PKG00251032-instructions..pdf

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

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance

Data-led Governing: Raising the Bar for States’ Criminal Justice Policy and Practice FY 2019 Competitive Grant Solicitation

CFDA #[16.827]

Grants.gov Solicitation Number: BJA-2019-15243

Solicitation Release Date: May 16, 2019

Application Deadline: 11:59 p.m. eastern time on July 16, 2019

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is seeking applications for funding for a new initiative designed to establish standards for the collection, analysis, and use of state- and local-level data in criminal justice policy and practice decision-making, including data-sharing protocols and resource allocation decisions. This program furthers the Department’s mission to reduce crime and recidivism by helping state governments improve their capacity to set goals for their criminal justice systems, measure whether they are achieving them, and use results to make data-driven policy decisions and allocate scarce resources effectively.

This solicitation incorporates the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide by reference. It provides guidance to applicants on how to prepare and submit applications for funding to OJP. If this solicitation expressly modifies any provision in the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide, the applicant is to follow the guidelines in this solicitation as to that provision.

Eligibility (Who may apply): Eligible applicants are limited to national-scope private and nonprofit organizations (including tribal nonprofit and for-profit organizations) and colleges and universities, both public and private (including tribal institutions of higher education). All recipients and subrecipients must forgo any profit or management fee.

BJA will consider 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). The applicant must be the entity that would have primary responsibility for carrying out the award, including administering the funding and managing the entire project. Under this solicitation, only one application by any particular applicant entity will be considered. An entity may, however, be proposed as a subrecipient (subgrantee) in more than one application. For additional information on subawards, see the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide.

https://www.usdoj.gov/ https://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ https://www.bja.gov/ https://www.bja.gov/ https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://Grants.gov

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

Contact information For technical assistance with submitting an application, contact the Grants.gov Customer Support Hotline at 800–518–4726 or 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 (Grants.gov) section in the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide.

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.

Post-Award Legal Requirements Notice If selected for funding, in addition to implementing the funded project consistent with the OJP-approved application, the recipient must comply with all award conditions and all applicable requirements of federal statutes and regulations, including applicable requirements referred to in the assurances and certifications executed in connection with award acceptance. OJP strongly encourages applicants to review information on post-award legal requirements and common OJP award conditions prior to submitting an application.

For additional information on these legal requirements, see the Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements section in the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide.

Deadline Details 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 July 16, 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 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.

BJA-2019-15243

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support.html mailto:support@grants.gov https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm mailto:grants@ncjrs.gov https://webcontact.ncjrs.gov/ncjchat/chat.jsp https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html https://Grants.gov https://Grants.gov https://Grants.gov https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html https://Grants.gov https://webcontact.ncjrs.gov/ncjchat/chat.jsp mailto:grants@ncjrs.gov https://Grants.gov https://Grants.gov https://Grants.gov https://Grants.gov https://Grants.gov mailto:support@grants.gov https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support.html

An applicant must use the Add Attachment button to attach a file to its application. Do not click the paperclip icon to attach files. This action will not attach the files to the application. After adding an attachment, select the View Attachment button to confirm you attached the correct file. To remove the file, select the Delete Attachment button.

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

For additional information, see the How to Apply (Grants.gov) section in the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide.

BJA-2019-15243

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Grants-govInfo.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm

Contents

A. Program Description

Overview

Project-Specific Information

Objectives and Deliverables

Evidence-Based Programs or Practices

Information Regarding Potential Evaluation of Programs and Activities

B. Federal Award Information……………………………………………………………………………...… 9

Type of Award

Financial Management and System of Internal Controls

Budget Information

Cost Sharing or Match 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 (Grants.gov)

Registration and Submission Steps

E. Application Review Information

Review Criteria

Review Process

F. Federal Award Administration Information

Federal Award Notices

Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements

Information Technology (IT) Security Clauses

General Information About Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s)

H. Other Information

Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552 and U.S.C. 552a)

Provide Feedback to OJP

Appendix A: Performance Measures Table

Appendix B: Application Checklist

BJA-2019-15243

DATA-LED GOVERNING: RAISING THE BAR

FOR STATES’ CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

AND PRACTICE

CFDA # 16.827

A. Program Description Overview As state and local criminal justice systems rely increasingly on data to drive their decisions about policy, practice, and related resource allocation, new challenges have arisen: in the absence of uniform systems of data collection and analysis, local agencies use a variety of data systems and client identification numbers, and employ different collection and analysis strategies. As a result, it is difficult to aggregate data at the state level in order to assess the effectiveness of strategies and investments, identify where improvements are needed, and make changes that will yield positive results. As states strive to set goals for their criminal justice systems and to measure whether they are achieving intended outcomes, the field needs clear recommendations, tools, and resources to improve data collection, linkage, sharing, and analysis.

