NCJ Number
252009
Date Published
September 2017
Length
3 pages
Annotation
This is the fiscal year (FY) 2016 report on the federal Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grants Program, which provides funding to states and units of local government for improvement in the quality and timeliness of forensic science and medical examiner services, in compliance with the Coverdell Act.
Abstract
The U.S. Justice Department's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) implements the Coverdell Grants Program through a grant solicitation that has both a formula and a competitive component. Only states are eligible to apply for the formula component. The Coverdell Act requires that 75 percent of the total program funds be awarded to states through State Administering Agencies (SAAs). The remaining 25 percent of program funds are awarded competitively. They may be awarded to SAAs or dispersed directly to units of local government based on the merits of the applications. On February 24, 2016, NIJ released the solicitation for funding applications under the FY 2016 Coverdell Grants Program. NIJ received 161 applications, with 32 states applying for base funding and 22 states applying for a combination of base and competitive funding. The remaining 101 applications were received from units of local government for competitive funding. Twenty-six competitive applications were denied due to various circumstances, such as duplicate applications, failure to meet basic minimum requirements, and non-responsiveness to solicitation criteria. NIJ made 74 awards that totaled $11,959,348; 52 states received base awards; 2 states received a combination of base and competitive awards; and 20 units of local government received competitive awards.
Date Published: September 1, 2017
Downloads
Similar Publications
- Strengthening the Medical Examiner-Coroner System Program
- To activate, or not to activate? Officers’ decisions to turn on body-worn cameras during different police services
- Testing the Invariance of Warrior and Guardian Orientations on the Prioritization of Procedural Justice: Do Officer Demographics Matter?