OJP Grant Application Resource Guide

NOTE: This calculator is a resource for only the most common match scenario: match based on total project budget. It does not calculate for less common match scenarios, such as those based on the federal portion or that might escalate or change year to year. 

Pre-Agreement Costs (also known as Pre-Award Costs)

Pre-agreement costs are defined as costs incurred by the applicant prior to the start date of the period of performance of the federal award. OJP does not typically approve pre-agreement costs. Should there be extenuating circumstances that make it appropriate for OJP to consider approving pre-agreement costs, the applicant may contact the point of contact listed in the solicitation for the requirements concerning written requests for approval. See the section on Costs Requiring Prior Approval in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide Post-Award Requirements for more information.

Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation for Awards over $250,000; Waiver

With respect to any award of more than $250,000 made under a solicitation, a recipient may not use federal funds to pay total cash compensation (salary plus cash bonuses) to any employee of the recipient at a rate that exceeds 110 percent of the maximum annual salary payable to a member of the federal government's Senior Executive Service (SES) at an agency with a Certified SES Performance Appraisal System for that year.^[1] The 2024 salary table for SES employees is available on the Office of Personnel Management website.

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

See “Limit on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation” in section 3.9 Allowable Costs, Compensation for Personnel Services (Personnel Expenses) of the DOJ Financial Guide for more information on employee compensation.

Disclosure of Process Related to Executive Compensation

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

Each applicant nonprofit organization must state at the time of its application (in the Audit Information section of the Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire) whether or not the applicant entity believes (or asserts) that it currently satisfies the requirements of 26 C.F.R. 53.4958-6 (which relate to establishing or invoking a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness of compensation of certain individuals and entities).

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

At a minimum, the disclosure must describe in pertinent detail the following:

(1) The composition of the body that reviews and approves compensation arrangements for covered persons

(2) The methods and practices used by the applicant nonprofit organization to ensure that no individual with a conflict of interest participates as a member of the body that reviews and approves a compensation arrangement for a covered person

(3) The appropriate data as to comparability of compensation that is obtained in advance and relied upon by the body that reviews and approves compensation arrangements for covered persons

(4) The written or electronic records that the applicant organization maintains as concurrent documentation of the decisions with respect to compensation of covered persons made by the body that reviews and approves such compensation arrangements, including records of deliberations and of the basis for decisions

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

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

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

Prior Approval, Planning, and Reporting of Conference/Meeting/Training Costs

OJP strongly encourages every applicant that proposes to use award funds for any conference-, meeting-, or training-related activity (or similar event) to review carefully—before submitting an application—the OJP and DOJ policy and guidance on approval, planning, and reporting of such events.

Costs Associated With Language Assistance (if applicable)

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

For additional information, see the “Civil Rights Compliance” section under Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements – FY 2024 Awards in the OJP Funding Resource Center.

5. Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable)

Indirect costs may be charged to an award only if—

• the recipient has a current (unexpired), federally approved indirect cost rate; or
• the recipient is eligible to use, and elects to use, the “de minimis” indirect cost rate described in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements, as set out at 2 C.F.R. 200.414(f).

An applicant with a current (unexpired) federally approved indirect cost rate is to attach a copy of the indirect cost rate agreement to the application in JustGrants. An applicant that does not have a current federally approved rate may request one through its cognizant federal agency, which will review all documentation and approve a rate for the applicant entity, or, if the applicant's accounting system permits, applicants may propose to allocate costs in the direct cost categories.

Certain OJP recipients have the option of electing to use the de minimis indirect cost rate. An applicant that is eligible to use the de minimis rate and wishes to use the de minimis rate should attach written documentation to the application that advises OJP of both (1) the applicant's eligibility to use the de minimis rate, and (2) its election to do so.

For assistance with identifying the appropriate cognizant federal agency for indirect costs, please contact the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) Customer Service Center at 1-800-458-0786 or at [email protected]. If DOJ is the cognizant federal agency, applicants may obtain information needed to submit an indirect cost rate proposal at https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/IndirectCosts.pdf.

For information on de minimis indirect cost rates, see the DOJ Financial Guide.

Additional Application Attachments

Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable)

For solicitations requiring tribal authorizing documentation, such documentation, as described below, should be submitted with the application. A tribe, tribal organization, or third party that proposes to provide direct services or assistance to residents on tribal lands should include in its application a resolution, letter, affidavit, or other documentation, as appropriate, that demonstrates (as a legal matter) that the applicant has the requisite authorization from the tribe(s) to implement the proposed project on tribal lands.

