NIJ Solicitation: Boot Camp Research and Evaluation for Fiscal Year 1996. Menu Title: Boot Camp Research Solicitation, FY '96 Series: NIJ Solicitation Published: February 1996 29 pages 56,312 bytes Boot Camp Research and Evaluation for Fiscal Year 1996 National Institute of Justice Solicitation Jeremy Travis, Director ------------------------------ ------------------------------------- NIJ is trying to streamline its process to accommodate the volume of proposals anticipated under this and other Crime Act solicitations. Researchers can help in a significant way by sending NIJ a nonbinding letter of intent by March 19. The Institute will use these letters to forecast the numbers of peer panels it needs and to identify conflicts of interest among potential reviewers. There are three ways to send these "letters." You can fill out the mailer on the last page of the printed solicitation. You can reach NIJ by Internet by sending e-mail to tellnij@ncjrs.aspensys.com and identifying the solicitation and section(s) you expect to apply for. You can write a letter with the same information to NIJ Solicitation for Boot Camp Research and Evaluation, 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20531. Help us help you. ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ I. Introduction The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 authorized the Federal Government to provide grants to States -- either individually or to those that have organized into multistate compacts -- to develop, expand, modify, operate, or improve correctional facilities and programs. By appropriate statute, the program funding for fiscal year 1995 is limited to the development, construction, and expansion of adult or juvenile boot camp facilities for nonviolent offenders, which will free conventional prison, jail, and juvenile corrections space for the confinement of violent offenders. A portion of the overall funds authorized under this program has been set aside for the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to implement a national evaluation strategy. This national evaluation strategy requires the active participation of boot camp program grantees who received Federal funding from the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Corrections Program Office. The purpose of these evaluations will be to assess the process of implementing boot camp programs as well as to analyze the outcome evaluations based on measurable goals and objectives. Applicants should consult the Program Guidelines and Application Kit for the OJP FY 1995 Corrections Boot Camp Initiative for further information on the program strategy. These guidelines may be obtained by calling the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at 800-851-3420 or the Response Center at 800-421-6770. This solicitation, the second of two, is part of a planned multiphase boot camp evaluation strategy. While the first solicitation sought to support evaluations of the impact of existing boot camps, this second solicitation primarily seeks to support evaluations of the impact of selected boot camps funded by the Office of Justice Programs in September 1995 under the 1994 Crime Act. The National Institute of Justice hereby solicits proposals for evaluations that respond to these needs, that document and assess activity stimulated by the Crime Act, and that provide systematic information that may be useful to criminal justice practitioners for the future development of new and better boot camp programs. II. Statement of the Problem Fueled primarily by the growth in jail, prison, and juvenile confinement populations over the past decade, and by the changing views of sentencing relative to punishment and treatment in the correctional system, boot camp programs have emerged as a new correctional strategy. Within a single decade, 36 State correctional systems and the Federal Bureau of Prisons have implemented more than 47 boot camp programs for adult offenders (MacKenzie, 1994). Boot camp programs also have been developed for juvenile offenders in 6 States and for use in 10 to 13 county jurisdictions (Austin et al., 1993). The typical boot camp program exposes inmates to a daily regimen of strict discipline, physical training, military drill and ceremony (Parent, 1989; MacKenzie, 1990b), and work assignments, along with traditional approaches toward rehabilitation that include education, substance abuse counseling, job training, treatment, and other programs oriented toward community reentry. Generally, but not always, adult boot camp programs are designed as alternatives to traditional incarceration for nonviolent offenders who have little or no prior imprisonment record. Adult participants in most of the State programs are supposed to be released in a shorter period of time than would be the case if they were designated to serve their sentences in a traditional correctional facility (MacKenzie, 1994). At the Federal level, however, adult inmates do not have reduced sentences; instead they serve a portion of their time in the boot camp while the remainder is served in a community corrections center. A key finding in adult boot camp research is that positive attitudes evidenced by boot camp participants at graduation often erode, and many graduates eventually return to substance abuse and other criminal behaviors. This finding has influenced new boot camp models to expand and develop aftercare programs that emphasize drug treatment, life skills development, job training, employment counseling, and family support. These aftercare programs also stress public safety through structured monitoring and control, a result of case-specific consideration of risk factors. Research should focus on boot camps with well-developed aftercare components and should address outcome-oriented issues. In general, juvenile boot camps are thought to target offenders who have prior involvement in the juvenile justice system. However, more empirical evidence is needed to substantiate this concept. The typical length of stay in the juvenile boot camp is a few months, although in some States an offender's stay may be lengthened if requirements for graduation have not been met. Proponents argue that the demanding and rigorous, but short, boot camp program will be rehabilitative and deter future criminal behavior. They also claim shorter sentences will mean reduced costs and a reduction in prison crowding. Yet most proponents also suggest that the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems should proceed cautiously in implementing boot camp programs until further research and evaluation efforts are carried out. This solicitation and the previous one provide a significant opportunity to inform the development of boot camp programs. To date, research on correctional boot camps has been primarily descriptive (Parent, 1989; Austin et al., 1993; Cronin, 1994), and there have been few opportunities to generate a meaningful knowledge base on program effectiveness. Evaluative research on boot camps to date has been hindered by the lack of experimental designs and delays in program implementation. Most process evaluations and research efforts that have been completed have examined the impact of boot camps on offender adjustments while institutionalized (MacKenzie and Shaw, 1990; MacKenzie and Souryal, 1994) and on prison populations (MacKenzie and Piquero, 1994). However, data are lacking in the areas that are most frequently debated and of greatest concern: the effectiveness of boot camps to reduce offender recidivism and the targeting of an offender population that would otherwise use prison space. III. Background NIJ is soliciting proposals that will provide a knowledge base for understanding all aspects of boot camps. A multisite evaluation, as well as a number of local-level evaluations and planning assessments, will be conducted on several boot camp programs funded by the OJP Corrections Program Office. Although not all of the recently funded grantees will be asked to be part of the formal multisite evaluation and research strategy, all applicants were requested to document a willingness and ability to participate actively in such an evaluation program. Information to provide an assessment of the evaluability of the program, the amenability of local staff to engage in collaborative efforts with a national evaluation team throughout the program planning and implementation process in a problem-solving manner, and the capacity to generate data requisite for a rigorous outcome evaluation were requested at the time of application for the OJP funds. The OJP Corrections Program Office funded 44 boot camp grants for planning, renovation, and construction (see the Appendix). This represents 24 State-level grants and 20 local grants to 27 States and 3 Territories. Funded grants included female as well as male boot camp programs and two Native-American boot camp facilities. Recipients of boot camp planning grants will use awarded funds to sponsor statewide focus groups and workshops, employ planners, and/or pursue other planning strategies. The goals of the planning process are to promote informed decisionmaking and program improvements. Expert assistance will be solicited to facilitate the planning process and to assist in the gathering of essential information. Technical assistance will be provided by the Corrections Program Office, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Corrections Crime Act Office, the Criminal Justice Institute, and the National Institute of Corrections to ensure logical and effective planning implementation. Renovation and construction grantees will use funds to design, renovate, or construct facilities to operate boot camp programs. A renovation grantee can simultaneously modify an existing facility in order to expand a current program while a new physical complex is under construction. These grantees also will receive technical assistance from the Corrections Program Office, the BJA Corrections Crime Act Office, the Criminal Justice Institute, and the National Institute of Corrections. NIJ-sponsored research and evaluation activity will be closely coordinated with the Corrections Program Office and the BJA Corrections Crime Act Office. These agencies have been assigned administrative and monitoring responsibilities for program activities. The following two sections address the areas of research and evaluation of interest to NIJ. IV. Solicitation of Proposals A. NIJ is soliciting three types of evaluation and research strategies: 1. Multisite evaluation. Proposals based on a multisite evaluation strategy are encouraged. Demonstrations of the active participation of program grantees and the amenability of local staff to engage in collaborative efforts with an evaluation team should be included by applicants in the proposal package. The evaluation should respond to program goals, investigate process problems, and document implementation issues central to decisions about boot camps. NIJ is particularly interested in knowing whether federally funded boot camps play a key role in freeing up bedspace for the confinement of violent offenders, whether there is an effort to avoid net-widening, and whether there are other cost issues regarding the use of Federal dollars. 2. Single-site evaluations. Research proposals are being solicited that will evaluate the impact of one or more programs supported under the Crime Act. Impact evaluations will be used to determine whether the goals of the boot camps are eventually achieved, whether boot camps have a measurable or long-term impact on the recidivism of program participants, and whether they have reduced correctional system costs. Single-site evaluations should examine new or particularly innovative aspects of boot camp programming such as coordinated aftercare, specialized treatment, or family counseling components. NIJ is particularly interested in evaluations involving juvenile and youthful offenders, female offenders, Native Americans, and regional boot camps. 3. Assessing the planning process. The majority of the Office of Justice Programs Corrections Program Office awards consisted of planning grants to organizations that were starting new boot camps, adding capacity to existing facilities, or adding components to existing programs. The Institute is interested in understanding the benefits derived from these planning resources, including such improvements as rational site selection, better selection criteria for boot camp candidates, and more comprehensive training and selection of boot camp staff. NIJ also is interested in the kinds of obstacles planning groups typically encounter and in the strategies they design to help overcome them. NIJ will accept a wide range of research designs developed by the applicant to complete the tasks proposed. Randomized experimental designs, well-controlled quasi-experimental designs, and comparison group designs are three suggested research approaches. B. NIJ is soliciting research and evaluation projects that address issues such as the following: o What is a boot camp? (Look at other models, e.g., leadership, therapeutic, and work ethic/community service.) o Is the boot camp, including the treatment and ancillary service components, being implemented as originally intended? o Do boot camps, as conceived, meet the needs of juvenile and female offenders? o What are best practices or ideal models that exist for boot camps? o How are boot camp programs accommodating participants who fail, quit, or wash out? o What kinds of offenders are most appropriate for boot camp participation, and how are they selected? o How are partnerships