Opportunity Information: Apply for SMART 2012 3312
Apply for SMART 2012 3312
- The Department of Justice in the law, justice and legal services sector is offering a public funding opportunity titled "SMART FY 12 Promoting Evidence Integration in Sex Offender Management Implementation of the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale" and is now available to receive applicants.
- Interested and eligible applicants and submit their applications by referencing the CFDA number(s): 16.750 Support for Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program.
- This funding opportunity was created on Apr 27, 2012 and posted on Apr 17, 2012.
- Applicants must submit their applications by Jun 1, 2012. (Agency may still review applications by suitable applicants for the remaining/unused allocated funding in 2026.)
- The funding agency has allocated a total of $675,000.00 to eligible and selected applicants.
- Each selected applicant is eligible to receive up to $225,000.00 in funding.
- The number of recipients for this funding is limited to 3 candidate(s).
- Eligible applicants include: City or township governments State governments County governments.
[Watch] Creating a grant proposal using the step-by-step wizard inside the applicant portal:
Opportunity Summary:
The SMART FY 12 Promoting Evidence Integration in Sex Offender Management grant opportunity (Funding Opportunity Number SMART 2012-3312) was a U.S. Department of Justice discretionary grant run by the SMART Office in partnership with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). Its central focus was to help jurisdictions implement the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS), a dynamic risk assessment tool created by the State of Vermont, and to test whether combining SOTIPS with the Static-99R (a widely used static risk instrument) improves the accuracy of predicting sexual reoffense. The program builds on a 2008 SMART Office and NIJ evaluation authorized under Section 637 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which found that using Static-99R together with SOTIPS produced better risk prediction than either tool on its own. The FY12 funding was designed to replicate those earlier findings in new sites and to generate stronger evidence about how this combined assessment approach can improve real-world supervision and case management.
The grant had two main purposes. First, it aimed to replicate the earlier research by implementing SOTIPS alongside Static-99R in community supervision settings and then measuring changes in risk over time. Second, it sought to document how the use of this model actually affects day-to-day supervision and treatment decisions, not just whether the scores predict outcomes. In other words, the project was meant to go beyond a technical validation study and also capture how dynamic risk information can be integrated into supervision practices, treatment planning, and overall sex offender management strategies. NIJ was responsible for managing the evaluation component, while SMART provided the funding and worked jointly with NIJ on project oversight.
Jurisdictions applying for the grant needed to show they were prepared to implement SOTIPS with fidelity and to cooperate fully with a structured, multi-timepoint evaluation. Applicants were expected to commit to building new knowledge and evidence, following the evaluation design requirements, collecting and sharing program data, and working closely with the NIJ-funded evaluation team as well as the SOTIPS training and technical assistance provider. A key evaluation requirement was measuring risk at three intervals, which is essential for a dynamic tool like SOTIPS because it is intended to capture change over time rather than only fixed historical factors.
Eligibility and readiness requirements were fairly specific and operational. Applicants could be state or local jurisdictions, including state governments, counties, and city or township governments. They needed to have uniform, jurisdiction-wide sex offender supervision practices (probation, parole, or community corrections) and an established risk assessment process already using Static-99R. They also needed consistent sex offender treatment programming across the jurisdiction, preferably certified and clearly evidence-based (for example, cognitive behavioral group therapy), with some indication of quality such as positive treatment outcome findings. The solicitation also emphasized the value of a statewide or urban population with socioeconomic and racial diversity, reflecting a desire for study sites that would help test the model across varied communities rather than a narrow or atypical population.
A major threshold requirement was sample size and participant characteristics. Each site needed access to at least 300 to 500 adult sex offenders who had committed at least one sexual offense, were currently receiving treatment, and were under community supervision. Applicants had to demonstrate the practical ability to enroll that minimum number into the study. In addition, sites needed automated data and information systems capable of tracking individuals across programs and services, since the evaluation depended on being able to link assessment data, treatment participation, supervision actions, and outcomes in a reliable way.
The core implementation and data-collection tasks were clearly defined. Sites were required to use existing Static-99R scores or administer Static-99R to the required minimum sample. They then had to administer SOTIPS at three distinct intervals: baseline (time 1), six months (time 2), and twelve months (time 3), at a minimum. The timeline expectations were also explicit: preference went to jurisdictions that could complete the baseline assessment within the first 12 months of treatment for eligible participants, and all three SOTIPS assessments were expected to be completed by month 18 of the grant period. Beyond simply scoring the instrument, sites had to collect the SOTIPS results and document how the tool informed supervision and treatment practices, which speaks to the grant’s broader goal of integrating evidence-based assessment into decision-making rather than treating assessments as paperwork.
