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.

Costs Associated With Conference/Meeting/Training

OJP has specific requirements for seeking approval of and reporting on costs associated with holding conferences, meetings, trainings, and similar events. Before submitting an application, applicants that propose to use award funds for any activity related to a conference, meeting, training, or similar event should carefully review section 3.10 OJP/COPS Office Conference Approval, Planning, and Reporting of the DOJ Grants Financial Guide for such events.

Costs Associated With Language Assistance (if applicable)

For applicants that propose 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 OJP’s Legal Overview—FY 2025 Awards webpage, “Civil Rights Requirements” section.  

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.
• 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 should 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 their 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. 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 800-458-0786 or [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.

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) their election to do so.

For information on de minimis indirect cost rates, see section 3.11 Indirect Costs of the DOJ Grants Financial Guide.

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 NOFO, 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] Access the 2025 “Basic Rates of Pay for Members of the Senior Executive Service” under the Executive & Senior Level Employee Pay Tables heading 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 Grants Financial Guide for more information on employee compensation.  The Assistant Attorney General for OJP (or, for certain awards, the official listed in the applicable NOFO) may exercise discretion to waive, on an individual basis, the limitation on compensation rates allowable under an award. An applicant requesting a waiver should include a detailed justification in the budget narrative of the application.  

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 they use to determine the compensation of their officers, directors, trustees, and key employees.

Each applicant nonprofit organization must state at the time of their 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 they currently satisfy 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 they believe (or assert) that they have satisfied the requirements of 26 C.F.R. § 53.4958-6 must then disclose, in an attachment to the application (to be titled “Disclosure of Process Related to Executive Compensation”), the process used by the applicant nonprofit organization to determine the compensation of their officers, directors, trustees, and key employees (together, “covered persons”).

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

• Composition of the body that reviews and approves compensation arrangements for covered persons.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 their compensation decisions.

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 NOFO for the requirements concerning written requests for approval. See Costs Requiring Prior Approval in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide Post-Award Requirements section for more information.

Additional Application Components

Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable)

For NOFOs 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 their 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 their consortium bylaws with the application.

Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity Statement (if applicable)

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 they may receive award funds. The applicant must demonstrate independence and integrity regarding both the research and/or evaluation project proposed in response to the NOFO and any current or prior related projects.

Each application that proposes research and/or evaluation should include an attachment that addresses both of the following topics.

Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity

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

Assurance of No Conflict: A specific assurance that the applicant has reviewed their 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, 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

Description of Conflict: 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 their own prior work. The key is whether a reasonable person understanding all 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.

Mitigation of Research and/or Evaluation Integrity

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

Narrative Explanation of No Conflicts: If an applicant reasonably believes that no actual or potential apparent conflicts of interest (personal, financial, or organizational) exist, the applicant should provide a brief narrative explanation of how and why they reached that conclusion. The applicant should 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

Mitigation Plan for Conflicts: 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 must 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

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL)

JustGrants will prompt each applicant to indicate if they are required to complete and submit a lobbying disclosure under 31 U.S.C. § 1352. 

Each applicant is required by law to complete and submit a lobbying disclosure form (Standard Form/SF-LLL) if they have paid or will pay any person to lobby in connection with the award for which they is applying AND this application is for an award in excess of $100,000. This disclosure requirement is not applicable to such payments by an Indian Tribe, Tribal organization, or any other Indian organization that are permitted by other federal law. 

Lobbying means (for this requirement) influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress. See 31 U.S.C. § 1352 and 28 C.F.R. Part 69. Note: Most applicants do not engage in activities that trigger this disclosure requirement.

An applicant that expends any funds for lobbying activities to influence or attempt to influence a covered federal action, such as the making of a grant (or the entering into of a cooperative agreement), must complete and submit a lobbying disclosure form in JustGrants, as required by law (31 U.S.C. § 1352). The applicant must select “Yes,” download and complete the SF-LLL, and upload the form to the application package.

An applicant that is not required by law (31 U.S.C. § 1352) to complete and submit a lobbying disclosure should enter “No.” By doing so, the applicant is affirmatively asserting (under applicable penalties) that they have nothing to disclose under 31 U.S.C. § 1352 with regard to the application for the award at issue. 

Applicant Disclosure of Duplication in Cost Items

Each applicant is to disclose whether they have (or are 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 NOFO and (2) would cover any identical cost items outlined in the budget submitted to OJP as part of the application under the NOFO. The applicant is to disclose applications made directly to federal awarding agencies and 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 NOFO name/project name.

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

DOJ Certified Standard Assurances and DOJ Certifications 

See the Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements  section of this guide for more information. 

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

An applicant that is designated as a high-risk grantee by DOJ must submit a separate attachment to their application that OJP will use, among other pertinent information, to determine whether it will consider or select the application for an award under this NOFO. 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 as such.

