PKG00250331-instructions..pdf

OMB No. 1121-0329 Approval Expires 11/30/2020

U.S. Department of Justice 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 funding of projects that implement or enhance a Swift, Certain, and Fair Supervision Program model. This program furthers the Department’s mission by reducing recidivism and thereby crime, as part of a comprehensive violent crime reduction strategy.

Innovative Responses to Behavior in the Community: Swift, Certain, and Fair Supervision

FY 2019 Competitive Grant Announcement Applications Due: June 25, 2019

Eligibility

Eligible applicants are states, units of local government, and federally-recognized Indian tribal governments (as determined by the Secretary of the Interior).

All recipients and subrecipients (including any for-profit organization) must forgo any profit or management fee.

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

however, only one entity may be the applicant. Any others must be proposed as subrecipients (subgrantees).1 The applicant must be the entity that would have primary responsibility for carrying out the award, including administering the funding and managing of the entire project.

BJA may elect to fund applications submitted under this fiscal year (FY) 2019 solicitation in future fiscal years, dependent on, among other considerations, the merit of the applications and on the availability of funding.

Deadline

Applicants must register with Grants.gov at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html prior to submitting an application. All applications are due by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on June 25, 2019.

To be considered timely, an application must be submitted by the application deadline using Grants.gov, and the applicant must have received a validation message from Grants.gov that indicates successful and timely submission. OJP urges applicants to submit applications at least

1 For additional information on subawards, see "Budget and Associated Documentation" under Section D. Application and Submission Information.

https://www.usdoj.gov/ https://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ https://www.bja.gov/ https://www.bja.gov/ https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html

BJA-2019-15224

72 hours prior to the application due date, to allow time for the applicant to receive validation messages or rejection notifications from Grants.gov, and to correct in a timely fashion any problems that may have caused a rejection notification.

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

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

Contact Information

For technical assistance with submitting an application, contact the Grants.gov Customer Support Hotline at 800–518–4726, 606–545–5035, at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support.html, or at support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Support Hotline operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except on federal holidays.

An applicant that experiences unforeseen Grants.gov technical issues beyond its control that prevent it from submitting its application by the deadline must email the contact identified below within 24 hours after the application deadline to request approval to submit its application after the deadline. Additional information on reporting technical issues appears under “Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues” in the How To Apply section.

For assistance with any unforeseen Grants.gov technical issues beyond an applicant’s control that prevent it from submitting its application by the deadline, or any other requirement of this solicitation, contact the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Response Center:

toll-free at 800–851–3420; via TTY at 301–240–6310 (hearing impaired only); email grants@ncjrs.gov; fax to 301–240–5830; or web chat at https://webcontact.ncjrs.gov/ncjchat/chat.jsp. The NCJRS Response Center 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 solicitation: BJA-2019-15224

Release date: April 23, 2019 https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Grants-govInfo.htm https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support.html mailto:support@grants.gov mailto:grants@ncjrs.gov https://webcontact.ncjrs.gov/ncjchat/chat.jsp

Contents A. Program Description

Overview Project-specific Information Objectives and Deliverables Evidence-based Programs or Practices Information Regarding Potential Evaluation of Programs and Activities Encouraging Program Investments in Economically Distressed Communities (Qualified Opportunity Zones)

B. Federal Award Information Type of Award Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Budget Information Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement Pre-agreement Costs (also known as Pre-award Costs) 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 D. Application and Submission Information

What an Application Should Include How To Apply

E. Application Review Information Review 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

Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552 and 5 U.S.C. 552a) Provide Feedback to OJP Appendix A: Swift, Certain, and Fair Supervision Program Resource Materials Appendix B: Possible Members of the SCF Supervision Team Appendix C: Sample Program and Research Model Appendix D: Application Checklist

Innovative Responses to Behavior in the Community: Swift, Certain, and

Fair Supervision

CFDA # 16.828

A. Program Description

Overview The purpose of the Innovative Responses to Behavior in the Community: Swift, Certain, and Fair Supervision Program (SCF Program) is to provide state and local parole and probation agencies with information, resources, and training and technical assistance (TTA) to improve responses to offender behavior in accordance with the principles of swiftness, certainty, and fairness, in order to prevent recidivism and reduce crime in their jurisdictions.