In those instances when an organization or consortium of tribes applies for an award on behalf of a tribe or multiple specific tribes, the application should include appropriate legal documentation, as described above, from all tribes that would receive services or assistance under the award. A consortium of tribes for which existing consortium bylaws allow action without support from all tribes in the consortium (i.e., without an authorizing resolution or comparable legal documentation from each tribal governing body) may submit, instead, a copy of its consortium bylaws with the application.

Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity

If an application proposes research (including research and development) and/or evaluation, the applicant must demonstrate research/evaluation independence and integrity, including appropriate safeguards, before it may receive award funds. The applicant must demonstrate independence and integrity regarding both the research and/or evaluation project proposed in response to the solicitation, and any current or prior related projects.

Each application that proposes research and/or evaluation should include an attachment that addresses both i. and ii. below.

i. The applicant is to document research and evaluation independence and integrity by including one of the following two items:

1. A specific assurance that the applicant has reviewed its application to identify any actual or potential apparent conflicts of interest (including through review of pertinent information on the principal investigator, any co-principal investigators, and any subrecipients), and that the applicant has identified no such conflicts of interest—whether personal or financial or organizational (including on the part of the applicant entity or on the part of staff, investigators, or subrecipients)—that could affect the independence or integrity of the research, including the design, conduct, and reporting of the research.

OR

2. A specific description of actual or potential apparent conflicts of interest that the applicant has identified—including through review of pertinent information on the principal investigator, any co-principal investigators, and any subrecipients—that could affect the independence or integrity of the research, including the design, conduct, or reporting of the research. These conflicts may be personal (e.g., on the part of investigators or other staff), financial, or organizational (related to the applicant or any subrecipient entity). Some examples of potential investigator (or other personal) conflict situations are those in which an investigator would be in a position to evaluate a spouse's work product (actual conflict), or an investigator would be in a position to evaluate the work of a former or current colleague (potential apparent conflict). With regard to potential organizational conflicts of interest, as one example, generally an organization would not be given an award to evaluate a project, if that organization had itself provided substantial prior technical assistance to that specific project or a location implementing the project (whether funded by OJP or other sources), because the organization in such an instance might appear to be evaluating the effectiveness of its own prior work. The key is whether a reasonable person understanding all of the facts would be able to have confidence that the results of any research or evaluation project are objective and reliable. Any outside personal or financial interest that casts doubt on that objectivity and reliability of an evaluation or research product is a problem and must be disclosed.

ii. In addition, the applicant is to address possible mitigation of research integrity concerns by including, at a minimum, one of the following two items:

1. If an applicant reasonably believes that no actual or potential apparent conflicts of interest (personal, financial, or organizational) exist, then the applicant should provide a brief narrative explanation of how and why it reached that conclusion. The applicant also is to include an explanation of the specific processes and procedures that the applicant has in place, or will put in place, to identify and prevent (or, at the very least, mitigate) any such conflicts of interest pertinent to the funded project during the period of performance. Documentation that may be helpful in this regard may include organizational codes of ethics/conduct and policies regarding organizational, personal, and financial conflicts of interest. There is no guarantee that the plan, if any, will be accepted as proposed.

OR

2. If the applicant has identified actual or potential apparent conflicts of interest (personal, financial, or organizational) that could affect the independence and integrity of the research, including the design, conduct, or reporting of the research, the applicant is to provide a specific and robust mitigation plan to address each of those conflicts. At a minimum, the applicant is expected to explain the specific processes and procedures that the applicant has in place, or will put in place, to identify and eliminate (or, at the very least, mitigate) any such conflicts of interest pertinent to the funded project during the period of performance. Documentation that may be helpful in this regard may include organizational codes of ethics/conduct and policies regarding organizational, personal, and financial conflicts of interest. There is no guarantee that the plan, if any, will be accepted as proposed.

Disclosures and Assurances

Applicant Disclosure of Pending Applications (Duplication in Cost Items)

Each applicant is to disclose whether it has (or is proposed as a subrecipient under) any pending applications for federally funded grants or cooperative agreements that (1) include requests for funding to support the same project being proposed in the application under the solicitation, and (2) would cover any identical cost items outlined in the budget submitted to OJP as part of the application under the solicitation. The applicant is to disclose applications made directly to federal awarding agencies, and also applications for subawards of federal funds (e.g., applications to state agencies that will subaward (“subgrant”) federal funds).