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

Project-Specific Information Criminal justice systems across the country have become increasingly data-driven. Law enforcement, courts, and corrections agencies endeavor to use data to set goals and prioritize expenditures, particularly given the mismatch that often exists between the scale of crime problems they face and the resources available to address them. For many states, their criminal justice system may accurately be described as a collection of independent systems working towards a common goal – a reality that invites inefficiencies. Graphic 1 depicts the major case processing points in a criminal justice system and the agencies typically responsible for each;

for many, in fact, the reality may be far more complex. Every agency therein, the state leaders who oversee them, and the communities they serve, have a vested interest in breaking down barriers between levels of government and agencies.

Graphic 1.

BJA-2019-15243

Criminal justice data within a single agency, or across localities, are often incomplete because of gaps, quality control concerns, different identification numbers, and legal constraints: gaps between what information is needed and what is collected; quality control concerns because data have not been collected in a consistent way; differences in how people and cases are identified across state agencies; and legal constraints that actually, or are perceived to, limit data sharing across agencies. In particular, the lack of unique state identification numbers (SIDs) for each person hinders accurate and comprehensive analysis of how people enter, move through, leave, and otherwise cycle through different components of the criminal justice system. Legal constraints that are otherwise fundamentally sound and aim to protect vulnerable people and preserve privacy may inadvertently prevent seamless service provision and multi-agency strategic approaches to problem solving.1

As a result, critical criminal justice challenges are not fully understood and may be overlooked due to the lack of comprehensive data:

• It is insufficient to know crime is down overall if violent crime is increasing in small pockets.

Violent crime rates decreased overall in 31 states between 2007 and 2017; however, violent crime rates increased in rural areas in 16 of those states.2

• It is not enough to know arrests are down overall in a state if they have increased in a particular violent or high crime area.

• States want to know what is driving recidivism rates: 32 states track and publish reincarceration data for people leaving prison and 11 states collect and publish a measure of recidivism for the millions of people starting probation supervision each year.3 Additional data (e.g., arrests and reconvictions) and capacity for states to collect them are needed to understand who recidivates and invest in risk mitigation strategies.

Criminal justice practitioners and policymakers have been tackling this challenge – using data to inform resource allocation – piecemeal for decades. Without clear recommendations, tools, and resources, states’ ability to substantially improve data collection, sharing, linkage, and analysis is limited. The field must enhance its analytical techniques, including learning from big data and other industries. States cannot continue to make criminal justice decisions without accurate and complete data and the ability to analyze them in order to understand what is working, and what is not. Decision makers must know: what is the criminal justice landscape, what are the inputs, and what are the outcomes? This information will in turn enable them to decide how to best spend limited resources on public safety. Recognizing this challenge, the Bureau of Justice

1 Through the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, entire states have changed the way they make decisions, and therefore, the way they do the business of criminal justice. They’ve undertaken agency-spanning data analysis to identify drivers of criminal justice resource consumption. They’ve explored essential questions – what are we buying in an effort to make our communities and states safe, and is it working? Then they’ve improved their capacity to prevent and respond to crime and recidivism through policy and practice changes, including re-allocating resources to strategies that work.

2 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2007–2017 in https://csgjusticecenter.org/jr/posts/new-report-combines-unprecedented-data-analyses-case-studies-to-help-states-reach-public-safety-goals/.

3 https://csgjusticecenter.org/jr/posts/new-report-combines-unprecedented-data-analyses-case-studies-to-help-states-reach-public-safety-goals/

BJA-2019-15243

https://csgjusticecenter.org/jr/posts/new-report-combines-unprecedented-data-analyses-case-studies-to-help-states-reach-public-safety-goals/ https://csgjusticecenter.org/jr/posts/new-report-combines-unprecedented-data-analyses-case-studies-to-help-states-reach-public-safety-goals/ https://csgjusticecenter.org/jr/posts/new-report-combines-unprecedented-data-analyses-case-studies-to-help-states-reach-public-safety-goals/ https://csgjusticecenter.org/jr/posts/new-report-combines-unprecedented-data-analyses-case-studies-to-help-states-reach-public-safety-goals/

Assistance is seeking a training and technical assistance provider to help states raise the standard for criminal justice data.