Through this grant announcement, BJA will select multiple applicants to develop, implement, or enhance an SCF Program model.

Statutory Authority:

Any awards under this solicitation will be made under statutory authority provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-6, 133 Stat. 13, 114.

Project-specific Information At year-end 2016, an estimated 4.5 million adults were on parole or probation in the United States—the equivalent of about one out of every 55 American adults.2 Many do not successfully complete parole or probation because they either fail to comply with their parole or probation conditions or they commit a new crime. According to a recent report issued by the Bureau of Justice Statistics describing recidivism patterns from 2005 to 2010 in 30 states, just over three-fourths (76.6%) of prisoners released in 2005 were arrested within five years of release. The majority of these prisoners were arrested for drug or property offenses, 38.8% and 38.4% respectively, followed by violent offenses (28.6%) and parole or probation violations (25.3%).3 Comprehensive crime prevention and public safety strategies must attend to this population, whose contact with the justice system provides an opportunity to intervene and decrease the likelihood that they will commit future crimes.

This solicitation leverages parole and probation agencies’ capacity to help reduce crime committed by individuals under supervision by utilizing the swift, certain, and fair (SCF) principles of intervention: swiftness—responding to behavior promptly so that offenders connect the response to their behavior; certainty—ensuring that sanctions are applied with consistency and predictability; and fairness—making sanctions proportionate to negative behavior.

2Probation and Parole in the United States (2016). Bureau of Justice Statistics, https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus16.pdf.

3 Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (2014). Bureau of Justice Statistics, https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus16.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus16.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf

SCF principles can have a positive impact by reducing antisocial and criminal behavior;

enhancing offenders’ perceptions that supervision decisions are fair, which increases compliance; and increasing collaboration with justice partners. Research shows that taken together, these principles yield reductions in recidivism and thereby improve public safety.4 Swiftness, certainty, and fairness in criminal justice responses are longstanding principles in parole and probation.

The overall purpose of the SCF Program is to expand the application of those principles and to test new implementations of SCF responses that may increase probation and parole success rates. Additionally, the SCF Program seeks to reduce the number of crimes committed by those under probation and parole supervision, which may in turn reduce crime, decrease admissions to prisons and jails in a safe and responsible manner, and save taxpayer dollars.

The SCF Program is grounded in research that shows that crime generally is committed by people for whom deferred and low probability threats of severe punishment are less effective than immediate and high probability threats of mild punishment. In addition, a broad body of behavioral research shows that swift and certain rewards for positive behavior can be a powerful incentive to comply with rules.5 Swift and certain responses to violations of probation send a consistent message to probationers about personal responsibility and accountability.

Lastly, research has shown that swift and consistent responses to behaviors improve the perception that the system is fair, and consequently increase compliance. 6

In light of the growing body of research and practice reinforcing the potential of approaches that employ the core SCF principles to streamline judicial processes, standardize supervision decisions, reduce drug use, and improve compliance with probation and parole conditions, BJA is issuing this solicitation to support jurisdictions and agencies interested in developing or enhancing their SCF efforts with implementation models informed by research and responsive to local circumstances To date, SCF initiatives have been led by diverse stakeholders (courts, probation and parole agencies, state correctional agencies, and law enforcement agencies) that have employed the SCF principles to address a variety of public safety challenges at the state and local level. These initiatives have been applied to many different criminal justice populations, including, for example, individuals under pretrial supervision, high- and moderate-risk offenders on probation, domestic violence offenders on probation, and high- and moderate-risk offenders on parole, using a variety of sanctions and incentives. Common sanctions include brief jail stays, electronic monitoring, community service, home detention, increased drug testing, treatment, imposing a curfew, and increased or modified reporting. Common incentives include fewer drug tests, verbal praise, reduced sentences, letter of recognition, gift card, reduced reporting, letter of recommendation, and early termination. As evidenced by the examples above, every jurisdiction has a unique set of circumstances—problems, environments, and resources—and those differences should be reflected in design decisions.