and/or cooperative agreements being formed, and who is involved in making boot camps work? (Staff selection is a particular concern.) o Are boot camps cost effective? If so, how much is being saved? o What is the measurable significance of aftercare as it relates to recidivism, costs, and social adjustment? o What kind of measures are being used to evaluate the impact of boot camp programs on participants and on the system? Application Requirements This section presents general application information, recommendations to proposal writers, and requirements for grant recipients. The application form, SF 424, is included at the end of this document. Proposals not conforming to these application procedures will not be considered. Award period. In general, NIJ limits its grants and cooperative agreements to a maximum period of 24 months. However, longer budget periods may be considered. Award amount. Up to $600,000 will be available to support research under this NIJ solicitation. Due date. Ten (10) copies of fully executed proposals should be sent to: Boot Camp Research and Evaluation National Institute of Justice 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20531 Completed proposals must be received at the National Institute of Justice by the close of business on April 30, 1996. Extensions of this deadline will not be permitted. Contact. Applicants are encouraged to contact Dr. Voncile Gowdy, 202-307-2951, for this solicitation to discuss topic viability, data availability, or proposal content before submitting proposals. For information about the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, contact the Department of Justice Response Center at 800-421-6770 or 202-307- 1743. For information about the availability of references, listed in the Appendix, contact the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at 800-851-3420 or e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com. You can download application forms from the NCJRS World Wide Web site (http:/www.ncjrs.org) or call NCJRS at 800þ851-3420 or write NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-60000. Recommendations to Grant Writers Over the past 4 years, Institute staff have reviewed approximately 1,500 grant applications. On the basis of those reviews and inquiries from applicants, the Institute offers the following recommendations to help potential applicants present workable, understandable proposals. Many of these recommendations were adopted from materials provided to NIJ by the State Justice Institute, especially for applicants new to NIJ. Others reflect standard NIJ requirements. The author(s) of the proposal should be clearly identified. Proposals that are incorrectly collated, incomplete, or handwritten will be judged as submitted or, at NIJ's discretion, will be returned without a deadline extension. No additions to the original submission are allowed. The Institute suggests that applicants make certain that they address the questions, issues, and requirements set forth below when preparing an application. 1. What is the subject or problem you wish to address? Describe the subject or problem and how it affects the criminal justice system and the public. Discuss how your approach will improve the situation or advance the state of the art of knowledge or state of the science, and explain why it is the most appropriate approach to take. Give appropriate citations to the research literature. The source of statistics or research findings cited to support a statement or position should be included in a reference list. 2. What do you want to do? Explain the goal(s) of the project in simple, straightforward terms. The goals should describe the intended consequences or expected overall effect of the proposed project, rather than the tasks or activities to be conducted. To the greatest extent possible, applicants should avoid a specialized vocabulary that is not readily understood by the general public. Technical jargon does not enhance an application. 3. How will you do it? Describe the methodology carefully so that what you propose to do and how you would do it is clear. All proposed tasks should be set forth so that a reviewer can see a logical progression of tasks and relate those tasks directly to the accomplishment of the project's goal(s). When in doubt about whether to provide a more detailed explanation or to assume a particular level of knowledge or expertise on the part of the reviewers, err on the side of caution and provide the additional information. A description of project tasks also will help identify necessary budget items. All staff positions and project costs should relate directly to the tasks described. The Institute encourages applicants to attach letters of cooperation and support from agencies that will be involved in or directly affected by the proposed project. 4. What should you include in a grant application for a program evaluation? An evaluation should determine whether the proposed program, training, procedure, service, or technology accomplished the objectives it was designed to meet. Applicants seeking support for a proposed evaluation should describe the criteria that will be used to evaluate the project's effectiveness and identify program elements that will require further modification. The description in the application should include how the evaluation will be conducted, when it will occur during the project period, who will conduct it, and what specific measures will be used. In most instances, the evaluation should be conducted by persons not connected with the implementation of the procedure, training, service, or technique, or with the administration of the project. 5. How will others learn about your findings? Include a plan to disseminate the results of the research, evaluation, technology, or demonstration beyond the jurisdictions and individuals directly affected by the project. The plan should identify the specific methods that will be used to inform the field about the project such as the publication of journal articles or the distribution of key materials. Expectations regarding products are discussed more fully in the following section, "Requirements for Award Recipients." A statement that a report or research findings "will be made available to" the field is not sufficient. The specific means of distribution or dissemination as well as the types of recipients should be identified. Reproduction and dissemination costs are allowable budget items. Applicants must concisely describe the interim and final products and address each product's purpose, audience, and usefulness to the field. This discussion should identify the principal criminal justice constituency or type of agency for which each product is intended and describe how the constituent group or agency would be expected to use the product or report. Successful proposals will clearly identify the nature of the grant products that can reasonably be expected if the project is funded. In addition, a schedule of delivery dates of all products should be delineated. 