the design as implemented, the data used, and the analyses), the results of the analysis, including, as appropriate, tables, and key statistical outputs, along with a discussion of the study’s strengths and limitations, and recommendations for actions. The report will also include a brief executive summary and, as appropriate, statistical tables, summaries of the qualitative data, and appendices containing all measurement instruments. This report will be made available, at a minimum, to the program manager(s) of the component agency, the leaders of the program being evaluated, and to RSD, as part of the awardee’s dissemination plan (see § 3.3.4 & 3.5.5). . The basis for the recommendations, their rationales and the data behind them will be explained by the Awardee to the responsible program manager(s) and any relevant stakeholders or other potential users that have been identified by the program manager. Up to five such briefings of up to 90 minutes in length may be required by RSD.

• Awardee shall be responsible for creation of a plan to disseminate all research findings pursuant to this formative evaluation, and that dissemination plan shall be made part of the award application. That plan shall provide for all deliverables to be made freely available, at a minimum, to the program manager(s) of the component agency, and to RSD. Additionally, the dissemination plan should identify other key stakeholders (both governmental and non-governmental) who shall be offered the products resulting from this award, including a statement regarding the types of products that shall be made available to those stakeholders.

a. TTA #4: Impact Evaluation The impact evaluation is the primary objective of this project. Using the methods, measurements, and definitions of success from the formative evaluation findings the Awardee will conduct an impact evaluation of CVE initiatives in their respective city. This impact evaluation will aim to answer fundamental questions regarding areas for improvement, effects on CVE, and impact assessments.

Objective 1: To be responsive to this TTA, applicants should identify an approach to conduct an impact evaluation of the city’s CVE initiatives, and identify areas for improvement: to elucidate their effects on CVE. Such impact evaluation shall employ a mixed method design, including experimental, and/or quasi-experimental, methods.

Objective 2: Identify, assess, and collect data. As part of the design stage, the Awardee shall assess the quality of available data, along with obstacles to, and the risks to, data acquisition. The normal expectation from the Government is that both quantitative and qualitative data may be relevant to the conduct of an evaluation, and—as feasible—both types of data shall be employed in the evaluations. Data of only one of those two types shall be used only if justified to the satisfaction of DHS RSD. To reduce costs, Awardee’s data collection shall utilize preexisting data, to the extent feasible. To the extent that privacy and other rules permit, data will be stored in a form that will allow DHS S&T to reuse it in any follow-on or future work without recompense

Objective 3: Conduct a formative evaluation of the city’s CVE initiatives, to prepare it for the subsequent impact evaluation. Key deliverables include emergent findings brief, and others, as requested by RSD beginning 20 months after award.

b. TTA #5: Findings and Data from Impact Evaluation

At the conclusion of the impact evaluation, Awardees are expected to reach and justify operationally relevant conclusions that identify strengths and weaknesses in the respective city’s CVE initiatives. The findings expressed in this TTA will be instrumental in influencing future approaches to CVE initiatives in the United States.

Due to the high demand for scientifically sound CVE program evaluations Awardees should expect to deliver multiple briefings addressing the basis for recommendations, and the rationale and data behind the findings from the impact evaluation.

Objective 1: Awardees will reach, and justify, operationally relevant conclusions that identify strengths and weaknesses in the city’s CVE initiatives, as operationally relevant. Awardees will also be responsible for tying the evaluations’ conclusions to policy relevant objectives and will make recommendations to capitalize upon those strengths and mitigate those weaknesses. Awardees shall make arguments for causality between program activities and their outcomes. Specifically, Awardees shall present the following:

o Evidence that outcomes varied reliably;

o Identification of the most likely alternative explanations;

o Evidence in favor of causal explanations, and that casts doubt on alternative explanations;

Additionally, Awardees shall discuss the role of social policy agencies toward improving the city’s CVE initiatives. Given that a broad range of CVE program components are affected by policy decisions, the recommendations for such agencies, toward CVE, should be made explicit. An evaluation report, presentation slides, and data files from the impact evaluation are due 24 months after award.

Objective 2: Awardees will be responsible for a…