For example, the target population, type of recidivism, time from offender behavior to reward or sanction, types of sanctions available, and the level of collaboration among justice partners (e.g., parole and judges) vary by jurisdiction, so their starting points, proposed grant activities, and target outcomes should vary as well. Also, program design and implementation should incorporate stakeholder input (which includes the perspectives of individuals under supervision)

4 See http://scfcenter.org/bja/annotated-scf-literature-review/.

5 See Appendix A.

6 Information from the National Institute of Justice, https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/community/drug-offenders/pages/hawaii-hope.aspx.

http://scfcenter.org/bja/annotated-scf-literature-review/ https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/community/drug-offenders/pages/hawaii-hope.aspx https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/community/drug-offenders/pages/hawaii-hope.aspx to yield locally-conceived and implemented SCF initiatives that comport with perceptions of fairness.

Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Program Many efforts have been made to improve adherence to SCF principles over the last two decades. The Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE)7 Program, which started in 2004, is the best-known large-scale implementation of SCF principles. The HOPE model was designed to address particular concerns in Honolulu, such as high rates of methamphetamine abuse among moderate-to-high risk probationers and inadequate means for probation to respond short of revocation, which led to heavy reliance on prison sentences under Hawaii’s strict sentencing guidelines. Compared to the status quo, HOPE dramatically improved the swiftness and certainty of sanctions for technical violations by adding regular random drug tests, delivering administrative responses within days of a detected violation (rather than allowing more than a dozen violations to pile up over a year or more), and quickly imposing brief jail stays (typically 3 days). Continued compliance was rewarded with reduced drug testing and early termination from supervision, and non-jail sanctions were employed for minor violations by otherwise compliant probationers. Drug treatment was mandated after several positive tests or at the probationer’s request. By addressing every violation made by program participants and responding quickly, HOPE sent a consistent message to probationers about personal responsibility. After 1 year, HOPE probationers were 55 percent less likely to be arrested for a new crime; 72 percent less likely to abuse illegal drugs; 61 percent less likely to skip appointments with their supervisory officers; and 53 percent less likely to have their probation revoked.8

Following that success, BJA partnered with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to test HOPE in four mainland jurisdictions. The cross-site evaluation yielded mixed findings. Overall, HOPE participants did not fare any better than their counterparts receiving probation as usual on most measures of recidivism. However, the evaluation also pointed to several benefits of HOPE for program participants, including reductions in drug use, increased family support, positive changes in attitude, and reduced negative associations, among others. The varied findings across the sites also underscore the importance of weighing local needs, structures, and laws in developing SCF strategies.

HOPE is one example of the SCF principles which have been implemented in many jurisdictions—some adopting HOPE policies and practices more or less wholesale; some adapting to local circumstances with substantial variation; and some starting with a blank slate.9 Evaluations of these iterations have shown promise, as well as illuminated challenges to successful implementation and improved outcomes.

Please check the following link for SCF-related research:

http://scfcenter.org/resources/resources-research.php.

Innovations Suite The SCF Program is part of BJA’s Innovations in Public Safety portfolio, also known as the Innovations Suite of programs, which invest in the development of practitioner-researcher partnerships that use data, evidence, and innovation to create strategies that are effective and

7 Rated “promising” by CrimeSolutions.gov, see https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=49.

8 Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions:

Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

9 Hawken, A., & Kulick, J. (2016). Implementation issues in swift certain fair supervision. Perspectives, Spring: 64–77.

http://scfcenter.org/resources/resources-research.php http://www.bja.gov/CRPPE/SmartSuite https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=49 economical.10 This data-driven approach enables jurisdictions to understand the full nature and extent of the crime challenges they are facing and to direct resources to the highest priorities. The Innovations Suite represents a strategic approach that leverages innovative applications of analysis, technology, and evidence-based practices, with the goal of improving performance and making America safer.

Innovations Suite programs, including SCF, are advised to conduct research and evaluation to:

o Develop strategies and partnerships to reduce crime.

o Enhance implementation and accountability.

o Analyze data to focus resources.

o Build communities of practice.

o Sustain effective strategies and initiatives.

Successful partnerships between practitioners and researchers require investments of planning, time, communication, complementary skills, and adequate resources.11

Objectives and Deliverables BJA seeks applicants to develop and enhance SCF principles and implement an SCF Responses Program model to reduce recidivism and provide better outcomes for program participants. Grant funds should be used to establish, expand, or improve SCF strategies to be sustained by the applicant after the award period.

