MENU TITLE: Solicitation for Evaluation of Arrest.
Policies 
Program Series: NIJ Solicitation
Published: August 1996
23 pages
49,465 bytes

National Institute of Justice
Solicitation

Solicitation for Evaluation of Arrest Policies
Program

This request for proposals announces an evaluation
of arrest policies programs funded by the Office of
Justice Programs in 1996 under the Violence Against
Women Act, Title IV of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The request
responds to the need for research to assess the
effectiveness of arrest in the context of a
systemwide, coordinated approach to domestic
violence.

Introduction

Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 is the Violence Against
Women Act. The Act reflects a firm commitment
toward improving the criminal justice system's
response to violence that occurs when any woman is
threatened or assaulted by someone with whom she
has or has had an intimate relationship, with whom
she was previously acquainted, or who is a
stranger. By committing significant Federal
resources and attention to restructuring and
strengthening the criminal justice response to
women who have been, or potentially could be,
victimized by violence, the safety of all women can
be more effectively ensured.

FY 96 Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies

For fiscal year (FY) 1996, Congress has
appropriated $28 million to the U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, for Grants to
Encourage Arrest Policies. Additionally, Part U of
the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 authorizes
$33 million for FY 1997 and $59 million for FY
1998. The purpose of this program is to encourage
States, Indian tribal governments, and units of
local government to treat domestic violence as a
serious violation of criminal law.

Section 2101 of the Act enumerates the following
six purposes for which Grants to Encourage Arrest
Policies may be used:

1. To implement mandatory arrest or proarrest
programs and policies in police departments,
including mandatory or proarrest programs and
policies for protection order violations.

2. To develop policies and training programs in
police departments to improve tracking of cases
involving domestic violence.

3. To centralize and coordinate police enforcement,
prosecution, probation, or judicial responsibility
for domestic violence cases in groups or units of
police officers, prosecutors, probation officers,
or judges.

4. To coordinate computer tracking systems to
ensure communication between police, prosecutors,
and both criminal and family courts.

5. To strengthen legal advocacy service programs
for victims of domestic violence.

6. To educate judges and/or others responsible for
judicial handling of domestic violence cases in
criminal, tribal, and other courts about domestic
violence and to improve judicial managing of such
cases.

The Violence Against Women Grants Office
anticipates awarding up to 100 grants under this
program. Guidelines for the program, as well as the
application kit, are available from the U.S.
Department of Justice Response Center at
800-421-6770, in the Washington, D.C., area at
202-307-1480, and by fax at 202-616-9249. They also
are available from the Violence Against Women
Grants Office at 202-307-6026.

Statement of the Problem

In the past police departments, and the criminal
justice system as a whole, generally treated
domestic violence as a private, family matter
unlike any other violent crime. Many police
departments maintained informal nonarrest policies
for domestic violence, focusing instead on
alternative responses such as family crisis
intervention and counseling for domestic abusers
(Liebman and Schwartz, 1973). In recent years many
departments have implemented new policies and
practices that encourage or mandate arrest of a
perpetrator of domestic violence for probable cause
or for violating a protection order (Cohn and
Sherman, 1987). To ensure the effectiveness of
these new policies, some departments have created
special domestic violence units that train personnel,
developed guidelines and protocols for enforcing
laws related to domestic violence, created
sophisticated tracking and communication systems,
investigated both misdemeanor and felony domestic
assaults, developed accountability measures that
ensure enforcement of the law by all officers in
the department, and developed effective strategies
to coordinate with other criminal justice agencies
and victim service providers.

Similarly, other criminal justice agencies have
implemented practices and strategies complementary
to the police that prioritize the safety of victims
and hold the perpetrators of domestic violence
accountable. In particular, several probation
departments have instituted methods of supervision
designed to enhance victim safety and vigorously
enforce violations of protection orders, thereby
promoting coordination with the courts. A number of
prosecution agencies have established domestic
violence teams that work closely with legal
advocates and advocates affiliated with nonprofit,
nongovernmental victim service organizations.
Together, prosecutors and advocates alike keep
victims informed about the progress of their cases
as well as the status and known whereabouts of the
perpetrators. They also provide assistance in
preparing long- and short-term safety plans for
victims and their children. Additionally, courts
are beginning to recognize the need for continuing
education for judges. They also are implementing
improved case-processing procedures with designated
dockets to better manage domestic violence cases
and expedite scheduling of trials. To enhance these
highly significant accomplishments and encourage
the adaptation of similar innovations in additional
communities across the country, agencies throughout
the criminal justice system require more tools and
resources. For arrest to be an effective domestic
violence intervention, it must be part of a
coordinated and integrated response to the problem
on the part of the entire criminal justice system
(Hart, 1995).