6. What are the specific costs involved? The budget application should be presented clearly. Major budget categories such as personnel, benefits, travel, supplies, equipment, and indirect costs should be identified separately. The components of "other" or "miscellaneous" items should be specified in the application budget narrative and should not include set-asides for undefined contingencies. 7. How much detail should be included in the budget narrative? The budget narrative should list all planned expenditures and detail the salaries, materials, and cost assumptions used to estimate project costs. The narrative and cost estimates should be presented under the following standard budget categories: personnel, fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contracts, other, and indirect costs. For multiyear projects, applicants must include the full amount of NIJ funding for the entire life of the project. This amount should be reflected in item 15g on Form 424 and line 6k on 424A. When appropriate, grant applications should include justification of consultants and a full explanation of daily rates for any consultants proposed. To avoid common shortcomings of application budget narratives, include the following information: o Personnel estimates that accurately provide the amount of time to be spent by personnel involved with the project and the total associated costs, including current salaries for the designated personnel (e.g., Project Director, 50 percent of 1 year's annual salary of $50,000 = $25,000). If salary costs are computed using an hourly or daily rate, the annual salary and number of hours or days in a work year should be shown. o Estimates for supplies and expenses supported by a complete description of the supplies to be used, nature and extent of printing to be done, anticipated telephone charges, and other common expenditures, with the basis for computing the estimates included (e.g., 100 reports x 75 pages each x $0.05/page = $375.00). Supply and expense estimates offered simply as "based on experience" are not sufficient. 8. What travel regulations apply to the budget estimates? Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the policies of the applicant organization, and a copy of the applicant's travel policy should be submitted as an appendix to the application. If the applicant does not have a travel policy established in writing, then travel rates must be consistent with those established by the Federal Government. The budget narrative should state which regulations are in force for the project and should include the estimated fare, the number of persons traveling, the number of trips to be taken, and the length of stay. The estimated costs of travel, lodging, ground transportation, and other subsistence should be listed separately. When combined, the subtotals for these categories should equal the estimate listed on the budget form. 9. Which forms should be used? A copy of Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance, plus instructions, appears in the back of this document. Please follow the instructions carefully and include all parts and pages. In addition to SF 424, recent requirements involve certification regarding (1) lobbying; (2) debarment, suspension, and other responsibility matters; and (3) drug-free workplace requirements. The certification form that is attached to SF 424 should be signed by the appropriate official and included in the grant application. 10. What technical materials are required to be included in the application? o A one-page abstract of the full proposal, highlighting the project's purpose, methods, activities, and, when known, the location(s) of field research. o A program narrative, which is the technical portion of the proposal. It should include a clear, concise statement of the problem, goals, and objectives of the project and related questions to be explored. A discussion of the relationship of the proposed work to the existing literature is expected. o A statement of the project's anticipated contribution to criminal justice policy and practice. It is important that applicants briefly cite those particular issues and concerns of present-day criminal justice policy that stimulate the proposed line of inquiry and suggest what their own investigation would contribute to current knowledge. o A detailed statement of the proposed research or study design and analytical methodologies. The proposed data sources, data collection strategies, variables and issues to be examined, and procedures of analysis to be employed should be delineated carefully and completely. When appropriate, experimental designs are encouraged because of their potential relevance to policymaking and the strength of the evidence they can produce. o The organization and management plan to conduct the study. A list of major milestones of events, activities, and products and a timetable for completion that indicates the time commitments to individual project tasks should be included. All grant activities, including writing of the final report, should be completed within the duration of the award period. o The applicant's curriculum vitae should summarize education, research experience, and bibliographic information related to the proposed work. 11. How may grant funds be used? Grant funds may be used to purchase or lease equipment essential to accomplishing the objectives of the project. The budget narrative must list such equipment and explain why the equipment is necessary. Funds may not be used for operating programs, writing texts or handbooks, training, etc. 12. To what extent may indirect costs be included in the budget estimates? It is the policy of the Institute that all costs should be budgeted directly; however, if an applicant has an indirect cost rate that has been approved by a Federal agency within the past 2 years, an indirect cost recovery estimate may be included in the budget. A copy of the approved rate agreement should be submitted as an appendix to the application. If an applicant does not have an approved rate agreement, the applicant should contact the Office of the Comptroller, Office of Justice Programs, 202-307- 0623, to obtain information about preparing an indirect cost rate proposal. 13. What, if any, matching funds are required? Units of State and local governments (not including publicly supported institutions of higher education) are encouraged to contribute a match (cash, noncash, or both) of requested funds. Other applicants also are encouraged to seek matching contributions from other Federal agencies or private foundations to assist in meeting the costs of the project. 