Objectives and Deliverables In consultation with BJA, the awardee will complete three phases of work to develop standards for data collection, sharing, linkage, and analysis, and then help state leaders and the jurisdictions therein meet those standards and use the resulting data to make resource, policy, and practice decisions. The objectives and deliverables should be developed, documented, and made available to the field through publications, tools, a website, engagements with relevant practitioners and leaders, and direct assistance to a subset of states.

PHASE 1 – Develop standards for local jurisdictions and state criminal justice agencies to accurately and comprehensively aggregate data at state and national levels. The awardee will:

1. Delineate and define what data should be collected about criminal justice system activities and outcomes at all stages of case processing, including law enforcement, prosecution, courts, corrections, probation and parole, recidivism, and social service data about high utilizers therein.

A. For example, crime data are collected inconsistently across and within states.

Jurisdictions may collect data at the arrest level, incident level, or ideally be able to aggregate from the former to the latter; but data points may vary with regard to offender and event details. States must understand where and what crime is happening, as well as by and to whom, in order to make effective policy and budget decisions. Otherwise, resources are directed to places where crime is known and to address the types of crime that are known, rather than to the places and for the purposes they are most needed. The National Incident-based Reporting System (NIBRS) offers one set of standards that states could codify as requirements for their local jurisdictions.

B. Additionally, operational definitions may vary across and within states, demonstrating a need for commonly-accepted operational definitions. For example, recividism is often measured by release cohorts and defined as rearrest, reconviction, and return to incarceration. Yet cohort approaches to measuring recidivism sometimes count incidents rather than individuals, which can obscure the number of people who have recidivated. Standards developed through this project should contemplate various approaches to measuring recidivism, including cohort, individual strategies, and measures of desistance such as time to failure and severity of offense.4

2. Delineate and define additional priorities for collection of data about people, places, operations, costs, and interactions with other government systems that inform crime prevention and reduction efforts, such as: strategic threat groups in prison, warrants, gun intelligence, immigration status, housing, child protective services, and integration of real

4 King, R. and Elderbroom, B. (2014). Improving Recividism as Performance Measure. Urban Institute, Washington, DC. Available at www.bja.gov/Publications/UI-ImprovingRecidivism.pdf

BJA-2019-15243

www.bja.gov/Publications/UI-ImprovingRecidivism.pdf time crime centers, fusion centers, and other intelligence sharing hubs within a state operated by city, state, and/or federal agencies.

3. Develop data sharing, linkage, and analysis standards, including data points that should be connected across parts of the criminal justice system and analytic approaches necessary to get a clear and comprehensive picture of system activities (e.g., geo coding and mapping).

Identify barriers to information sharing, inefficiencies created by keeping information compartmentalized, and develop guidelines for protecting and sharing the most relevant data.

A. For example, state policy and budget decisionmakers should have prison and jail admissions statistics, such as admissions for new crimes, including type of new crime (rather than admissions for revocations and which revocations resulted from technical violations of supervision conditions) in order to understand how cell space is being used and the effectiveness of probation and parole supervision. Only one agency need be responsible for collecting the data, but both should have access to it and it should be linked to both agencies’ data systems.

B. Tracking the effectiveness of prosecution is another example. States should be able to connect charging decisions, including declinations to charge, to recidivism outcomes.

Additionally, state agencies should consistently collect and share individual-level information about needs, services rendered, and treatment delivery for people with behavioral health disorders as they transition between incarceration and community. This information is critical to make effective use of resources and mitigate risks of recidivism, including destabilizing lapses in medication or treatment that have been unsuccessful in the past, as well as to facilitate timely connections to needed providers. Standards and guidelines should contemplate what data to share as well as privacy contraints.

PHASE 2 – Develop tools and make them available to states and other interested jurisdictions, including:

1. Self-assessment tools for each type of agency to determine its level of data proficiency relative to the standards and identify targets for improvement.