A Coordinated and Integrated Approach to the
Problem

By definition, a coordinated and integrated
approach suggests a partnership among law
enforcement, prosecution, the courts, and victim
advocates and service providers. A consistent
criminal justice system response to domestic
violence requires that professionals in the various
components of the system have a shared vision that
prioritizes the safety and well-being of the
victim. The creation and implementation of that
vision necessitates collaboration among police,
prosecutors, the courts, and victim service
providers. Thus, the program requires that
jurisdictions incorporate the experience of
nonprofit, nongovernmental domestic violence
service providers into the project planning and
implementation process along with police,
prosecutors, and the courts. Examples of innovative
approaches include:

o Creating centralized units of police officers,
prosecutors, judges, and probation and parole
officers to investigate and handle domestic
violence cases.

o Implementing and testing the effectiveness of
domestic violence arrest policies for violations of
protection orders in the context of a coordinated
criminal justice and community response to domestic
violence that assigns priority to the safety of the
victim and holds the offender accountable.

o Delivering comprehensive training programs to the
police, prosecutors, probation and parole officers,
and the judiciary that address the technical issues
associated with policies that encourage or mandate
arrest for domestic violence, address the
phenomenon of domestic violence, stress
collaboration and shared responsibility for
ensuring the safety of the victim, seek to change
attitudes that have traditionally prevented
professionals in the criminal justice system from
responding to domestic violence as a serious
violation of criminal law, and provide information
on improved methods for tracking domestic violence
cases.

o Developing information systems, automated
registries, education and training programs, and
technical assistance efforts that facilitate
enforcement of protection orders within a single
jurisdiction, within a single State, and from State
to State.

o Linking automated information and tracking
systems to enhance communication among police,
prosecutors, and criminal and family courts to
ensure that all of the system's components have
access to consistent and complete information about
an individual's domestic violence history.

o Establishing and expanding advocacy services for
domestic violence victims from the time an abuse
report is filed through the postsentencing of the
offender, including any time during which the
offender is subject to probation or parole
supervision.

NIJ's Research on Police Response to Domestic
Violence

The Arrest Policies Program evaluation enhances the
overall National Institute of Justice (NIJ) program
and builds upon NIJ's previous Spouse Assault
Replication Program (SARP).

The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment
(Sherman and Berk, 1984), funded by NIJ, was the
first randomized study to assess the effects of
different police responses, including arrest, on
domestic assault. The findings of this study
suggested that the prevalence of subsequent
domestic violence was reduced by nearly 50 percent
when the suspect was arrested, as opposed to
ordering one of the parties out of the residence or
providing some form of advice to the couple. The
Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment paved the
way for six replications and extensions of the
experiment. This research, collectively known as
SARP, was undertaken in a variety of U.S. police
departments (Atlanta, Georgia; Omaha, Nebraska;
Charlotte, North Carolina; Miami, Florida [Metro-
Dade County]; Colorado Springs, Colorado; and
Milwaukee, Wisconsin).

Although the replications and extensions produced
inconsistent results (i.e., no deterrent effect of
arrest was found, only certain types of offenders
were deterred, or, in the worst situations, arrest
escalated violence), these studies strongly suggest
the need for a commensurate response from
prosecutors and judges if the efforts of police are
going to be successful.

Solicitation of Proposals

This solicitation announces the request for an
evaluation of the Arrest Policies Program. The
intent of the solicitation is to examine the
process associated with, and the impact resulting
from, arrest policies in conjunction with a
systemwide, coordinated approach to domestic
violence. Because the relevant expertise of the
applicant will be a criterion for assessing
proposals, applicants may want to consider joining
with other organizations with knowledge about the
criminal justice system's response to domestic
violence.

NIJ plans to award one evaluation for up to
$500,000. The initial award would cover a period of
18 months, but in anticipation of additional
funding, applicants should discuss a full 3-year
evaluation concept and reflect project costs for 3
years. The first year of the project should focus
on process, while subsequent years should focus on
impact. A decision on project continuation beyond
the 18-month period will be made prior to the end
of the project.

Questions of major interest under this solicitation
include:

1. What impact have the purpose area programs on
arrest policy had on the safety and protection of
women and on improvements in responding to domestic
violence by the criminal and civil justice systems?

2. How were the programs implemented? What problems
did jurisdictions encounter and how were they
addressed? Did technical assistance facilitate
implementation?

3. How has the research knowledge base on arrest
policy been advanced by this program? How have
criminal justice coordination and training and
legal advocacy for victims contributed to this
knowledge?

4. What effectiveness measures other than repeat
offending have been demonstrated to be illuminating
in assessing programs?