14. Should other funding sources be listed? Applicants are expected to identify all other Federal, local, or private sources of support, including other NIJ programs, to which this or a closely related proposal has been or will be submitted. This information permits NIJ to consider the joint funding potential and limits the possibility of inadvertent duplicate funding. Applicants may submit more than one proposal to NIJ, but the same proposal cannot be submitted in more than one program area. 15. What are the deadlines? Nonbinding letters of intent should be received no later than March 19, 1996. Completed proposals must be received at NIJ by close of business on April 30, 1996. 16. Is there a page limit? The Institute has established a limit of 30 double-spaced pages for all normal grant applications. This page limit does not include references, budget narrative, curriculum vitae, or necessary appendixes. Applications for small grants ($1,000 - $50,000) are limited to 15 double-spaced pages. NIJ does not wish to create elaborate regulations regarding type fonts, margins, and spacing. Applicants are cautioned, however, that obvious attempts to stretch interpretations of the Institute's limits have, in the past, caused proposal reviewers to regard such efforts unfavorably. 17. What is the page order? The following order is mandatory. Omission can result in rejection of the application: 1. SF 424. 2. Names and affiliations of all key persons from applicant and subcontractor(s), advisers, consultants, and Advisory Board members. Include the name of the Principal Investigator, title, organizational affiliation (if any), department (if institution of higher education), address, phone, and fax. 3. Abstract. 4. Table of Contents. 5. Budget narrative. 6. Assurances and Certifications, etc. 7. Negotiated rate agreement. 8. Program narrative. 9. References. 10. Resum‚s of key personnel. 18. What does the review process entail? After all applications for a competition are received, NIJ will convene a series of peer review panels of criminal justice professionals and researchers. NIJ will assign proposals to peer panels that it deems most appropriate. Panel members read each proposal and meet to assess the technical merits and policy relevance of the proposed research. Panel assessments of the proposals, together with assessments by NIJ staff, are submitted to the Director, who has sole and final authority over approval and awards. The review normally takes 60 to 90 days, depending on the number of applications received. Each applicant receives written comments from the peer review panel concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. These comments may include suggestions for how a revised or subsequent application to NIJ might be improved. 19. What are the criteria for an award? The essential question asked of each applicant is, "If this study were successful, how would criminal justice policies or operations be improved?" Four criteria are applied in the evaluation process: o Impact of the proposed project. o Feasibility of the approach to the issue, including technical merit and practical considerations. o Originality of the approach, including creativity of the proposal and capability of the research staff. o Economy of the approach. Applicants bear the responsibility of demonstrating to the panel that the proposed study addresses the critical issues of the topic area and that the study findings could ultimately contribute to a practical application in law enforcement or criminal justice. Reviewers will assess applicants' awareness of related research or studies and their ability to direct the research or study toward answering questions of policy or improving the state of criminal justice operations. Technical merit is judged by the likelihood that the study design will produce convincing findings. Reviewers take into account the logic and timing of the research or study plan, the validity and reliability of measures proposed, the appropriateness of statistical methods to be used, and each applicant's awareness of factors that might dilute the credibility of the findings. Impact is judged by the scope of the proposed approach and by the utility of the proposed products. Reviewers consider each applicant's understanding of the process of innovation in the targeted criminal justice agency or setting and knowledge of prior uses of criminal justice research by the proposed criminal justice constituency. Appropriateness of products in terms of proposed content and format is also considered. Applicants' qualifications are evaluated both in terms of the depth of experience and the relevance of that experience to the proposed research or study. Costs are evaluated in terms of the reasonableness of each item and the utility of the project to the Institute's program. 20. Are there any other considerations in selecting applications for an award? Projects should have a national impact or have potential relevance to a number of jurisdictions. Because of the broad national mandate of the National Institute of Justice, projects that address the unique concerns of a single jurisdiction should be fully justified. Projects that intend to provide services in addition to performing research are eligible for support, but only for the resources necessary to conduct the research tasks outlined in the proposal. The applicant's performance on previous or current NIJ grants will also be taken into consideration in making funding decisions. 21. Who is eligible to apply? NIJ awards grants to, or enters into cooperative agreements with, educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, public agencies, individuals, and profitmaking organizations that are willing to waive their fees. Where appropriate, special eligibility criteria are indicated in the solicitation. 