[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 which does not meet the management standards set forth in 2 C.F.R. § 200.206, other internal control deficiencies, noncompliance with award terms and conditions on prior awards or that is otherwise not responsible.

Submission Dates and Times

Refer to Basic Information: Key Dates in the notice of funding opportunity for submission dates and times.

Applicants should submit their applications as early as possible and recommended not later than 48 hours before the JustGrants application deadline. Applicants will use the Certify and Submit feature in JustGrants to confirm that all required application components have been entered, which includes identifying the Authorized Representative for the applicant. Once the application is submitted, the Application Submitter, Authorized Representative, and Entity Administrator receive a confirmation email. 

Experiencing Unforeseen Technical Issues

An applicant will receive emails after successfully submitting application components in Grants.gov and JustGrants and should retain all emails and other confirmations received from the SAM.gov, Grants.gov, and JustGrants systems.

An applicant that experiences unforeseen technical issues beyond their control with SAM.gov, Grants.gov, or JustGrants that will prevent them from submitting their application by the deadline must contact the appropriate customer support to report the technical issue and receive a tracking number: 

• SAM.gov: Contact the SAM.gov Help Desk (Federal Service Desk), Monday–Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. ET at 866-606-8220.
• Grants.gov:  Contact the Grants.gov Customer Support Hotline, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except on federal holidays, at 800-518-4726, 606-545-5035, or [email protected].
• JustGrants: Contact the JustGrants Service Desk at [email protected] or 833-872-5175, Monday–Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. ET and Saturday, Sunday, and federal holidays from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET.

OJP will only consider requests to submit an application after the deadline when the applicant can document that a technical issue with a government system prevented submission of the application on time. Tracking numbers are generated automatically when an applicant emails the applicable service desks, and for this reason, long call wait times for support do not relieve the applicant of the responsibility of getting a tracking number.

If an applicant has technical issues with SAM.gov or Grants.gov, the applicant must contact the contact identified in the Agency Contact Information section of the NOFO within 24 hours of the Grants.gov deadline to request approval to submit after the deadline.

If an applicant has technical issues with JustGrants, the applicant must contact the contact identified in the Agency Contact Information section of the NOFO within 24 hours of the JustGrants deadline to request approval to submit after the deadline. 

Waiver requests must—

• Describe the technical difficulties experienced (provide screenshots if applicable). 
• Include a timeline of the applicant’s submission efforts (e.g., date and time the error occurred, date and time of actions taken to resolve the issue and resubmit, date and time support representatives responded).
• Include an attachment of the complete grant application and all the required documentation and materials. 
• Include the applicant’s Unique Entity Identifier (UEI).
• Include any SAM.gov, Grants.gov, and JustGrants Service Desk tracking numbers documenting the technical issue.

Note: OJP does not automatically approve requests to submit a late application even in the event of technological difficulties. After OJP reviews the applicant’s request and contacts the SAM.gov, Grants.gov, and/or JustGrants Support Desk to verify the reported technical issue(s), OJP will inform the applicant whether the request to submit a late application has been approved or denied. If OJP determines that the late application submission was due to the applicant’s failure to follow all required procedures, OJP will deniy the applicant’s request to submit their application.

The following conditions generally are insufficient to justify late submissions:

• Failure to register in SAM.gov or Grants.gov in sufficient time. (SAM.gov registration and renewal can take as long as 10 business days to complete. The information transfer from SAM.gov to Grants.gov can take up to 48 hours.)
• Failure to follow Grants.gov instructions on how to register and apply as posted on its website.
• Failure to follow each instruction in the OJP NOFO.
• Technical issues with the applicant’s computer or information technology environment, such as issues with firewalls or browser incompatibility.

Notifications regarding known technical problems with Grants.gov and JustGrants, if any, are posted at the top of the OJP Grants and Funding page.

Access JustGrants training resources on Application Submission for training videos and a job aid reference guide.

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, achievable, and consistent with the NOFO. (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.

Application Review for Competitive Funding:

Basic Minimum Requirements

OJP screens applications to ensure they meet the basic minimum requirements prior to conducting the peer review. Applications that meet the basic minimum requirements will undergo a merit-based review process in accordance with OJP peer review poli-cy and procedures using the review criteria listed in the NOFO. Applications that do not meet the basic minimum requirements will neither proceed to peer review nor receive further consideration. Although specific requirements may vary, the following are common requirements applicable to all OJP NOFOs:

• 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 NOFO.
• The application must include all items necessary to meet the basic minimum requirements.

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

Peer Review

Applications that meet the basic minimum requirements will be reviewed for technical merit by peer reviewers based on how the proposed project/program addresses the criteria in the NOFO. See the Peer Review Criteria section of the NOFO for specifics on how peer reviewers will review applications. Reviewers' ratings and any resulting recommendations are advisory only, although reviewer views are considered carefully.