5. What specific innovative strategies appear to be
most promising?

Methodological considerations. The need for
innovation, particularly regarding qualitative
measures, for culturally sensitive measures and for
many different levels of data is acknowledged.
Outcome measures that go beyond reoffending after
arrest need to be considered and utilized. New
outcome measures could address extent and
effectiveness of a community-coordinated and
integrated approach to reducing domestic violence,
economic issues, impact on children, access to
services, use of shelters and/or orders of
protection, full faith and credit, safety plans,
and other quality-of-life issues pertaining to the
victim. Outcome measures relating to the offender
could address the likelihood of threatening or
battering a new partner and the economic, social,
and psychological impact of arrest on the offender.
The use of data from a variety of systems (criminal
justice, social service, public health) is
encouraged. Projects may involve case studies,
ethnography, victim and practitioner focus groups
and surveys, data on secondary consequences,
experimental designs, and other relevant
approaches.

Multisite proposals are sought for the evaluation.
Applicants should provide a detailed discussion of
the methods that will be used to assess impact.

Dissemination. NIJ is also interested in
expeditious and innovative methods to disseminate
the results of the evaluation that would supplement
the more traditional dissemination approaches.
Results of the evaluation are expected to be
reported to NIJ as they become available. Proposals
should present a discussion of the types of results
or products that would become available over the
course of the project and should describe how the
evaluation would assist States in their efforts to
combat violence against women.

Applicants should be familiar with the Violence
Against Women Act, the Arrest Policies Program, the
current NIJ program on violence against women, and
related research and evaluation. The proposed
budget for the project should include travel for
the Principal Investigator to attend three
coordination meetings in Washington, D.C. These
meetings will provide for the coordination of
Violence Against Women Act evaluation activities
and field work and presentations and discussions of
evaluation techniques and measures.

Application Requirements

This section presents general application
information, recommendations to proposal writers,
and requirements for grant recipients. The
application form, Standard 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. One award totaling up to $500,000
will be made available for this NIJ solicitation.

Due date. Ten (10) copies of fully executed
proposals should be sent to:

Solicitation for Evaluation of Arrest Policies
Program
National Institute of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue N.W., Room 867
Washington, DC 20531

Completed proposals must be received at the
National Institute of Justice by the close of
business on September 6, 1996. Extensions of this
deadline will not be permitted.

Contact. Applicants are encouraged to contact the
U.S. Department of Justice Response Center to
obtain information on application requirements for
this solicitation as well as copies of the Arrest
Policies Program application kit. The Response
Center can be reached at 800-421-6770, in the
Washington, D.C., area at 202-307-1480, and by fax
at 202-616-9249.

Certifications. Applicants should read and sign the
certification form regarding lobbying; debarment,
suspension, and other responsibility matters; and
drug-free workplace requirements included in this
solicitation. Signing this form commits the
applicant to compliance with the certification
requirements under 28 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 69, "New Restrictions on Lobbying," and
28 CFR Part 67, "Government-Wide Debarment and
Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Government-Wide
Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)." The
certification will be treated as a material
representation of the fact upon which reliance will
be placed by the U.S. Department of Justice in
making awards.

Recommendations to Proposal 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
goal(s) 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? If a grant application is
for a program evaluation, describe how the
evaluation will 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
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 SF 424 and in TOTAL
PROJECT COSTS in the Budget Detail Worksheet (OJP
Form 7150/1). 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). 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 SF 424,
Application for Federal Assistance, plus
instructions, appears in the back of this document.
Please follow the instructions carefully. In
addition, complete the Budget Detail Worksheet (OJP
Form 7150/1), OJP Form 4000/3 (Assurances), and OJP
Form 4061/6 (certifications regarding lobbying;
debarment, suspension, and other responsibility
matters; and drug-free workplace requirements).

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, goal(s), 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, at
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 is the deadline? Completed applications
must be received at NIJ by close of business on
September 6, 1996.

16. Is there a page limit? The Institute has
established a limit of 30 double-spaced pages (with
font size not smaller than 12 point) for all normal
grant applications. This page limit does not
include references, budget narrative, curriculum
vitae, forms noted in item 9 above, or necessary
appendixes. Applications for small grants ($1,000-
$50,000) are limited to 15 double-spaced pages.
Proposals failing to conform to these page and font
limitations will not be accepted.

17. What elements constitute the proposal? The
following components, presented in the following
order, are mandatory. Omission can result in
rejection of the application:

 - 1. SF 424 (with Assurances attached), followed
by OJP Form 7150/1 (Budget Detail Worksheet),
budget narrative, negotiated rate agreement, and
certifications.

 - 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. Project narrative.

 - 6. References.

 - 7. Resumes 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
on Question 8, SF 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) and include
(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; victim
service 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
publication Depositing Data With the Data Resources
Program of the National Institute of Justice: A
Handbook.

o Brief project summaries for NIJ use in preparing
annual reports to the President and 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.