In order to develop, implement, and sustain SCF-informed strategies, BJA will make up to five awards to applicants to pursue the following objectives:

• Develop and implement supervision strategies based on SCF principles, including responses to both positive and negative client behavior.

• Develop and implement strategies for the identification, targeting, supervision, and treatment of “high risk/high needs” offenders who are being supervised in the community. (This should include a preliminary assessment of whether those high risk/need offenders are also violent offenders who might not be suitable for community supervision).

• Evaluate the efficacy of SCF strategies to reduce recidivism.

• Increase the number of supervision decisions (e.g., assignment of conditions of supervision and responses to violations of those conditions, responses to antisocial behavior that do not rise to the level of violating conditions of supervision, such as probationers who report late to a meeting with their probation officer due to work or childcare commitments) that are fair and consistently applied, and with consequences that are transparent.

• Promote and increase collaboration among agencies and officials who work in probation, parole, pretrial, law enforcement, treatment, reentry, and related fields.

• Develop a plan to sustain effective SCF supervision strategies and related collaborations beyond the award period.

• Increase participant perceptions of fairness, consistency, and transparency in supervision decisions.

10 For more information about the Innovations Suite of programs, see: https://www.bja.gov/Programs/CRPPE/.

11 For guidance about identifying and working with a research partner, see:

http://www.psnmsu.com/documents/ResearchPartnerQ&A.pdf.

https://www.bja.gov/Programs/CRPPE/ http://www.psnmsu.com/documents/ResearchPartnerQ&A.pdf

The required deliverables are:

• An action plan consisting of a problem analysis, program and evaluation model, summary of strategies and intended outcomes, and a research basis for the proposed strategies, delivered within 6 months of the award. The action plan is envisioned as a product of collaboration among the grantee, supervision agency (if not the grantee), research partner, and the SCF Resource Center. For more information about the required action plan, see page 14 and Appendix C.

• Written policies or procedures that demonstrate operational changes as they relate to the project.

• A sustainability plan to demonstrate that the SCF strategies and collaborations will continue beyond the award period. The plan should use outcome data to establish the case for continuing the SCF work, identify needed resources to sustain it, and describe how those needs will be met.

• A midterm analysis and report based on the program and evaluation model (delivered at 18 months).

• A final analysis and report based on the program and evaluation model that documents the intervention and lessons learned.

Consistent with the objectives and deliverables outlined above, applicants should include in their proposals:

• A summary description of the problem to be addressed through this grant, including the data that led to its identification.

• A clear demonstration of understanding the SCF principles and the model that is being proposed for consideration.

• A clear demonstration that the applicant and its partners have the authority to implement the required elements of the model, including decision-making authority concerning the terms of supervision; the capacity to assess and effectively target moderate-to-high risk offenders; the capacity to issue and serve warrants quickly; drug testing capacity; and access to jail beds, treatment, and other services, as needed.

• Letters on official letterhead that demonstrate participants’ commitment to the proposed initiative, to include the following, if they are members of the applicant’s SCF team:12 o Chief judge o Parole and probation directors o Court administrator o Lead prosecutor or district attorney o Public defender o Chief of police or sheriff o Jail administrator o Other essential partners, consistent with the proposed application and circumstances of the applicant’s jurisdiction

• Demonstration of agency-wide commitment to align policies and practices with recidivism reduction, public safety goals, and continuous quality improvement.

• Commitment to hire a full-time, onsite program coordinator to manage the day-to-day operations of the SCF project. The program coordinator should be housed in the parole and probation office, have experience in the field of criminal justice, and have proven

12 See Appendix B for the roles and responsibilities of key members of an SCF team. If your initiative/model does not use one of the key members listed, please be sure to explain the roles and responsibilities of the key members of your proposed team.

capacity to work effectively with key SCF team members, including the chief judge, court staff, parole and probation, law enforcement, and other partners, where applicable. The program coordinator will work closely with the SCF Resource Center team and the team’s research partner to:

o Build the infrastructure, including policies and procedures, necessary to implement the SCF model o Monitor the implementation of the SCF model o Identify the TTA needs of SCF team members o Continually assess fidelity to the SCF model o Facilitate communication and logistics needs of the site’s SCF team members o Identify, collect, and analyze SCF administrative and program data o Respond to requests for data, reports, and information about the SCF initiative o Ensure that the SCF team meets regularly so all the members remain informed of the project’s status and developments