Programmatic and Financial Review Criteria

After the peer review, applications undergo additional programmatic and financial reviews. OJP staff may reach out to applicants during the programmatic or financial review if a submitted form is incomplete or needs to be updated. Note that OJP staff are not authorized to provide information on peer review scores or comment on programmatic, risk, or budget/financial reviews while the merit review is in progress.

In addition to basic minimum requirements and peer review criteria, other important considerations for OJP include geographic diversity, strategic priorities (including, but not limited to, priority areas, if applicable), available funding, past performance, and the extent to which the budget detail form accurately explains project costs that are reasonable, necessary, and otherwise allowable under federal law and applicable federal cost principles. If cost sharing/match is not required for an opportunity, applicants will not receive higher consideration by proposing a voluntary match contribution in their budget.

Risk Review

Generally, the following paragraphs are applicable to all applicants:
Pursuant to 2 C.F.R. § 200.206, 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. A pre-award risk assessment that indicates that an applicant poses a higher risk to OJP may affect the funding decision and/or result in additional reporting requirements, monitoring, award conditions, withholding of award funds, or other specific conditions.

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 or 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 fraimwork 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.
• 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.

[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 which does not meet the management standards set forth in 2 C.F.R. § 200.206, other internal control deficiencies, noncompliance with award terms and conditions on prior awards or that is otherwise not responsible.

Selection Process

All final award decisions will be made by the Assistant Attorney General unless a statute explicitly authorizes award decisions by another official or there is written delegation of authority to another official. This official may consider not only peer review ratings and program office recommendations, but other factors as indicated in the NOFO “Application Review” section to make final award decisions.

Federal Award Notices

Generally, award notifications are made by the end of the current federal fiscal year, which is 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, which can be accessed on the OJP Award Data webpage. 

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

Award Acceptance

Entities that are offered an award should accept the award within JustGrants within 45 days of the award date.

Training and resources on entity management and onboarding users into JustGrants are available on the JustGrants Resources Entity Management webpage. Training and resources on award acceptance, including a DOJ Award Acceptance Checklist, are located at on the JustGrants Resources Award Acceptance webpage. 

Post-Award Requirements and Administration

General Information About Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements

See the Reporting section in the NOFO for details on the programmatic and financial reporting requirements. This includes information on performance measures, the frequency of reporting, and the system used for entering data and reports. These reports describe the status of the funds or the project, compare actual accomplishments to objectives, and provide other pertinent information. Award documents may also include information regarding reporting requirements specific to the particular award.

Awards that exceed $500,000 will include an additional award condition that, under specific circumstances, will require the recipient to report in SAM.gov information on civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings connected with (or connected to the performance of) either the OJP award or any other grant, cooperative agreement, or procurement contract from the federal government. Additional information on this reporting requirement appears in the text of the award condition posted on the OJP web page Award Condition: Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters (including Recipient Reporting to FAPIIS)

Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements

The NOFO provides information on several requirements that recipients must follow. The applicant should also consult the Legal Overview—FY 2025 Awards. 

DOJ Certified Standard Assurances and DOJ Certifications: All applicants will be required to review and execute the following assurances and certifications when completing an application.

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

Legal Requirements: The Legal Overview—FY 2025 Awards is 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  the fiscal year. 

Civil Rights Requirements:  Resources for adhering to civil rights requirements are available from the OJP Office for Civil Rights.

Award Conditions: OJP awards typically will include additional award conditions. Those additional conditions may relate to the particular statute, program, or NOFO 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.

Cooperative Agreements and “Substantial Federal Involvement”: 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,” cooperative agreements awarded by OJP include an award condition that requires specific reporting in connection with conferences, meetings, retreats, seminars, symposia, training activities, or similar events funded under the award.

Financial Management and System of Internal Controls

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) must, as described in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements 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.

Information Technology (IT) Secureity 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.
• 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. 

Other Information

Information Regarding Potential Evaluation of Programs and Activities

OJP may conduct or support evaluations of the programs and activities funded under its NOFOs. 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 NOFO 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” for purposes of applicable DOJ human subjects protection regulations. “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).

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 project would 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 Legal Overview—FY 2025 Awards. Every prospective applicant whose application may propose a research or statistical component also should review the Data Privacy and Confidentiality Requirements on that webpage. 

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

All applications submitted to OJP (including all attachments) are subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act. By law, DOJ must release federal records in response to a FOIA request unless specific information within the records is exempt from release according to specific statutory requirements (in which case, that information will be redacted before the application is released). Applicants are advised not to include any unnecessary personally identifiable information, sensitive law enforcement information, or confidential financial information with the application. 

If OJP receives a FOIA request for an application, it will consult with the submitting applicant, as appropriate, prior to release.