22. Does NIJ accept resubmission of proposals? The Institute will accept resubmission of a previously submitted proposal. The applicant should indicate for Question 8, Form 424, that the application is a revision. The applicant should include this information in the abstract. Finally, the applicant should prepare a one-page response to the earlier panel review (to follow the abstract) including (1) the title, submission date, and NIJ-assigned application number of the previous proposal and (2) a brief summary of responses to the review and/or revisions to the proposal. Requirements for Award Recipients Required Products. Each project is expected to generate tangible products of maximum benefit to criminal justice professionals, researchers, and policymakers. In particular, NIJ strongly encourages documents that provide information of practical utility to law enforcement officials; prosecutors; judges; corrections officers; victims services providers; and Federal, State, county, and local elected officials. Products should include: o A summary of approximately 2,500 words highlighting the findings of the research and the policy issues those findings will inform. The material should be written in a style that will be accessible to policy officials and practitioners and suitable for possible publication as an NIJ Research in Brief. An NIJ editorial style guide is sent to each project director at the time of the award. o A full technical report, including a discussion of the research question, review of the literature, description of project methodology, detailed review of project findings, and conclusions and policy recommendations. o Clean copies of all automated data sets developed during the research and full documentation prepared in accordance with the instructions in the NIJ Data Resources Manual. o Brief project summaries for NIJ use in preparing annual reports to the President and the Congress. As appropriate, additional products such as case studies and interim and final reports (e.g., articles, manuals, or training materials) may be specified in the proposal or negotiated at the time of the award. Public Release of Automated Data Sets. NIJ is committed to ensuring the public availability of research data and to this end established its Data Resources Program in 1984. All NIJ award recipients who collect data are required to submit a machine-readable copy of the data and appropriate documentation to NIJ prior to the conclusion of the project. The data and materials are reviewed for completeness. NIJ staff then create machine-readable data sets, prepare users' guides, and distribute data and documentation to other researchers in the field. A variety of formats are acceptable; however, the data and materials must conform with requirements detailed in Depositing Data With the Data Resources Program of the National Institute of Justice: A Handbook. A copy of this handbook is sent to each project director at the time of the award. For further information about NIJ's Data Resources Program, contact Dr. James Trudeau, 202-307-1355. Standards of Performance by Recipients. NIJ expects individuals and institutions receiving its support to work diligently and professionally toward completing a high-quality research or study product. Besides this general expectation, the Institute imposes specific requirements to ensure that proper financial and administrative controls are applied to the project. Financial and general reporting requirements are detailed in Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants, a publication of the Office of Justice Programs. This guideline manual is sent to recipient institutions with the award documents. Project directors and recipient financial administrators should pay particular attention to the regulations in this document. Program Monitoring. Award recipients and Principal Investigators assume certain responsibilities as part of their participation in government-sponsored research and evaluation. NIJ's monitoring activities are intended to help grantees meet these responsibilities. They are based on good communication and open dialog, with collegiality and mutual respect. Some of the elements of this dialog are as follows: o Communication with NIJ in the early stages of the grant, as the elements of the proposal's design and methodology are developed and operationalized. o Timely communication with NIJ regarding any developments that might affect the project's compliance with the schedules, milestones, and products set forth in the proposal. (See statement on Timeliness below.) o Communication with other NIJ grantees conducting related research projects. An annual "cluster conference" should be anticipated and should be budgeted for by applicants at a cost of $1,000 for each year of the grant. o Providing NIJ on request with brief descriptions of the project in interim stages at such time as the Institute may need this information to meet its reporting requirements to Congress. NIJ will give as much advance notification of these requests as possible but will expect a timely response from grantees when requests are made. NIJ is prepared to receive such communication through electronic media. o Providing NIJ with copies of presentations made at conferences, meetings, and elsewhere based in whole or in part on the work of the project. o Providing NIJ with prepublication copies of articles based on the project appearing in professional journals or the media, either during the life of the grant or after. o Other reporting requirements (Progress Reports, Final Reports, and other grant products) are spelled out elsewhere in this section of the Research Plan. Financial reporting requirements will be described in the grant award documents received by successful applicants. Communications. NIJ Program Managers should be kept informed of research progress. The grantee shall submit programmatic reports to the Institute consisting of: o Regular progress reports due on July 31 and January 31 concerning the events of the previous 6 months of the calendar year. The first report should include the administrative activities of the project and a brief update of progress. The second report should include a similar summary of administrative activities as well as a more detailed progress report, including any substantive findings from the work to date. o A preliminary draft followed by a final work product. Timeliness. Grantees are expected to complete award products within the time frames that have been agreed upon by NIJ and the grantee. The Institute recognizes that there are legitimate reasons for project extensions. However, NIJ does not consider the assumption of additional research projects that impinge upon previous time commitments as legitimate reasons for delay. Projects with unreasonable delays can be terminated administratively. In this situation, any funds remaining are withdrawn. Future applications from either the project director or the recipient institution are subject to strict scrutiny and may be denied support based on past failure to meet minimum standards. Publications. The Institute encourages grantees to prepare their work for NIJ publication. In cases where grantees disseminate their findings through a variety of media, such as professional journals, books, and conferences, copies of such publications should be sent to the Program Manager as they become available, even if they appear well after a project's expiration. NIJ imposes no restriction on such publications other than the following acknowledgment and disclaimer: This research was supported by grant number ________ from the National Institute of Justice. Points of view are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Justice. Data Confidentiality and Human Subjects Protection. Research