Each applicant that has one or more pending applications as described above is to provide the following information about pending applications submitted within the last 12 months:

• The federal or state funding agency
• The solicitation name/project name

Each applicant will submit the Disclosure of Pending Applications (now called Applicant Disclosure of Duplication in Cost Items) in JustGrants.

Applicant Disclosure and Justification –Grantees Designated as High Risk by DOJ^[2]

An applicant that is designated as a high-risk grantee by DOJ is to submit a separate attachment to its application, information that OJP will use, among other pertinent information, to determine whether it will consider or select the application for an award under this solicitation. The file should be named “DOJ High-Risk Grantee Applicant Disclosure and Justification” (see also, Application Review Information, for a brief discussion of how such information may be considered in the application review process).

OJP may remove from consideration or not select for award a DOJ high-risk grantee applicant that is determined to pose a substantial risk of program implementation failure. In making such determinations, OJP will consider one or more of the following factors: the applicant's lack of sufficient progress in addressing required corrective actions necessary for removal of the DOJ high-risk grantee designation; the nature and severity of the issues leading to or accompanying the applicant's DOJ high-risk grantee designation; or the applicant's expected ability to manage grant funds and achieve grant goals and objectives.

In the attachment, the applicant is to provide any additional information or justification—especially with regard to corrective actions yet to be implemented (as of the application date)—that may help demonstrate how the applicant has addressed or otherwise mitigated such uncorrected matters, such that any negative impact on the proposed program and its implementation would be immaterial or would be significantly reduced or eliminated (to the extent that the applicant believes that any of the information provided pursuant to this disclosure may be confidential in nature, the applicant should specifically identify it).

[2] A DOJ high-risk grantee is an award recipient that has received a DOJ high-risk designation based on a documented history of unsatisfactory performance, financial instability, management system or other internal control deficiencies, or noncompliance with award terms and conditions on prior awards, or that is otherwise not responsible.

Application Review Information

OJP is committed to ensuring a fair and open process for making awards. OJP reviews each application to make sure that the information presented is reasonable, understandable, measurable, and achievable, as well as consistent with the solicitation (for invited applications, OJP reviews for consistency with the invitation letter and invited applicant guidance). Applications for statutory formula awards will be reviewed to ensure statutory requirements have been met.

The following paragraphs are applicable to applicants for competitive funding:
Applications that meet the basic minimum requirements, will undergo a merit-based review process in accordance with OJP peer review policy and procedures using the review criteria listed in the solicitation.

OJP screens applications to ensure they meet the basic minimum requirements prior to conducting the peer review. Although specific requirements may vary, the following are common requirements applicable to all OJP solicitations:

• The application must be submitted by an eligible type of applicant
• The application must request funding within programmatic funding constraints (if applicable)
• The application must be responsive to the scope of the solicitation
• The application must include all items necessary to meet the basic minimum requirements

Refer to the solicitation for the list of all items that must be included in the application submission in order for an application to meet the basic minimum requirements.

Reviewers' ratings and any resulting recommendations are advisory only, although reviewer views are considered carefully. Other important considerations for OJP include geographic diversity, strategic priorities, and available funding, as well as the extent to which the Budget Worksheet and Budget Narrative accurately explain project costs that are reasonable, necessary, and otherwise allowable under federal law and applicable federal cost principles.

Risk Review

Generally, the following paragraphs are applicable to all applicants:
Pursuant to 2 C.F.R. Part 200 Uniform Requirements, before award decisions are made, OJP also reviews information related to the degree of risk posed by the applicant. Among other things to help assess whether an applicant with one or more prior federal awards has a satisfactory record with respect to performance, integrity, and business ethics, OJP checks whether the applicant is listed in SAM.gov as excluded from receiving a federal award.

In addition, if OJP anticipates that an award will exceed $250,000 in federal funds, OJP also must review and consider any information about the applicant that appears in the responsibility/qualification information section of SAM.gov (formerly the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, FAPIIS).

Important note on responsibility/qualification information: An applicant may review and comment on any information about itself that currently appears in the responsibility/qualification information in SAM.gov (formerly in FAPIIS) and was entered by a federal awarding agency. OJP will consider such comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the responsibility/qualification information section, in its assessment of the risk posed by the applicant.