• A description of current data available to track individual project participants, including data tracked by SCF project partners, and existing case management systems. Example process measures include details regarding court events, treatment, drug testing, violations, sanctions, positive behaviors, incentives, and revocations. If this data is not currently available or key data elements are missing, applicants should describe their proposed strategy for developing a database that captures key process measures, how they will be collected, and who will be responsible for ongoing tracking and monitoring.

• A plan for identifying and selecting an experienced research partner as part of the SCF team. The SCF Supervision Program requires the inclusion of a local research partner to work with the SCF team to: collect and analyze data; monitor sanctions, rewards, violations, and recidivism; provide regular reports to the local SCF team; assist with developing the midterm and final analysis and report; assess the progress of the SCF initiative; provide data to the national SCF Resource Center; and assist the SCF team with timely, complete, and accurate reporting of performance measures.

Note: George Mason University's Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy (CEBCP) has developed an e-Consortium for University Centers and Researchers for Partnership with Justice Practitioners. It serves as a resource for local, state, federal, and other groups that seek to collaborate with nearby (or other) university researchers and centers in partnerships and programs that are mutually beneficial. Access to the e-Consortium is found at http://gmuconsortium.org/. There is also a list of researchers, along with their focus areas, listed on the Crime and Justice Research Alliance website:

http://crimeandjusticeresearchalliance.org/experts/.

For information on identifying and working with a research partner, please visit:

Priority Consideration Priority consideration will be given to applicants that address one or more of the following project design elements:

(1) Propose an SCF initiative to reduce violent recidivism among high-risk offenders under supervision who have a history of serious violence and are identified in concert with local and/or state law enforcement. The proposals must include a description of how this group will be identified and demonstrate access to and use of data and law enforcement input.

http://gmuconsortium.org/ http://crimeandjusticeresearchalliance.org/experts/

(2) Propose an approach that integrates the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) framework with the implementation of SCF principles to identify the target population for the initiative and ensure that the level of supervision, treatment, and SCF responses align with participants’ risk/need profile. For example, agencies may use the RNR Simulation Tool,13 or a similar mechanism, to assess capacity to provide risk-reducing programs to the target population; then revise program offerings and content based on the results.

(3) Randomized control trial (RCT) studies are a powerful, much needed tool for building scientific evidence about what works. Therefore, studies employing RCT methods to assess the effectiveness of programs and practices will be given higher priority consideration in award decisions. A strong RCT design should include low sample attrition, sufficient sample size, close adherence to random assignment, valid outcome measures, and statistical analyses. Taking RCT costs into consideration, applicants may want to consider studies using privacy-protected administrative data that are already being collected or implementing an intervention into a program already funded.

(4) Probation and parole agencies serving small, rural communities often face unique challenges to community supervision, including access to scarce resources, such as public transportation, housing, education, health care, and treatment providers.

Therefore, applicants proposing to implement an SCF initiative serving a small or rural jurisdiction will be given higher priority consideration in award decisions.

All applicants will be judged on the totality of their proposals. In order to receive priority consideration, applicants must demonstrate they satisfy the criteria defined in this section in addition to all selection criteria defined throughout this solicitation.

Applicants seeking to address one or more of the priority considerations must clearly identify them in the proposal.

Training and Technical Assistance for SCF supervision awardees TTA will be provided by the SCF Resource Center team. The SCF Resource Center team will help each site that receives BJA funding to:

• Understand the importance of each component of a SCF model.

• Develop focused strategies.

• Develop a plan to assess and monitor fidelity to SCF principles.

• Provide training and coaching for team members to enhance program fidelity.

• Understand adaptation and prevent program “drift.”14

• Collect, analyze, interpret, and disseminate data on program outcomes.

• Encourage collaboration.

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.

13 See https://www.gmuace.org/tools/.

14 This can occur when key components of the model are revised that may not support the objectives of the program, or when attention or commitment to the program starts to wane.

https://www.gmuace.org/tools/

• 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 website at https://www.crimesolutions.gov is one resource that applicants may use to find information about evidence-based programs in criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim services.