that examines individual traits and experiences plays a vital part in expanding our knowledge about criminal behavior. It is essential, however, that researchers protect subjects from needless risk of harm or embarrassment and proceed with their willing and informed cooperation. NIJ requires that investigators protect information identifiable to research participants. When information is safeguarded, it is protected by statute from being used in legal proceedings: "[S]uch information and copies thereof shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the person furnishing such information, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial, legislative, or administrative proceedings" (42 United States Code 3789g). Applicants should file their plans to protect sensitive information as part of their proposal. Necessary safeguards are detailed in 28 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 22. A short "how-to" guideline for developing a privacy and confidentiality plan can be obtained from NIJ Program Managers. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice has adopted Human Subjects policies similar to those established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. If an Institutional Review Board is necessary for this project, a copy of the Board's approval must be submitted to the National Institute of Justice prior to the initiation of data collection. Researchers are encouraged to review 28 CFR 46, 46.101 to determine their individual project requirements. ------------------------------ References/Bibliography Austin, J., Jones, M., and Bolyard, M. (1993). The Growing Use of Jail Boot Camps: The Current State of the Art. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Cronin, R. (1994). Boot Camps for Adult and Juvenile Offenders: Overview and Update. Research Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Gransky, L.A., Castellano, T.C., and Cowles, E.L. (1995). "Is There a `Second Generation' of Shock Incarceration Facilities?: The Evolving Nature of Goals, Program Elements, and Drug Treatment Services in Boot Camp Programs." In J. Smykla and W. Selke, eds., Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990s, Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co., 89-112. MacKenzie, D.L. (1990a). "`Boot Camp' Programs Grow in Number and Scope." National Institute of Justice Reports November/December:6-8. _____ (1990b). "Boot Camp Prisons: Components, Evaluations, and Empirical Issues." Federal Probation September: 44-52. _____ (1991). "The Parole Performance of Offenders Released from Shock Incarceration (Boot Camp Prison): A Survival Time Analysis." Journal of Quantitative Criminology 7(3):213-236. _____ (1994). "Boot Camp Prisons in 1993." National Institute of Justice Journal November: 21-28. MacKenzie, D.L., and Piquero, A. (1994). "The Impact of Shock Incarceration on Prison Crowding." Crime and Delinquency 40(2):222-249. MacKenzie, D.L., and Shaw, J.W. (1990). "Inmate Adjustment and Change During Shock Incarceration: The Impact of Correctional Boot Camp Programs." Justice Quarterly 7: 125-150. MacKenzie, D.L., Shaw, J.W., and Gowdy, V.B. (1993). An Evaluation of Shock Incarceration in Louisiana. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. MacKenzie, D.L., and Souryal, C. (1994). Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Parent, D.G. (1989). Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Parent, D.G. (1994). "Boot Camps Failing To Achieve Goals." Overcrowded Times 5(4):8-11. Shaw, J.W., and MacKenzie, D.L. (1991). "Shock Incarceration and Its Impact on the Lives of Problem Drinkers." American Journal of Criminal Justice 16(1):63-96. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993). Prison Boot Camps: Short-Term Costs Reduced, but Long-Term Impact Uncertain. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. ------------------------------ Appendix Directory of FY 1995 Boot Camp Grant Awards Alaska Department of Corrections Commissioner's Office Adult Planning Project Jerry Shriner, Project Director Special Assistant Alaska Department of Corrections, Commissioner's Office, 240 Main Street, Juneau, AK 99801 907-465-4640 $50,000 American Samoa Department of Public Safety Adult and Juvenile Planning Project Sili K. Sataua, Project Director Grants Administrator American Samoa Department of Public Safety, P.O. Box 1086, Pago Pago, AS 96799 684-633-1111 $37,140 Arizona Department of Corrections Adult Planning Project Gilbert E. Lewis, Project Director Arizona Department of Corrections, 1601 West Jefferson, P.O. Box 629, Florence, AZ 85232 602-868-4011 $49,427 Arizona Department of Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation Juvenile Planning Project Darrell Morong, Project Director Arizona Department of Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation, 1624 West Adams, Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-542-4038 $37,500 Arizona Governor's Division for Children Juvenile and Adult Planning Project Esther Moyah, Project Director Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 97, Sacaton, AZ 85247-0091 520-562-3191 $43,701 California Youth Authority Juvenile Planning Project Ron Johnson, Project Director Chief Probation Officer Alameda County Probation Department, 400 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94607 510-268-7233 $50,000 California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency Juvenile Facility Construction Project Joe Walden, Project Director Probation Officer Fresno County Probation Department, P.O. Box 453, Fresno, CA 93709 209-488-3427 $1,919,768 California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency Juvenile Planning Project Marcia Fisher, Project Director Orange County Department of Probation, 909 North Main Street, Santa Ana, CA 97201 714-569-2148 $30,098 California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency Juvenile Facility Renovation Project Frank Scozzari, Project Director Santa Barbara County Department of Probation, 2121 South Centerpointe Parkway, Santa Maria, CA 93455 805-739-8607 $865,000 California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency Adult Planning Project Daniel Vasquez, Project Director Santa Clara Department of Probation, 180 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110 408-299-4005 $49,995 California Youth Authority Juvenile Planning Project Lesley McClelland, Project Director Probation Director San Diego Department of Probation, 2901 Meadow Lark Drive, San Diego, CA 92123 619-694-4213 $32,362 Delaware Department of Corrections Pre-Construction Planning Project Debra Craig, Project Director Delaware Department of Corrections, 80 Monrovia Avenue, Smyrna, DE 19977 302-739-5601 $2,000,000 Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Juvenile Facility Renovation Project Major