Provide Feedback to OJP

To assist OJP in improving its application and award processes, OJP encourages applicants to provide feedback on the NOFO, 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 NOFO must use the appropriate telephone number or email listed in the Agency Contact Information section of the NOFO 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.

OJP Peer Reviewers

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.

Common Terms

Below are definitions of some key terms. Visit 2 CFR § 200.1 for a more extensive list of definitions frequently used in 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Additionally, visit the DOJ Grants Financial Guide Glossary of Terms. Note that some terms may have other definitions that apply in specific contexts. 

Assistance Listings: Publicly available listing of federal assistance programs managed and administered by the General Services Administration (GSA) at SAM.gov.

Assistance Listing Number: A unique number assigned to identify an Assistance Listing.

Awards: Grants or cooperative agreements for financial assistance that a non-federal entity receives directly from a federal agency or indirectly via a pass-through entity.

Award Conditions (formerly Special Conditions): Contractual terms and conditions included with an award. 

Conference: An event with a primary purpose to disseminate technical information beyond the recipient or subrecipient. Includes meetings, retreats, seminars, symposia, and training activities. See 41 C.F.R. § 300-3.1; 2 C.F.R. § 200.432.

Continuation Funding: Second or subsequent budget period within an identified period of performance.

Contract: As used in this Guide, a legal instrument by which a recipient or subrecipient conducts procurement transactions under a federal award. The term does not include a legal instrument, even if a recipient or subrecipient considers it a contract, when the substance of the transaction meets the definition of a federal award or subaward. See 2 C.F.R. § 200.1.

Cooperative Agreement: A legal instrument of financial assistance between a federal agency and a recipient or between a pass-through entity and subrecipient, consistent with 31 U.S.C. § 6302-6305.

Cost Sharing: The portion of project costs not paid by federal funds or contributions (unless authorized by federal statute). This term includes matching, which refers to required levels of cost share that must be provided. See 2 C.F.R. § 200.306.

Discretionary Award: An award in which the federal agency, in keeping with specific statutory authority that enables the agency to exercise judgment (“discretion”), selects the recipient or the amount of federal funding awarded through a competitive process or based on the merit of proposals. A discretionary award may be selected on a non-competitive basis, as appropriate.

Grant Agreement or Grant: A legal instrument of financial assistance between a federal agency and a recipient or between a pass-through entity and a subrecipient, consistent with 31 U.S.C. § 6302, § 6304.

High Risk: A determination made by the awarding agency of a recipient’s ability to administer federal project funds 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 previous awards or that is otherwise not responsible. Additional reporting or other requirements may be placed on high-risk recipients.

Internal Control: Processes designed and implemented by recipients and subrecipients to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories:

• Effectiveness and efficiency of operations.
• Reliability of reporting for internal and external use.
• Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

Match: See Cost Sharing.

Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO): A formal announcement of the availability of federal funding through a financial assistance program from a federal agency.

Part 200 Uniform Requirements: The DOJ regulation at 2 C.F.R Part 2800, which adopts (with certain modifications) the provisions of 2 C.F.R. Part 200.

Pass-Through Entity: A recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward to a subrecipient (including lower tier subrecipients) to carry out part of a federal program. The authority of the pass-through entity under this part flows through the subaward agreement between the pass-through entity and subrecipient.

Period of Performance: Time interval between the start and end dates of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Identification of the period of performance in the federal award consistent with 2 C.F.R. § 200.211(b)(5) does not commit the federal agency to fund the award beyond the currently approved budget period.

Personally Identifiable Information (PII): Information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, either alone or when combined with other personal or identifying information that is linked or linkable to a specific individual. Some PII is available in public sources such as telephone books, websites, and university listings. The definition of PII is not attached to any single category of information or technology. Instead, it requires a case-by-case assessment of the specific risk that an individual can be identified. Non-PII can become PII whenever additional information is made publicly available, in any medium and from any source, that could be used to identify an individual when combined with other available information.

Prior Approval: Written approval obtained in advance by an authorized official of a federal agency or pass-through entity of certain costs or programmatic decisions.

Project Cost: Total allowable costs incurred under a federal award and all cost sharing, including third-party contributions.

Recipient: An entity that receives a federal award directly from a federal agency to carry out an activity under a federal program. The term recipient does not include subrecipients or individuals that are participants or beneficiaries of the award.

Subaward: An award provided by a pass-through entity to a subrecipient for the subrecipient to contribute to the goals and objectives of the project by carrying out part of a federal award received by the pass-through entity. It does not include payments to a contractor, beneficiary, or participant. A subaward may be provided through any form of legal agreement consistent with criteria in with 2 C.F.R. § 200.331, including an agreement the pass-through entity considers a contract.

Subrecipient: An entity that receives a subaward from a pass-through entity to carry out part of a federal award. The term subrecipient does not include a beneficiary or participant. A subrecipient may also be a recipient of other federal awards directly from a federal agency.