2. Recommendations for how state leaders – governors, legislators, state administering agencies – should use data to make policy and budget decisions, including what types of data should be gathered and factored into particular decisions.

3. Planning guides for each agency and for state leaders to make progress towards data-driven decision making.

4. Model directives to govern data sharing and access, to ensure compliance with privacy laws.

PHASE 3 – Facilitate states’ adoption of standards and guidelines on data-driven decision making through education and assistance, including:

1. Provide education about data standards, demonstrating the value of making improvements and a consensus among states around specific areas of need, through a website that provides resources to the field and regional or national convenings that assist in the use of tools developed as part of this project.

2. Competitive opportunities for states to receive meaningful assistance to improve their data practices in one or more areas, based on results of a self assessment.

Applicants may propose to utilize a combination of new and existing models, resources, and/or tools. If use of existing items is proposed, applications must include letters of support outlining specific commitments from the proprietors. The successful applicant will also be responsible to incorporate other relevant OJP and BJA data initiatives.5

Applicants should propose a hub-and-spoke model to complete the objectives and deliverables by convening and managing a group that represents expertise in all topics referenced above, including: improving data collection and linking data systems to improve services and outcomes;

State Administering Agencies6 and other relevant stakeholders and decision makers (e.g., Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attorney General, Governor) and decision-making processes; and justice system agencies and functions (crime and law enforcement, prosecution, defense, corrections, and probation and parole). BJA expects that relevant experts will be involved in all three phases of the objectives and deliverables associated with their topic in order to develop standards and achieve buy-in from stakeholders (practitoners and/or policymakers), disseminate information, and assist relevant stakeholders with adoption and implementation of standards.

The Objectives and Deliverables are directly related to the performance measures that demonstrate the results of the work completed, as discussed under What an Application Should Include.

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. For additional information and resources on evidence-based programs or practices, see the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide.

Information Regarding Potential Evaluation of Programs and Activities Applicants should note that OJP may conduct or support an evaluation of the programs and activities funded under this solicitation. For additional information, see the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide section titled Information Regarding Potential Evaluation of Programs and Activities.

B. Federal Award Information Maximum number of awards BJA expects to make 1

Estimated maximum dollar amount for the award $5,000,000

Total amount anticipated to be awarded under solicitation $5,000,000

Period of performance start date October 1, 2019

5 https://it.ojp.gov/global/working-groups/cicc/resources, https://it.ojp.gov/GIST/ 6 State Administering Agencies are entities in each state, territory, and the District of Columbia responsible to allocate resources across the jurisdiction. From www.ncja.org/ncja/policy/about-saas.

BJA-2019-15243

https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://it.ojp.gov/global/working-groups/cicc/resources https://it.ojp.gov/GIST/ http://www.ncja.org/ncja/policy/about-saas

Period of performance duration 36 months

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.

Type of Award BJA expects to make any award under this solicitation in the form of a cooperative agreement, which is a type of award that provides for OJP to have substantial involvement in carrying out award activities. See the “Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements” section of the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for a brief discussion of important statutes, regulations, and award conditions that apply to many (or in some cases, all) OJP grants (and cooperative agreements).

Cooperative agreements include a condition in the award document that sets out the nature of the “substantial federal involvement” in carrying out the award and program. Generally stated, under OJP cooperative agreement awards, responsibility for the day-to-day conduct of the funded project rests with the recipient. OJP, however, may have substantial involvement in matters such as substantive coordination of technical efforts and site selection as well as review and approval of project work plans, research designs, data collection instruments, and major project-generated materials. In addition, OJP often indicates in the award terms and conditions that it may redirect the project if necessary.

In addition to an award condition that sets out the nature of the anticipated “substantial federal involvement” in the award, cooperative agreements awarded by OJP include an award condition that requires specific reporting in connection with conferences, meetings, retreats, seminars, symposia, training activities, or similar events funded under the award.

Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Award recipients and subrecipients (including recipients or subrecipients that are pass-through entities) must, as described in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements7 as set out at 2 C.F.R.

200.303, comply with standards for financial and program management. See the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for additional information.

Budget Information Cost Sharing or Match Requirement This solicitation does not require a match. However, if a successful application proposes a voluntary match amount, and OJP approves the budget, the total match amount incorporated into the approved budget becomes mandatory and subject to audit.

7 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.