Gary Frechette, Project Director Martin County Sheriff's Office, 800 Southeast Monterey Road, Stuart, FL 34995 $807,875 Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Juvenile Facility Renovation Project Sheriff Richard Roth, Project Director Monroe County Sheriff, 5525 College Road, Key West, FL 33040 305-296-2424 $760,242 Georgia Department of Children and Youth Services Juvenile Facility Construction Project Iris E. Smith, Project Director Georgia Department of Children and Youth Services, 2 Peachtree Street, 5th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303- 3139 404-657-2436 $1,719,768 Guam Department of Youth Affairs Juvenile Planning Project Ed Chargualaf, Project Director Department of Youth Affairs, Government of Guam, P.O. Box 23672, Barriguda, GU 96921 671-734-2597 $46,875 Illinois Department of Corrections Juvenile Planning Project Karlene Behringer, Project Director Kane County Court Services, 37 West 777, Route 38, St. Charles, IL 60175 708-406-7195 $46,265 Illinois Department of Corrections Adult Facility Renovation Project Bill Gilbert, Project Director Illinois Department of Corrections, 1301 Concordia Court, Box 19277, Springfield, IL 62794-9277 217-522-2666 $697,500 Illinois Department of Corrections Juvenile Facility Construction Project Mike Furrie, Project Director Illinois Department of Corrections, 1301 Concordia Court, Box 19277, Springfield, IL 62794-9277 217-522-9159 $1,928,770 Maryland Department of Correctional Safety and Correctional Services Committee on Criminal Justice Adult Planning Project James M. Dean, Project Director Baltimore County Bureau of Corrections, 400 Kenilworth Drive, Towson, MD 21204 410-887-6550 $50,000 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Committee on Criminal Justice Juvenile Planning Project Sheriff John DeMello, Project Director Barnstable County House of Corrections, P.O. Box 397, Barnstable, MA 02630 508-362-5022 $50,000 Michigan Department of Social Services Juvenile Planning Project Susan Kangas, Project Director Michigan Department of Social Services, 235 South Grand Avenue, Lansing, MI 48909 517-335-3931 $37,500 Minnesota Department of Corrections Adult Facility Renovation Project Mark Carey, Project Director Dakota County Community Corrections, Judicial Center, 1560 West Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033- 2392 $429,000 Missouri Department of Corrections Juvenile Planning Project Kenneth Hartke, Project Director Missouri Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 236, Jefferson City, MO 65102 314-526-6510 $37,500 Mississippi Department of Corrections Adult Planning Project Kent Crocker, Project Director Mississippi Department of Corrections, 723 President Street, Jackson, MS 39202 601-359-5616 $37,063 Mississippi Department of Human Services Juvenile Planning Project J. Walter Wood, Project Director Mississippi Department of Human Services, 750 North State Street, Jackson, MS 39202 601-359-4987 $50,000 Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Adult Planning Project Steve King, Project Director Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, P.O. Box 94661, Lincoln, NE 68509 402-479-5767 $45,000 New Jersey Department of Corrections Juvenile Facility Renovation Project Frank E. Gripp, Project Director New Jersey Department of Corrections, Whittlesey Road, CN 863, Trenton, NJ 08625 609-292-4640 $1,000,000 New Mexico Department of Corrections Adult Planning Project Barrilyn Roberts, Project Director New Mexico Department of Corrections, Highway 14, P.O. Box 27116, Santa Fe, NM 87502-0116 508-827-8625 $50,000 New York State Division for Youth Juvenile Facility Construction Project Newell Eaton, Project Director New York State Division for Youth, Capital View Office Park, 52 Washington Street, Rensselaer, NY 12144 518-473-1274 $1,134,118 Oklahoma Division of Criminal Justice Service Juvenile Planning Project Dan Anderson, Project Director Sac and Fox Nation, Poni Project, Route 2, Box 246, Stroud, OK 74079 918-968-4279 $50,000 Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Adult Facility Construction Project Horst Gienapp, Project Director Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 1050 Freeway Drive North, Columbus, OH 43229 $1,736,164 Oregon Youth Authority Juvenile Facility Construction Project Mike Conzoner, Project Director Oregon Youth Authority, 500 Summer Street, Northeast, Salem, OR 97310-0197 $1,599,081 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Adult Planning Project Frank A. Hall, Project Director City of Philadelphia Prisons, 8201 State Road,Philadelphia, PA 19136 215-685-8201 $50,000 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Adult Planning Project Ted E. Shumaker, Project Director Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 598, Camp Hill, PA 17001-0598 717-975-4972 $50,000 Rhode Island Department of Corrections Adult Facility Renovation Project Jeffrey J. Laurie, Project Director Rhode Island Department of Corrections, 40 Howard Avenue, Cranston, RI 02920 401-464-2676 $554,414 South Carolina Department of Corrections Adult Planning Project Michael W. Moore, Project Director South Carolina Department of Corrections, 4444 Broad River Road, Columbia, SC 29210 803-896-8555 $50,000 South Dakota Department of Corrections Juvenile Facility Construction Project Kevin McLain, Project Director South Dakota Department of Corrections, 115 East Dakota Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501-3216 605-773-3478 $1,350,000 Texas Office of the Governor Criminal Justice Division Juvenile Facility Construction Project Teresa Ramirez, Project Director Harris County Juvenile Probation Department, 1001 Preston, Room 911, Houston, TX 77002 713-521-4100 $1,424,250 Virgin Islands Department of Justice Adult Planning Project Sonia Maynard-Liburd, Project Director Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections, 3008 Orange Grove, Christiansted, VI 00820 $50,000 Washington Department of Corrections Adult Facility Construction Project Myra Wall, Project Director Washington Department of Corrections, 417 West Fourth Street, P.O. Box 41101, Olympia, WA 98504- 1101 360-664-2581 $1,800,000 West Virginia Division of Corrections Juvenile Planning Project Karen H. Shumaker, Project Director West Virginia Division of Corrections, 112 California Avenue, Charleston, WV 25305 304-558-2036 $33,665 Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services Juvenile Planning Project Mark Boatwright, Project Director Kenosha County, 7409 14th Avenue, Kenosha, WI 53143 414-654-4860 $44,395 Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services Juvenile Facility Construction Project Silvia Jackson, Project Director Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, 1 West Wilson Street, P.O. Box 7850, Madison, WI 53707-7850 608-266-9342 $689,250