The evaluation of risks goes beyond information in SAM.gov, however. OJP itself has a framework in place for evaluating risks posed by applicants for competitive awards. OJP takes into account information pertinent to matters such as—

• applicant financial stability and fiscal integrity;
• quality of the applicant's management systems, and the applicant's ability to meet prescribed management standards, including those outlined in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide;
• applicant's history of performance under OJP and other DOJ awards (including compliance with reporting requirements and award conditions), as well as awards from other federal agencies;
• reports and findings from audits of the applicant, including audits under the Part 200 Uniform Requirements; and
• applicant's ability to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements, and to effectively implement other award requirements.

Risks associated with all DOJ high-risk grantees^[3] are taken into account during the pre-award risk scoring, and each applicant with a DOJ high-risk designation will be considered for funding on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature and severity of the issues that led to the DOJ high-risk designation, status of progress in addressing corrective actions, and demonstrated ability to manage grant funds and achieve grant goals and objectives.

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

[3] A DOJ high-risk grantee is an award recipient that has received a DOJ high-risk designation based on a documented history of unsatisfactory performance, financial instability, management system or other internal control deficiencies, or noncompliance with award terms and conditions on prior awards, or that is otherwise not responsible.

Federal Award Administration Information

Financial Information

Financial Management and System of Internal Controls

To better understand the applicable administrative requirements and cost principles, OJP encourages prospective applicants to enroll, at no charge, in the DOJ Grants Financial Management Online Training (this training is required for all OJP award recipients).

Award recipients and subrecipients (including recipients or subrecipients that are pass-through entities^[4]) must, as described in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements^[5] as set out in 2 C.F.R. 200.303:

1. Establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that [the recipient (and any subrecipient)] is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and the “Internal Control Integrated Framework,” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).
2. Comply with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards.
3. Evaluate and monitor [the recipient's (and any subrecipient's)] compliance with statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards.
4. Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings.
5. Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or [the recipient (or any subrecipient)] considers sensitive consistent with applicable federal, state, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and obligations of confidentiality.

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

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

Federal Award Notices

Generally, award notifications are made by the end of the current federal fiscal year, September 30. OJP sends award notifications by email through JustGrants to the individuals listed in the application as the Entity Administrator, Application Submitter, and the Authorized Representative. The email notification includes detailed instructions on how to access and view the award documents, and steps to take in JustGrants to start the award acceptance process.

OJP also posts award data after notifications occur and can be accessed on https://www.ojp.gov/funding/explore/ojp-award-data.

Applicants not selected for an award will receive notification after all award recipients have been notified. Notification timeframes may vary but typically occur no later than the end of the calendar year, December 31.

Award Acceptance

For each successful applicant, an individual with the necessary authority to bind the applicant will be required to:

1. Log in.
2. Execute a set of legal certifications and a set of legal assurances.
3. Thoroughly review the award, including all award conditions.
4. Electronically sign and accept the award within 45 days of the award date.

The award acceptance process is electronic in JustGrants. Award notifications are sent to the Entity Administrator, Authorized Representative, and Application Submitter. If the individuals who will be assigned the Grant Award Administrator and Financial Manager for this award are not already users of JustGrants, those individuals will need to be invited to gain access and log in to JustGrants in order to assign the necessary roles for award acceptance. Training and resources on Entity Management and onboarding users into JustGrants is located at https://justicegrants.usdoj.gov/training-resources/justgrants-training/entity-management.

Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements

The applicant should consult the Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements – FY 2024 Awards, available in the OJP Funding Resource Center: Legal Overview for Awards. In addition, the applicant should examine the following two legal documents, as each applicant must execute both documents before submitting the application.

• Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements; Coordination with Affected Agencies
• Certified Standard Assurances

The webpages accessible through the Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements – FY 2024 Awards are intended to give applicants for OJP awards a general overview of important statutes, regulations, and award conditions that apply to many (or in some cases, all) OJP grants and cooperative agreements awarded in FY 2024. OJP awards typically will include additional award conditions. Those additional conditions may relate to the particular statute, program, or solicitation under which the award is made; to the substance of the funded application; to the recipient's performance under other federal awards; to the recipient's legal status (e.g., as a for-profit entity); or to other pertinent considerations.