BJA-2019-15243

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.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 the 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 titled Costs Requiring Prior Approval in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide (Post-award Requirements) at https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/index.htm for more information.

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver For applicants seeking the waiver, see the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for information.

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. See the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for information.

Costs Associated With Language Assistance (if applicable) See the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for information on costs associated with language assistance that may be allowable.

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 For this solicitation, BJA has designated the following application elements as critical: Program Narrative, Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative, project timeline, résumés for key personnel, Applicant Disclosure of Proposed Subrecipients, and examples of relevant work products.

See the Application Elements and Formatting Instructions section of the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for information on, among other things, what happens to an application that does not contain all of the specified elements or that is nonresponsive to the scope of the solicitation.

BJA-2019-15243

https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/index.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm

1. Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form (SF)-424)

The SF-424 is a required standard form used as a cover sheet for submission of preapplications, applications, and related information. See the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for additional information on completing the SF-424.

Intergovernmental Review: This solicitation ("funding opportunity") is not subject to Executive Order 12372. (In completing the SF-424, an applicant is to answer question 19 by selecting the response that the “Program is not covered by E.O. 12372.”)

2. Project Abstract

Applications should include an abstract that summarizes the proposed project in 400 words or fewer. Project abstracts should be:

• Written for a general public audience.

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

• Single-spaced, using a standard 12-point font (such as Times New Roman) with 1-inch margins; and should:

• Include the legal name of the applicant, project title, goals, design elements, and keuy project deliverables.

As a separate attachment, the project abstract will not count against the page limit for the program narrative.

3. Program Narrative

The program narrative should be double-spaced, using a standard 12-point font (Times New Roman preferred); have no less than 1-inch margins; and should not exceed 20 pages.

Pages should be numbered. If the program narrative fails to comply with these length restrictions, BJA may consider such noncompliance in peer review and in final award decisions.

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

a. Description of the Issue

b. Project Design and Implementation

c. Capabilities and Competencies

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

OJP will require each successful applicant to submit regular performance data that demonstrate the results of the work carried out under the award. The performance data directly relate to the objectives and deliverables identified under "Objectives and Deliverables" in Section A. Program Description.

Applicants should visit OJP’s performance measurement page at www.ojp.gov/performance for an overview of performance measurement activities at

OJP.

BJA-2019-15243

https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12372.html https://www.ojp.gov/performance

Performance measures for this solicitation are listed in Appendix A: Performance Measures Table.

The application should demonstrate the applicant’s understanding of the performance data reporting requirements for this grant program and detail how the applicant will gather the required data should it receive funding.

Please note that applicants are not required to submit performance data with the application. Performance measures information is included as an alert that successful applicants will be required to submit performance data as part of the reporting requirements under an award.

Award recipients will be required to submit performance metric data semiannually through BJA’s online Training and Technical Assistance Reporting Portal. More information on reporting requirements can be found at:

https://www.bjatraining.org/working-with-nttac/providers.

Note on Project Evaluations An applicant that proposes to use award funds through this solicitation to conduct project evaluations should follow the guidance under Note on Project Evaluations in the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide.

4. Budget Information and Associated Documentation

See the Budget Preparation and Submission Information section of the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for details on the Budget Detail Worksheet, and on budget information and associated documentation, such as information on proposed subawards, proposed procurement contracts under awards, and preagreement costs.

5. Indirect Cost Rate Agreement

See the Budget Preparation and Submission Information section of the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for information.

6. Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire (including applicant disclosure of high-risk status)

Every OJP applicant (other than an individual applying in his or her personal capacity) is required to download, complete, and submit the OJP Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire (Questionnaire) at https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/FinancialCapability.pdf as part of its application.

See the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for additional information and submission instructions for this Questionnaire.

7. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

Each applicant must complete and submit this information. See the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for additional information and submission instructions for this disclosure.

BJA-2019-15243

https://www.bjatraining.org/working-with-nttac/providers https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/FinancialCapability.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm

8. Applicant Disclosure of Pending Applications

Each applicant is required to disclose whether it has (or is proposed as a subrecipient under) any pending applications for federally funded grants or cooperative agreements that

(1) include requests for funding to support the same project being proposed in the application under this solicitation and (2) would cover any identical cost items outlined in the budget submitted to OJP as part of the application under this solicitation. For additional information on the submission requirements for this disclosure, see the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide.