Action research partnerships between researchers and practitioners have great potential to improve practice and policy. NIJ’s Recommendations for Collaborating Successfully With Academic Researchers, Findings from the Researcher‐Practitioner Partnerships Study (RPPS) documents, synthesizes, and shares what makes partnerships between researchers and practitioners successful.

For information related to implementation science, applicants may refer to the National Implementation Research Network website.

Information Regarding Potential Evaluation of Programs and Activities The Department of Justice has prioritized the use of evidence-based programming and deems it critical to continue to build and expand the evidence informing criminal and juvenile justice programs to reach the highest level of rigor possible. Therefore, applicants should note that OJP may conduct or support an evaluation of the programs and activities funded under this solicitation. Recipients and sub-recipients will be expected to cooperate with program-related assessments or evaluation efforts, including through the collection and provision of information or data requested by OJP (or its designee) for the assessment or evaluation of any activities and/or outcomes of those activities funded under this solicitation. The information or data requested may be in addition to any other financial or performance data already required under this program.

Applicants awarded under this solicitation may be selected to receive expert technical assistance to build their capacity to evaluate and sustain grant-funded reentry. These grantees will be required to engage with the Evaluation and Sustainability TTA provider, including to track evaluation progress and conduct sustainability planning.

Encouraging Program Investments in Economically Distressed Communities (Qualified Opportunity Zones) Under this program, OJP will, as appropriate, give priority consideration in award decisions to applications that propose projects that directly benefit federally designated Qualified Opportunity https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243911.pdf http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243911.pdf http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/ http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/

Zones (QOZs).15 In order to assist OJP in considering this factor, applicants should include information in the application that specifies how the project will enhance public safety in the specified QOZs. For resources on QOZs, and for a current list of designated QOZs, see the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s resource webpage, accessible at https://www.cdfifund.gov/pages/opportunity-zones.aspx.

B. Federal Award Information

BJA expects to make up to four awards of up to $750,000 each, with an estimated total amount awarded of up to $3,000,000. BJA expects to make all awards for a 48-month project period, beginning on or about October 1, 2019.

The funding during the initial 6-month period should support planning activities followed by 30 months of implementation activities. Implementation may begin earlier, subject to BJA review and approval of the Action Plan, see p.14. The budget for the final 12-month period should support evaluation activities only, including data collection, review, and other evaluation-specific tasks. The total budget must not exceed $750,000.

Note: Generally, no more than one no-cost extension may be made to an award and that extension, if granted, may not exceed 12 months. Further guidance related to project extensions can be found in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide at https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/PostawardRequirements/chapter3.2a.htm.

BJA may, in certain cases, provide additional funding in future years to awards made under this solicitation, through continuation awards. In making decisions regarding continuation awards, OJP will consider, among other factors, the availability of appropriations, when the program or project was last competed, OJP’s strategic priorities, and OJP’s assessment of both the management of the award (for example, timeliness and quality of progress reports), and the progress of the work funded under the award.

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

Statutory and Regulatory Requirements; Award Special Conditions If selected for funding, in addition to implementing the funded project consistent with the OJP-approved application, the recipient must comply with award conditions, as well as all applicable requirements of federal statutes and regulations. OJP strongly encourages prospective applicants to review information on post-award legal requirements and common OJP award conditions prior to submitting an application.

Individual FY 2019 awards made pursuant to this solicitation will, as appropriate and to the extent consistent with law, include conditions that will require the recipient (and any subrecipient) that accepts the award to do various things, with respect to the “program or activity” that would receive federal financial assistance thereunder. Although the specific terms of each of those conditions are what will govern the awards, included among such conditions will be some that, generally speaking, will require the recipient (and any subrecipient) that accepts the award to do some or all of the following:

15 See Public Law 115-97, Title I, Subtitle C, Part IX, Subpart B, Sec. 13823.

https://www.cdfifund.gov/pages/opportunity-zones.aspx https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/PostawardRequirements/chapter3.2a.htm

• Not to violate 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (prohibiting restrictions on— (1) communication to/from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) of information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual;

and (2) maintaining, or exchanging with any government entity, information regarding the immigration status of any individual).

