Opportunity Information: Apply for NIJ 2009 2229
Apply for NIJ 2009 2229
- The National Institute of Justice in the law, justice and legal services science and technology and other research and development sector is offering a public funding opportunity titled "NIJ FY 09 Fundamental Research to Improve Understanding of the Accuracy, Reliability, and Measurement Validity of Forensic Science Disciplines" and is now available to receive applicants.
- Interested and eligible applicants and submit their applications by referencing the CFDA number(s): 16.560 National Institute of Justice Research, Evaluation, and Development Project Grants.
- This funding opportunity was created on May 22, 2009 and posted on May 13, 2009.
- Applicants must submit their applications by Jun 22, 2009. (Agency may still review applications by suitable applicants for the remaining/unused allocated funding in 2026.)
- The number of recipients for this funding is limited to 15 candidate(s).
- Eligible applicants include: Unrestricted (i.e., open to any type of entity above), subject to any clarification in text field entitled Additional Information on Eligibility.
[Watch] Creating a grant proposal using the step-by-step wizard inside the applicant portal:
Opportunity Summary:
The NIJ FY 09 Fundamental Research to Improve Understanding of the Accuracy, Reliability, and Measurement Validity of Forensic Science Disciplines grant opportunity was a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) solicitation under the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, aimed at strengthening the scientific underpinnings of forensic science. The central purpose was to fund foundational research that improves how well the forensic community can measure and explain the accuracy, reliability, and measurement validity of forensic methods across disciplines (physical, chemical, biological, digital, and others). In this program, "validity" is used in a scientific measurement sense: how strongly the relevant scientific evidence supports an inference as true or correct. The solicitation explicitly focused on scientific measurement and inference, not on subjective, purely qualitative, or legal debates about validity.
The opportunity was framed in direct response to the February 2009 National Academy of Sciences report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, which highlighted gaps in scientific foundations, particularly in pattern and impression disciplines that often depend on expert interpretation. NIJ pointed to prior and ongoing federally supported work in areas like toolmark analysis, questioned document examination, and latent print examination, along with other studies touching forensic effectiveness in the justice system (for example, research on DNA evidence in property crime investigations and studies on the accuracy of voice stress analysis). This solicitation was intended to extend and deepen that line of work by supporting more comprehensive studies of the methods forensic scientists use and by building better empirical evidence about what these methods can and cannot reliably conclude.
A key theme in the solicitation was moving the field toward quantifiable, defensible measures of performance and uncertainty. NIJ encouraged research that develops measurable estimates of reliability and accuracy and that examines the full workflow of forensic practice, from the initial decision to accept evidence (including assessing probative value and sample quality) through analysis and interpretation, and ultimately to how conclusions are stated. Applicants were encouraged to propose new approaches, including ways to quantify techniques that have historically been qualitative in nature. In addition, NIJ highlighted the need to study possible systemic and human sources of error, including observer effects such as contextual bias, perceptual mistakes, and other influences on expert judgment. The solicitation also welcomed studies that look at how forensic practitioners interact with other parts of the criminal justice system, recognizing that case context, communication practices, and institutional processes can shape conclusions.
Another major objective was to establish practical limits on forensic performance. NIJ sought studies that identify and measure the sources and magnitude of uncertainty in forensic conclusions and that clarify the conditions under which accuracy and reliability degrade, such as variation in evidence quality, environmental effects, or differences in collection and handling. The emphasis was on fundamental understanding rather than incremental productivity gains: NIJ stated it was not seeking projects focused primarily on automation or efficiency improvements, except where such work directly contributes to deeper scientific understanding of the methods or improves practice through foundational findings.
Administratively, this was a discretionary funding opportunity using a cooperative agreement mechanism, with an expectation of about 15 awards. The program fell under CFDA 16.560 (National Institute of Justice Research, Evaluation, and Development Project Grants) and did not require cost sharing or matching. Eligibility was listed as unrestricted (open to any type of entity, subject to any clarifications in the full solicitation). The opportunity was posted May 13, 2009, with an application closing date of June 22, 2009, and it was later archived September 22, 2009. The award floor and ceiling were not specified in the summary information provided. Applications were required to be submitted through the Office of Justice Programs Grants Management System (GMS), with technical submission support available via the GMS hotline, and solicitation-related questions directed to NIJ staff (notably Chris Tillery, Associate Deputy Director for Science and Technology, with a phone contact listed in the notice).
FAQs: NIJ FY 09 Fundamental Research to Improve Understanding of the Accuracy, Reliability, and Measurement Validity of Forensic Science Disciplines
What is this grant opportunity?
This was a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) solicitation under the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, focused on funding fundamental research to strengthen the scientific foundations of forensic science disciplines.
What was the central purpose of the solicitation?
The central purpose was to fund foundational research that improves how well the forensic community can measure and explain the accuracy, reliability, and measurement validity of forensic methods across disciplines, including physical, chemical, biological, digital, and other forensic areas.
How does the solicitation define "validity"?
"Validity" was used in a scientific measurement sense: how strongly the relevant scientific evidence supports an inference as true or correct. The solicitation emphasized scientific measurement and inference rather than subjective, purely qualitative, or legal debates about validity.