Prohibition on supplanting funds. Federal funds
must be used to supplement existing funds and not
replace those funds which have been appropriated
for the same purpose. Potential supplanting will be
the subject of application review, as well as
preaward review, postaward monitoring, and audit.
If there is a potential presence of supplanting,
the applicant or grantee will be required to supply
documentation demonstrating that the reduction in
non-Federal resources occurred for reasons other
than the receipt or expected receipt of Federal
funds.

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 at 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
Guide, published in April 1996 by 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.

Audit requirement. State and local governments are
governed by the Single Audit Act of 1984 and Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-128,
"Audits of State and Local Governments." Nonprofit
organizations and institutions of higher education
are governed by OMB Circular A-133, "Audits of
Institutions of Higher Education and Other
Nonprofit Institutions." The type of audit required
under these circulars is dependent upon the amount
of Federal funds that can be audited during the
recipient's fiscal year.

For example:

o If the organization receives $100,000 or more per
year in Federal funds, the organization shall have
an organizationwide financial and compliance audit.

o If the organization receives between $25,000 and
$100,000 a year in Federal funds, the organization
may elect to have an organizationwide audit or
program audit.

o If the organization receives less than $25,000 a
year in Federal funds, the organization shall be
exempt from the audit requirement.

Commercial (for-profit) organizations shall have
financial and compliance audits performed by
qualified individuals who are independent from
those who authorize the expenditure of Federal
funds. This audit must be performed in accordance
with Government Auditing Standards. The audit
thresholds contained in OMB Circulars A-128 and
A-133 apply.

Financial status reports. Financial status reports
(SF 269A) are due quarterly on the 45th day
following the end of each calendar quarter. A
report must be submitted every quarter the award is
active. The final report is due 120 days after the
end date of the award. The Office of the
Comptroller, Office of Justice Programs, will
provide a copy of this form in the initial award
package.

Conditions for suspension or termination of
funding. The National Institute of Justice may
suspend, in whole or in part, terminate funding
for, or impose another sanction on a recipient for
the following reasons:

o Failure to comply substantially with the
requirements or statutory objectives of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as
amended; the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988; program
guidelines issued thereunder; or other provisions
of Federal law.

o Failure to make satisfactory progress toward the
goals or strategies set forth in this application.

o Failure to adhere to the requirements in the
agreement, standard conditions, or special
conditions.

o Proposing or implementing substantial plan
changes to the extent that, if originally
submitted, the application would not have been
selected for funding.

o Failure to submit reports.

o Filing a false certification in this application
or other report or document.

Before imposing sanctions, the National Institute
of Justice will provide reasonable notice to the
recipient of its intent to impose sanctions and
will attempt informally to resolve the problem.
Hearing and appeal procedures will follow those in
U.S. Department of Justice regulations in 28 CFR
Part 18.

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:

o Communication with NIJ in the early stages of the
grant, as the elements of the proposal's design and
methodology are developed and put into operation.

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 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. Financial
reporting requirements will be described in the
grant award documents received by successful
applicants.

Progress Reports

NIJ Program Managers should be kept informed of
research progress. Written progress reports are
required on a semiannual basis and should inform
the Program Manager of which tasks have been
completed and whether significant delays or
departures from the original workplan are expected.
The first progress report should cover the period
from the beginning date of the project through the
end of the first complete quarter (quarters are
January 1-March 31, April 1-June 30, July 1-
September 30, and October 1-December 31).
Subsequent progress reports should cover the next
two quarters.

All progress reports are due 30 days following the
end of the reporting period. For example, if a
grant is awarded in May, the first progress report
would cover the rest of the current quarter
(through June 30) and the first complete quarter
(July 1- September 30) and would be due October 31;
the second progress report would cover the next two
quarters (October 1-December 31 and January 1-March
31) and would be due April 30.

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 inclusion of 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 CFR,
paragraph 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, paragraph 46.101, to determine
their individual project requirements.

References/Bibliography

Cohn, E., and L.W. Sherman. Police Policy on
Domestic Violence, 1986: A National Survey (Report
5), Crime Control Institute, Washington, D.C.
(1987).

Hart, B.J. Coordinated Community Approaches to
Domestic Violence. Paper Presented at the Strategic
Planning Workshop on Violence Against Women,
National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.
(1995). 

Liebman, D.A., and J.A. Schwartz. "Police Programs
in Crisis Intervention: A Review." In The Urban
Policeman in Transition: A Psychological and
Sociological Review, eds. J.R. Snibbe and H.M.
Snibbe, Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas,
1973. 

Sherman, L.W., and R. Berk. "The Specific Deterrent
Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault." American
Sociological Review 49 (1984):261-272.

--------------------------------------------------

To obtain application forms, please call the
National Criminal Justice Reference Service,
800-851-3420.