Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Sexual Assault Kit Initiative | Apply Online

FAQs: NIJ/BJA Cooperative Agreement for Early-Stage Evaluation Work Related to SAKI (NIJ 2016 10020)

What was the goal of this funding opportunity?

The goal was to fund early-stage evaluation work connected to the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI). The work was meant to generate practical and research-ready information that would set the stage for a later, rigorous, comprehensive national evaluation of SAKI.

Was this funding intended to pay for a full national evaluation of SAKI?

No. The purpose was to lay the groundwork for a later comprehensive evaluation by documenting what is happening at SAKI sites, determining what can realistically be measured, and designing how a full evaluation should be conducted.

Which federal agencies were involved?

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), working with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), solicited applications for this cooperative agreement.

What type of award was offered?

The opportunity was funded through a cooperative agreement, not a standard grant. This indicates NIJ expected substantial involvement in the project, such as collaboration on evaluation design and deliverables, coordination with BJA and participating sites, and ongoing federal oversight.

What were the main areas of work applicants were asked to address?

The solicitation described three related areas of interest: (1) process evaluations (including descriptive case studies) at up to five more advanced SAKI sites; (2) evaluability assessments across the then-existing 20 SAKI sites and development of a comprehensive evaluation plan for SAKI; and (3) assessment of proximal outcomes from the 2015 SAKI awards.

What did NIJ mean by a "process evaluation" for SAKI sites?

The process evaluation work was intended to document how SAKI implementation actually works in the field. Examples mentioned include how agencies organize testing and investigation workflows, coordinate across partners, manage victim notification, and handle data and tracking.

How many sites were targeted for the process evaluations and case studies?

Up to five more advanced SAKI sites were to be included for process evaluations and descriptive case studies.

Why did the solicitation emphasize "more advanced" SAKI sites for case studies?

The emphasis on advanced sites reflected an interest in capturing mature practices and lessons learned that could be translated into actionable guidance for newer or less developed jurisdictions.

What is an "evaluability assessment" in the context of this opportunity?

An evaluability assessment typically examines whether programs are sufficiently defined, implemented consistently enough, and supported by usable data to support credible evaluation. It also identifies feasible outcomes and comparison strategies for later evaluation work.

How many SAKI sites were included in the evaluability assessment component?

The solicitation called for evaluability assessments across the then-existing 20 SAKI sites.

What was the expected output of the evaluability assessment work?

The solicitation implied a structured, initiative-wide evaluation blueprint (a comprehensive evaluation plan). This blueprint would describe research questions, measures, methods, site selection or sampling approaches, data sources, and practical considerations such as data quality, privacy, and interagency access.

What did the solicitation request regarding outcomes, and which award year did it focus on?

It requested an assessment of proximal (near-term) outcomes from the 2015 SAKI awards, focusing on early-phase results rather than long-term impacts that may take years to detect.

What are examples of "proximal outcomes" mentioned for the 2015 SAKI awards?

Examples described include increases in kit inventory and tracking, movement of kits through testing, investigative follow-up activity, referrals for prosecution, or other early system outputs tied to SAKI-funded work.

What was the Funding Opportunity Number?

The Funding Opportunity Number was NIJ 2016 10020.

What CFDA program was this associated with?

This opportunity was under CFDA 16.560.

What category was this funding listed under?

The category was Law, Justice and Legal Services.

Was this a discretionary funding opportunity?

Yes. It was described as a discretionary funding opportunity.

How much funding was available, and what was the award ceiling?

The award ceiling was $2,000,000.

How many awards were anticipated?

One award was anticipated, suggesting NIJ was seeking a single entity or lead team to coordinate work across multiple jurisdictions and deliver a unified evaluation plan and findings.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was broad and included state governments; county governments; city or township governments; public and private institutions of higher education; federally recognized tribal governments; nonprofit organizations with or without 501(c)(3) status; individuals; and for-profit organizations (including small businesses).

When was the opportunity posted, and what was the application deadline?

The opportunity was posted on April 15, 2016 (and created the same day). The application closing date was June 10, 2016.

What does it mean that NIJ expected "substantial involvement" under a cooperative agreement?

Based on the description provided, it means NIJ likely expected active collaboration during the project, including working with the awardee on evaluation design decisions, refining deliverables, coordinating with BJA and participating sites, and providing ongoing oversight to keep the work aligned with federal evaluation priorities and site realities.

In plain terms, what was this grant designed to accomplish for SAKI?

It was designed to strengthen the evidence base around SAKI by (1) documenting implementation in advanced sites, (2) determining evaluation readiness and feasible measurement across participating jurisdictions, and (3) capturing early outcomes from initial awards so a later national evaluation could be both methodologically credible and operationally feasible.