• Not to violate 8 U.S.C. § 1644 (prohibiting restrictions on communication to/from DHS of information regarding the immigration status of an alien).

The reasonable costs (to the extent not reimbursed under any other federal program) of complying with these conditions, including honoring any duly authorized requests from DHS that is encompassed by these conditions, will be allowable costs under the award.

Type of Award

BJA expects to make any award under this solicitation in the form of a grant. See Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements, under Section F. Federal Award Administration Information, for a brief discussion of important statutes, regulations, and award conditions that apply to many (or in some cases, all) OJP grants.

Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Award recipients and subrecipients (including recipients or subrecipients that are pass-through entities16) must, as described in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements17 as set out at 2 C.F.R.

200.303:

(a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that [the recipient (and any subrecipient)] is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).

(b) Comply with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards.

(c) Evaluate and monitor [the recipient’s (and any subrecipient’s)] compliance with statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of Federal awards.

(d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings.

16 For purposes of this solicitation, the phrase “pass-through entity” includes any recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward ("subgrant”) to a subrecipient (subgrantee) to carry out part of the funded award or program.

Additional information on proposed subawards is listed under What an Application Should Include, Section D of this solicitation.

17 The "Part 200 Uniform Requirements” means the DOJ regulation at 2 C.F.R Part 2800, which adopts (with certain modifications) the provisions of 2 C.F.R. Part 200.

(e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or [the recipient (or any subrecipient)] considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, state, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and obligations of confidentiality.

To help ensure that applicants understand the applicable administrative requirements and cost principles, OJP encourages prospective applicants to enroll, at no charge, in the DOJ Grants Financial Management Online Training, available at https://onlinegfmt.training.ojp.gov. (This training is required for all OJP award recipients.)

Also, applicants should be aware that OJP collects information from applicants on their financial management and systems of internal controls (among other information) which is used to make award decisions. Under Section D. Application and Submission Information, applicants may access and review a questionnaire—the OJP Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire—that OJP requires all applicants (other than an individual applying in his/her personal capacity) to download, complete, and submit as part of the application.

Budget Information

Cost Sharing or Matching 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.

Award Special Condition – Withholding of Funds for BJA Action Plan Once awarded, each grant award will have in place a special condition withholding all but $200,000 and designating that the grantee establish an action plan within 180 days of receiving final approval of the project’s budget from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). The recipient will not be authorized to obligate, expend, or draw down funds in excess of $200,000 until BJA has reviewed and approved the action plan and a Grant Adjustment Notice has been issued and approved to remove the special condition. The action plan must include:

• A comprehensive project work plan based on a guide provided by the SCF Resource Center which will assist the grantee in developing an action plan that incorporates SCF principles and meets the objectives set forth above under Objectives and Deliverables. A completed action plan will include:

o A description of the problem and the data that led to its identification.

o A research and evaluation model that identifies the solution(s) to be tested, intended outcomes, and evaluation metrics, including the research basis for proposed strategies (see Appendix C).

o A plan to implement the model, including agencies and actors responsible for revising or developing policy and changing practice.

o An evaluation plan, to include ongoing analysis, monitoring, and assessment of the overall project impact.

• A contract, memorandum of understanding, or other agreement that clearly delineates the role and responsibilities of the research partner. This document should establish the authority of the research partner to access agency data, interview personnel, and monitor operations that are relevant to the evaluation of the initiative.

https://onlinegfmt.training.ojp.gov/ https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/FinancialCapability.pdf

• Letters of commitment from external agencies or organizations that are expected to participate in the project, to the extent that letters have not already been provided.

• Demonstrated executive support and commitment of agency resources to the project.

For additional information on cost sharing and match, see the DOJ Grants Financial Guide at https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/PostawardRequirements/chapter3.3b.htm.

Pre-agreement Costs (also known as Pre-award Costs) Pre-agreement costs are costs incurred by the applicant prior to the start date of the period of performance of the federal award.