Why did NIJ release this solicitation?
The opportunity was framed as a direct response to the February 2009 National Academy of Sciences report, "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward," which highlighted gaps in the scientific underpinnings of forensic science, especially in pattern and impression disciplines that often depend on expert interpretation.
What kinds of forensic disciplines or topics were within scope?
The solicitation was broadly framed to include multiple forensic science disciplines (physical, chemical, biological, digital, and others). It also referenced prior and ongoing federally supported work in areas such as toolmark analysis, questioned document examination, and latent print examination, along with related studies on forensic effectiveness in the justice system (for example, research involving DNA evidence in property crime investigations and accuracy studies related to voice stress analysis).
What type of research was NIJ looking for?
NIJ sought comprehensive, foundational studies that build empirical evidence about what forensic methods can and cannot reliably conclude, with an emphasis on measurable, defensible estimates of accuracy, reliability, and uncertainty.
Was the focus on improving efficiency or automation?
No. NIJ stated it was not seeking projects focused primarily on automation or efficiency improvements, except where such work directly contributes to deeper scientific understanding of forensic methods or improves practice through foundational findings.
What does it mean that NIJ wanted "quantifiable, defensible measures"?
A key theme was moving forensic science toward measurement-based evaluations of performance and uncertainty. NIJ encouraged research that produces measurable estimates of reliability and accuracy, and that clarifies uncertainty in conclusions in a way that can be scientifically justified.
Did the solicitation encourage studying the full forensic workflow?
Yes. NIJ encouraged research that examines the full workflow of forensic practice, including the decision to accept evidence (such as assessing probative value and sample quality), analysis and interpretation processes, and how conclusions are ultimately stated.
Were qualitative or interpretation-heavy disciplines included?
Yes. The solicitation specifically recognized gaps in pattern and impression disciplines and encouraged proposals that develop ways to quantify techniques that have historically been qualitative in nature.
Did NIJ highlight human factors and systemic sources of error?
Yes. NIJ highlighted the need to study possible systemic and human sources of error, including observer effects such as contextual bias, perceptual mistakes, and other influences on expert judgment.
Could projects examine how forensic practitioners interact with the justice system?
Yes. The solicitation welcomed studies of how forensic practitioners interact with other parts of the criminal justice system, noting that case context, communication practices, and institutional processes can shape forensic conclusions.
What was meant by establishing "practical limits" on forensic performance?
NIJ sought research that identifies and measures sources and magnitude of uncertainty in forensic conclusions and clarifies the conditions under which accuracy and reliability degrade, such as variations in evidence quality, environmental effects, or differences in evidence collection and handling.
What funding mechanism was used?
This was a discretionary funding opportunity using a cooperative agreement mechanism.
About how many awards were expected?
The solicitation indicated an expectation of about 15 awards.
What CFDA number was associated with this opportunity?
The program fell under CFDA 16.560 (National Institute of Justice Research, Evaluation, and Development Project Grants).
Was cost sharing or matching required?
No. The summary information indicated that cost sharing or matching was not required.
Who was eligible to apply?
Eligibility was listed as unrestricted, meaning it was open to any type of entity, subject to any clarifications that may have appeared in the full solicitation.
When was the opportunity posted and when did it close?
The opportunity was posted on May 13, 2009, with an application closing date of June 22, 2009.
Was this solicitation later archived?
Yes. It was later archived on September 22, 2009.
Were the award minimum and maximum amounts stated?
No. The award floor and ceiling were not specified in the summary information provided.
How were applications required to be submitted?
Applications were required to be submitted through the Office of Justice Programs Grants Management System (GMS).
Where could applicants get technical help with submission?
Technical submission support was available via the GMS hotline.
Who was listed as a contact for solicitation-related questions?
The notice directed solicitation-related questions to NIJ staff and specifically noted Chris Tillery, Associate Deputy Director for Science and Technology, with a phone contact listed in the notice.
Browse more opportunities from the same agency: National Institute of Justice
Browse more opportunities from the same category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Science and Technology and other Research and Development
Next opportunity: Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit, Chesapeake Watershed CESU
Previous opportunity: Request for Egypt Proposals
USGrants.org Applicant Portal:
Are you interested in learning about about how to apply for this government funding opportunity? You can create a free applicant account and receive instant access to our applicant portal that many business owners like you have benefited from.
Apply for NIJ 2009 2229
[Watch] how do funding administrators access proposals?
Grant application guides and resources
It is always free to apply for government grants. However the process may be very complex depending on the funding opportunity you are applying for. Let us help you!
Apply for Grants
Premium leads for funding administrators, grant writers, and loan issuers
Thousands of people visit our website for their funding needs every day. When a user creates a grant proposal and files for submission, we pass the information on to funding administrators, grant writers, and government loan issuers.
If you manage government grant programs, provide grant writing services, or issue personal or government loans, we can help you reach your audience.
Subscribe to Leads
Request more information:
Would you like to learn more about this funding opportunity, similar opportunities to "NIJ 2009 2229", eligibility, application service, and/or application tips? Submit an inquiry below:
Don't forget to subscribe to our grant alerts mailing list to receive weekly alerts on new and updated grant funding opportunities like this one in your email.