9. Applicant Disclosure and Justification – DOJ High Risk Grantees8 (if applicable)

An applicant that is designated as a DOJ High Risk Grantee is to submit, as a separate attachment to its application, information that OJP will use, among other pertinent information, to determine whether it will consider or select the application for an award under this solicitation. The file should be named “DOJ High Risk Grantee Applicant Disclosure and Justification.” (See, also, “Review Process,” below, under Section E. Application Review Information, for a brief discussion of how such information may considered in the application review process.) See the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for additional information and submission instructions for this disclosure.

10. Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity

If an application proposes research (including research and development) and/or evaluation, the applicant must demonstrate research/evaluation independence and integrity, including appropriate safeguards, before it may receive award funds. For additional information regarding demonstrating research/evaluation independence and integrity, including appropriate safeguards, see the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide.

11. Disclosure of Process Related to Executive Compensation

An applicant that is a nonprofit organization may be required to make certain disclosures relating to the processes it uses to determine the compensation of its officers, directors, trustees, and key employees.

Under certain circumstances, a nonprofit organization that provides unreasonably high compensation to certain persons may subject both the organization’s managers and those who receive the compensation to additional federal taxes. A rebuttable presumption of the reasonableness of a nonprofit organization’s compensation arrangements, however, may be available if the nonprofit organization satisfied certain rules set out in Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations with regard to its compensation decisions.

Each applicant nonprofit organization must state at the time of its application (question 9c in the "OJP Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire" located at https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/FinancialCapability.pdf and mentioned earlier)

8 A “DOJ High Risk Grantee” is a recipient that has received a DOJ High-Risk designation based on a documented history of unsatisfactory performance, financial instability, management system or other internal control deficiencies, or noncompliance with award terms and conditions on prior awards, or that is otherwise not responsible.

BJA-2019-15243

https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/FinancialCapability.pdf whether or not the applicant entity believes (or asserts) that it currently satisfies the requirements of 26 C.F.R. 53.4958-6 (which relate to establishing or invoking a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness of compensation of certain individuals and entities).

A nonprofit organization that states in the questionnaire that it believes (or asserts) that it has satisfied the requirements of 26 C.F.R. 53.4958-6 must then disclose, in an attachment to its application (titled "Disclosure of Process Related to Executive Compensation"), the process used by the applicant nonprofit organization to determine the compensation of its officers, directors, trustees, and key employees (together, "covered persons").

At a minimum, the disclosure must describe in pertinent detail: (1) the composition of the body that reviews and approves compensation arrangements for covered persons; (2) the methods and practices used by the applicant nonprofit organization to ensure that no individual with a conflict of interest participates as a member of the body that reviews and approves a compensation arrangement for a covered person; (3) the appropriate data as to comparability of compensation that are obtained in advance and relied upon by the body that reviews and approves compensation arrangements for covered persons; and (4) the written or electronic records that the applicant organization maintains as concurrent documentation of the decisions with respect to compensation of covered persons made by the body that reviews and approves such compensation arrangements, including records of deliberations and of the basis for decisions.

For purposes of the required disclosure, the following terms and phrases have the meanings set out by the IRS for use in connection with 26 C.F.R. 53.4958-6: officers, directors, trustees, key employees, compensation, conflict of interest, appropriate data as to comparability, adequate documentation, and concurrent documentation.

Applicant nonprofit organizations should note that following receipt of an appropriate request, OJP may be authorized or required by law to make information submitted to satisfy this requirement available for public inspection. Also, a recipient may be required to make a supplemental disclosure promptly after the award in certain circumstances (e.g., changes in the way the organization determines compensation).

12. Additional Attachments

Applications that do not include these elements shall neither proceed to peer review nor receive further consideration by BJA.

a. Timeline/Project Plan outlining key tasks, benchmarks, and persons/entities responsible.

b. Applicant Disclosure of Proposed Subrecipients. Attach a list of proposed subrecipients of grant funding, if applicable, that includes the name, organizational affiliation, and location of each.

c. Position Descriptions for key roles. Position descriptions should describes roles on the proposed project, not within the applicant organization, and describe critical competencies and expectations regarding project responsibilities.

d. Résumés for key personnel. Applicants may combine position descriptions and résumés into a single document; however, please note that résumés are one of the critical elements for an application, along with the program narrative and budget and budget narrative.

e. Work Product Examples. Attach two to three examples of high-quality products the organization has produced relevant to the project that exemplify an ability to communicate effectively with stakeholders (e.g., website link, fact sheet, research brief, link to archived webinar, TA final report with recommendations, infographics, etc.).