OJP does not typically approve pre-agreement costs; an applicant must request and obtain the prior written approval of OJP for all such costs. All such costs incurred prior to award and prior to approval of the costs are incurred at the sole risk of the applicant. (Generally, no applicant should incur project costs before submitting an application requesting federal funding for those costs.) Should there be extenuating circumstances that make it appropriate for OJP to consider approving pre-agreement costs, the applicant may contact the point of contact listed on the title page of this solicitation for the requirements concerning written requests for approval. If approved in advance by OJP, award funds may be used for pre-agreement costs, consistent with the recipient’s approved budget and applicable cost principles. See the section on Costs Requiring Prior Approval in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide at https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/index.htm for more information.

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver With respect to any award of more than $250,000 made under this solicitation, a recipient may not use federal funds to pay total cash compensation (salary plus cash bonuses) to any employee of the recipient at a rate that exceeds 110 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.18 The 2019 salary table for SES employees is available on the Office of Personnel Management website at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/19Tables/exec/html/ES.aspx. Note: A recipient may compensate an employee at a greater rate, provided the amount in excess of this compensation limitation is paid with non-federal funds. (Non-federal funds used for any such additional compensation will not be considered matching funds, where match requirements apply.) If only a portion of an employee's time is charged to an OJP award, the maximum allowable compensation is equal to the percentage of time worked times the maximum salary limitation.

The Assistant Attorney General for OJP may exercise discretion to waive, on an individual basis, this limitation on compensation rates allowable under an award. An applicant that requests a waiver should include a detailed justification in the Budget Narrative of its application. An applicant that does not submit a waiver request and justification with its application should anticipate that OJP will require the applicant to adjust and resubmit the budget.

The justification should address, in the context of the work the individual would do under the award, the particular qualifications and expertise of the individual, the uniqueness of a service

18 OJP does not apply this limitation on the use of award funds to the nonprofit organizations listed in Appendix VIII to 2 C.F.R. Part 200.

https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/PostawardRequirements/chapter3.3b.htm https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/index.htm https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/19Tables/exec/html/ES.aspx https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/19Tables/exec/html/ES.aspx the individual will provide, the individual’s specific knowledge of the proposed program or project, and a statement that explains whether and how the individual’s salary under the award would be commensurate with the regular and customary rate for an individual with his/her qualifications and expertise, and for the work he/she would do under the award.

Prior Approval, Planning, and Reporting of Conference/Meeting/Training Costs OJP strongly encourages every applicant that proposes to use award funds for any conference-, meeting-, or training-related activity (or similar event) to review carefully—before submitting an application—the OJP and DOJ policy and guidance on approval, planning, and reporting of such events, available at https://www.ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/PostawardRequirements/chapter3.10a.htm. OJP policy and guidance (1) encourage minimization of conference, meeting, and training costs; (2) require prior written approval (which may affect project timelines) of most conference, meeting, and training costs for cooperative agreement recipients, as well as some conference, meeting, and training costs for grant recipients; and (3) set cost limits, which include a general prohibition of all food and beverage costs.

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

For additional information, see the "Civil Rights Compliance" section under “Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements - FY 2018 Awards” in the OJP Funding Resource Center at https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm.

C. Eligibility Information

For eligibility information, see title page.

For information on cost sharing or match requirements, see Section B. Federal Award Information.

D. Application and Submission Information

What an Application Should Include This section describes in detail what an application should include. An applicant should anticipate that if it fails to submit an application that contains all of the specified elements, it may negatively affect the review of its application; and, should a decision be made to make an award, it may result in the inclusion of award conditions that preclude the recipient from accessing or using award funds until the recipient satisfies the conditions and OJP makes the funds available.

Moreover, an applicant should anticipate that an application that OJP determines is nonresponsive to the scope of the solicitation, or that OJP determines does not include the application elements that BJA has designated to be critical, will neither proceed to peer review, https://www.ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/PostawardRequirements/chapter3.10a.htm https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/LegalOverview/index.htm https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/LegalOverview/index.htm https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/LegalOverview/index.htm https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm nor receive further consideration. For this solicitation, BJA has designated the following application elements as critical: Program Narrative, Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative, Letter from Lead Agency (if applicable), and Letters of Support from members of the applicant’s SCF team.

NOTE: OJP has combined the Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative in a single document collectively referred to as the Budget Detail Worksheet.