NIJ FY18 Research and Evaluation on Promising Reentry Initiatives | NIJ 2018 14380

FAQs: NIJ FY18 Research and Evaluation on Promising Reentry Initiatives (NIJ 2018 14380)

What is the NIJ FY18 Research and Evaluation on Promising Reentry Initiatives opportunity?

It was a discretionary research grant offered by the U.S. Department of Justice through the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). The funding opportunity number was NIJ 2018 14380, and it focused on building credible evidence about what works in offender reentry through rigorous research and evaluation.

What was the main purpose of this grant?

The core purpose was to strengthen the evidence base on reentry by funding studies that do more than describe programs. NIJ wanted evaluations that test reentry initiatives in ways that produce credible, actionable findings, with the broader goal of reducing recidivism and supporting safer communities.

What types of projects was NIJ looking to fund?

NIJ was looking for rigorous, research-driven proposals that evaluate reentry initiatives serving adult or juvenile offenders. The focus was on evaluation and evidence generation rather than general program documentation.

What does "promising reentry initiatives" mean in this solicitation?

In this context, "promising" referred to practices, strategies, or programs that show potential to improve reentry outcomes but still need strong evaluation to confirm effectiveness and to clarify how and why they work.

Which populations could be included in the studies?

The solicitation supported research on reentry initiatives serving either adult offenders or juvenile offenders.

What settings could the reentry initiatives take place in?

The initiatives under study could be based in institutional corrections (such as prisons, jails, or juvenile facilities), community corrections (such as probation, parole, reentry supervision, and community-based service delivery), or span both institutional and community settings.

Did NIJ require randomized controlled trials (RCTs)?

RCTs were not described as an absolute requirement, but NIJ signaled a strong preference for randomized controlled trials. The emphasis indicates NIJ prioritized designs that can establish causal impact through clear comparisons between people who receive an intervention and similar people who do not.

Why did NIJ emphasize randomized controlled trials?

Because RCTs are widely viewed as the strongest evaluation design for estimating causal effects, they help minimize bias and strengthen confidence in conclusions about whether a reentry initiative actually caused changes in outcomes.

What outcomes was NIJ interested in measuring?

The solicitation linked reentry success to public safety goals and highlighted outcomes such as rearrest, reconviction, reincarceration, and compliance with supervision. It also suggested the importance of intermediate outcomes that can support long-term success, including employment, education, housing stability, substance use recovery, mental health engagement, and improved social supports.

How did this opportunity connect to Department of Justice priorities?

The policy rationale was tied to DOJ priorities around reducing violent crime and improving public safety, including protecting police and other public safety personnel. NIJ connected those priorities to reentry by emphasizing recidivism reduction and helping returning individuals become law-abiding, productive members of society.

What was NIJ expecting from applicants in terms of research capacity?

Because the funding emphasized research and evaluation, applicants were expected to have strong methodological skills, credible plans for collecting and analyzing data, and solid partnerships with corrections agencies or service providers to support implementation, data access, and evaluation feasibility.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was broad and included state, county, and city or township governments; public and state-controlled institutions of higher education; private institutions of higher education; federally recognized tribal governments; nonprofits with or without 501(c)(3) status (as long as they were not institutions of higher education); individuals; for-profit organizations other than small businesses; and small businesses.

Could nonprofits apply even if they did not have 501(c)(3) status?

Yes. The solicitation stated that nonprofits with or without 501(c)(3) status were eligible, as long as they were not institutions of higher education.

Could universities and colleges apply?

Yes. Both public and state-controlled institutions of higher education and private institutions of higher education were listed as eligible applicants.

Could for-profit organizations apply?

Yes. The eligible applicant list included for-profit organizations other than small businesses, and small businesses were also eligible.

Could individuals apply?

Yes. Individuals were included among the eligible applicant types.

Could tribal governments apply?

Yes. Federally recognized tribal governments were explicitly listed as eligible applicants.

What were the funding activity categories associated with this opportunity?

The funding activity categories were listed as Law, Justice and Legal Services and Science and Technology and other Research and Development.

What was the CFDA number for this opportunity?

The CFDA number associated with the opportunity was 16.560, which is commonly tied to NIJ research funding.

How many awards did NIJ expect to make?

NIJ anticipated making approximately 2 awards under this solicitation.

What was the maximum award amount?

The award ceiling was up to $5,000,000 per award, indicating support for potentially large-scale, rigorous evaluations.

Why was the award ceiling so high?

The stated ceiling suggests NIJ was prepared to support complex evaluations, including multi-site studies, long follow-up periods, recruitment at scale, data linkage across agencies, and robust implementation and process analysis.

When was the opportunity posted and when did it close?

The opportunity was created on April 6, 2018, and the original closing date was August 6, 2018.

What made this solicitation likely competitive?

With only about two expected awards and a strong emphasis on rigorous evaluation (preferably randomized), the solicitation likely favored proposals with a strong theory of change, high-quality and feasible study design, defensible data and analytic plans, appropriate attention to recruitment and ethics, and clear value to practitioners and policymakers.

What was NIJ ultimately trying to achieve for the field of reentry?

NIJ designed the solicitation to move reentry research beyond anecdotal success stories and toward dependable evidence about which strategies deliver measurable benefits, under what conditions, and for which populations, so jurisdictions can make better-informed investments to reduce repeat offending and support successful reintegration.