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

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

Information Technology (IT) Security Clauses

The applicant is reminded that—

• receipt of an OJP award does not provide authorization for the recipient to operate a system on behalf of OJP;
• the recipient is not authorized to be in custody of DOJ Information; and
• for awards (grants or cooperative agreements) that will include the design, development, or implementation of an IT system or website, the following metadata must be provided to the OJP Office of the Chief Information Officer prior to the recipient being permitted to access funds:
  • System/Website Name
  • Description
  • URL
  • Awarding Program Office
  • Award Number
  • Hosting Information (location, provider)
  • 508 Compliance (yes or no)
  • Product/Technologies Used

An applicant is not required to submit metadata with the application. This information is included to inform successful applicants that meet the criteria listed above that they will be required to submit the metadata as a condition of the award. 

General Information About Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements

OJP strongly encourages the use of data and evidence in policymaking and program development for criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim services. OJP is committed to—

• improving the quantity and quality of evidence OJP generates,
• integrating evidence into program, practice, and policy decisions within OJP and the field, and
• improving the translation of evidence into practice.

The OJP CrimeSolutions.ojp.gov website is one resource that applicants may use to find information about evidence-based programs in criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim services.

Information Regarding Potential Evaluation of Programs and Activities

OJP may conduct or support evaluations of the programs and activities funded under its solicitations. Recipients and subrecipients will be expected to cooperate with program related assessments or evaluation efforts, including through the collection and provision of information or data requested by OJP (or its designee) for the assessment or evaluation of any activities and/or outcomes of those activities funded under a grant award. The information or data requested may be in addition to any other financial or performance data already required under the program.

Note on Project Evaluations

An applicant that proposes to use award funds through the solicitation to conduct project evaluations should be aware that certain project evaluations (such as systematic investigations designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge) may constitute “research^[6]” for purposes of applicable DOJ human subjects protection regulations. However, project evaluations that are intended only to generate internal improvements to a program or service, or are conducted only to meet OJP's performance measure data reporting requirements, likely do not constitute “research.” The applicant should provide sufficient information for OJP to determine whether the particular project it proposes would either intentionally or unintentionally collect and/or use information in such a way that it meets the DOJ definition of research that appears at 28 C.F.R. Part 46 (Protection of Human Subjects).

For additional information on determining whether a proposed activity would constitute research for purposes of human subjects protection, applicants should consult the decision tree in the “Research and the protection of human subjects” section of the Requirements related to Research webpage of the Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements - FY 2024 Awards, available through the OJP Funding Resource Center. Every prospective applicant whose application may propose a research or statistical component also should review the “Data Privacy and Confidentiality Requirements” section on that webpage.

[6] “Research,” for purposes of human subjects protection for OJP-funded programs, is defined as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” 28 C.F.R. 46.102(d).

Other Information

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

All applications submitted to OJP (including all attachments to applications) are subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and to the Privacy Act. By law, DOJ may withhold information that is responsive to a request pursuant to FOIA if DOJ determines that the responsive information either is protected under the Privacy Act or falls within the scope of one of nine statutory exemptions under FOIA. DOJ cannot agree in advance of a request pursuant to FOIA not to release some or all portions of an application.

In its review of records that are responsive to a FOIA request, OJP will withhold information in those records that plainly falls within the scope of the Privacy Act or one of the statutory exemptions under FOIA (some examples include certain types of information in budgets, and names and contact information for project staff other than certain key personnel). In appropriate circumstances, OJP will request the views of the applicant/recipient that submitted a responsive document.

Provide Feedback to OJP

To assist OJP in improving its application and award processes, OJP encourages applicants to provide feedback on the solicitation, the application submission process, and/or the application review process. Provide this feedback to [email protected].

IMPORTANT: This email is for feedback and suggestions only. OJP does not reply from this mailbox. Any prospective applicant that has specific questions on any program or technical aspect of a solicitation must use the appropriate telephone number or email listed in the Agency Contact Information section of the solicitation to obtain information. These contacts are provided to help prospective applicants directly reach an individual who can address their specific questions in a timely manner.

To Become an OJP Peer Reviewer

If you are interested in being a reviewer for OJP grant applications, please email your resume to [email protected] (do not send your resume to the OJP Solicitation Feedback email account). You also can visit the Peer Reviewers webpage to learn more about the expertise required for each OJP program office. If you are selected as a peer reviewer, there are training materials under that webpage’s resources section to help you get started. Note: Neither you nor anyone else from your organization or entity can be a peer reviewer in a competition in which you or your organization/entity has submitted an application.