How To Apply (Grants.gov) Applicants must register in and submit applications through Grants.gov, a primary source to find federal funding opportunities and apply for funding. Find information on how to apply in response to this solicitation in the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide.

Registration and Submission Steps Applicants will need the following identifying information when searching for the funding opportunity on Grants.gov.

1. [16.827], Justice Reinvestment Initiative

2. BJA-2019-15243

For information on each registration and submission step, see the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide.

E. Application Review Information Review Criteria Applications that meet basic minimum requirements will be evaluated by peer reviewers using the following review criteria.

1. Description of the Issue (15 percent)

• Describe the current state of data collection, analysis, and sharing that is used to inform criminal justice decision making, including policy and resource decisions.

• Describe the challenges to state-level data analysis, including availability and impediments to aggregating local- and state-level data across component parts of the justice system.

• Describe why states must overcome these challenges, and address the question, What is at stake?

2. Project Design and Implementation (40 percent)

• Address in detail how the applicant proposes to undertake and accomplish each of the objectives and deliverables.

• Describe how the proposed management structure and staffing of the project will facilitate completion of the objectives and deliverables. The management and organizational structure described should match the staffing needs necessary to accomplish the tasks outlined in the Timeline/Project Plan. Detailed information

BJA-2019-15243

https://www.grants.gov/ https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm https://www.ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/Grant-App-Resource-Guide.htm contained in the Timeline/Project Plan (see page 15) will contribute to the assignment of points relative to this criterion.

3. Capabilities and Competencies (30 percent)

• Provide a detailed description of the capacity of the applicant and subapplicants, if applicable, to achieve the objectives and deliverables described on pages 7-9.

Demonstrate that individuals working on this project have the relevant experience.

• Clearly articulate the organization’s history leading national-, state-, local-, and tribal-level criminal justice data analysis and implementation projects. Discuss the staffing members—whether permanent full-time staff or proposed consultants—who will contribute to effective implementation and oversight of the project.

• Position title, résumés of key project staff members and work product examples will contribute to the assignment of points related to this criterion (see Additional Attachments on page 15).

4. Plan for Collecting the Data Required for this Solicitation’s Performance Measures (5 percent)

• Describe the manner in which the data required for this solicitation’s performance measures will be collected, including the system(s) used and the person(s) responsible.

• Describe how other performance metrics, related to the objectives and deliverables, will be documented, monitored, and evaluated.

5. Budget (10 percent)

• Submit a budget that is complete, cost effective, and allowable (e.g., reasonable, allocable, and necessary for project activities).

• Budget narratives should demonstrate generally how applicants will maximize cost effectiveness of grant expenditures. Budget narratives should demonstrate cost effectiveness in relation to potential alternatives and the objectives of the project.9

Review Process OJP is committed to ensuring a fair and open process for making awards. BJA reviews an application to make sure that the information presented is reasonable, understandable, measurable, and achievable, as well as consistent with the solicitation requirements. See the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for information on the application review process for this solicitation.

In addition, if OJP anticipates that an award will exceed $250,000 in federal funds, OJP also must review and consider any information about the applicant that appears in the nonpublic segment of the integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, FAPIIS).

9 Generally speaking, a reasonable cost is a cost that, in its nature or amount, does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the costs.

BJA-2019-15243

Important note on FAPIIS: An applicant, at its option, may review and comment on any information about itself that currently appears in FAPIIS and was entered by a federal awarding agency. OJP will consider any such comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in FAPIIS, in its assessment of the risk posed by the applicant.

Absent explicit statutory authorization or written delegation of authority to the contrary, all final award decisions will be made by the Assistant Attorney General, who may take into account not only peer review ratings and BJA recommendations, but also other factors as indicated in this section.

F. Federal Award Administration Information Federal Award Notices See the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for information on award notifications and instructions.

Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements OJP strongly encourages prospective applicants to review information on post-award legal requirements and common OJP award conditions prior to submitting an application. See the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for additional information on administrative, national policy, and other legal requirements.

Information Technology (IT) Security Clauses An application in response to this solicitation may require inclusion of information related to information technology security.