Data sharing and collaboration were central to the project design. Grantees had to work collaboratively with NIJ evaluators to identify, provide, and share the data needed for analysis. They also had to identify which existing data systems would be used to report study information. Examples of data elements expected to be collected and tracked included risk assessment scores, demographics, criminal history, arrests, convictions or reconvictions, and other interactions with criminal justice personnel. This reflects an emphasis on both intermediate process information (assessments and supervision/treatment actions) and longer-term outcomes relevant to public safety and recidivism.
From an administrative standpoint, the solicitation anticipated up to three awards with an estimated total funding amount of $675,000 and an award ceiling of $225,000 per grant. There was no cost-sharing or matching requirement. The opportunity was posted April 17, 2012, with an application closing date of June 1, 2012, and it was archived July 1, 2012. The funding fell under CFDA 16.750, Support for Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program, and was categorized under law, justice, and legal services. The overall intent was to accelerate the adoption of evidence-based tools in sex offender management by supporting jurisdictions that could implement SOTIPS properly, produce high-quality data, and contribute to a stronger national evidence base on dynamic risk assessment and its practical impact on supervision and treatment.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the SMART FY 12 Promoting Evidence Integration in Sex Offender Management grant?
It was a U.S. Department of Justice discretionary grant opportunity run by the SMART Office in partnership with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). The opportunity was identified as Funding Opportunity Number SMART 2012-3312 and focused on helping jurisdictions implement the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS) in community supervision settings and study its impact.
What was the main goal of this grant opportunity?
The central goal was to promote evidence integration in sex offender management by supporting jurisdictions to implement SOTIPS (a dynamic risk assessment tool) and to test whether using SOTIPS together with Static-99R (a static risk instrument) improves prediction of sexual reoffense compared to using either tool alone.
Which organizations were responsible for funding and evaluation?
The SMART Office provided the funding and worked jointly with NIJ on project oversight. NIJ was responsible for managing the evaluation component of the project.
What is SOTIPS in the context of this program?
SOTIPS (Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale) is a dynamic risk assessment tool created by the State of Vermont. It is designed to capture change in risk over time (for example, changes that may occur during treatment and supervision), rather than focusing only on fixed historical factors.
What is Static-99R and how was it used in this grant?
Static-99R is a widely used static risk instrument. Under this opportunity, jurisdictions were expected to have an established risk assessment process already using Static-99R, and they were required to use existing Static-99R scores or administer Static-99R to the required study sample.
Why was the grant focused on combining SOTIPS with Static-99R?
The program built on a 2008 SMART Office and NIJ evaluation (authorized under Section 637 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006) that found combining Static-99R with SOTIPS produced better risk prediction than either tool on its own. The FY12 funding was intended to replicate those findings in new sites and strengthen the evidence base.
What were the two main purposes of the FY12 project?
First, to replicate earlier research by implementing SOTIPS alongside Static-99R in community supervision settings and measuring changes in risk over time. Second, to document how using this combined assessment model affects day-to-day supervision and treatment decisions, not just whether scores predict outcomes.
Was this grant only a validation study of risk tools?
No. The project was intended to go beyond technical validation and also capture how dynamic risk information can be integrated into real-world supervision practices, treatment planning, and broader sex offender management strategies.
Who was eligible to apply?
Eligible applicants included state or local jurisdictions such as state governments, counties, and city or township governments.
What readiness requirements did applicants need to meet?
Applicants needed to demonstrate they were prepared to implement SOTIPS with fidelity and cooperate fully with a structured, multi-timepoint evaluation. They were expected to follow evaluation design requirements, collect and share program data, and work closely with the NIJ-funded evaluation team and the SOTIPS training and technical assistance provider.
Did applicants need to already use Static-99R?
Yes. Applicants were expected to have an established risk assessment process already using Static-99R, reflecting that the project tested SOTIPS implementation alongside an existing Static-99R framework.
What supervision practices were expected for participating jurisdictions?
Jurisdictions needed to have uniform, jurisdiction-wide sex offender supervision practices in community settings (for example, probation, parole, or community corrections).
What treatment programming requirements were emphasized?
Applicants were expected to have consistent sex offender treatment programming across the jurisdiction, preferably certified and clearly evidence-based (for example, cognitive behavioral group therapy). The solicitation also referenced the value of indicators of quality, such as positive treatment outcome findings.
Did the solicitation prefer certain types of jurisdictions or populations?
Yes. The solicitation emphasized the value of a statewide or urban population with socioeconomic and racial diversity. This preference reflected a desire for study sites that could test the model across varied communities rather than a narrow or atypical population.
What sample size was required?
Each site needed access to at least 300 to 500 adult sex offenders who had committed at least one sexual offense, were currently receiving treatment, and were under community supervision. Applicants also had to demonstrate the practical ability to enroll that minimum number into the study.
What participant characteristics were required for the study sample?
Participants needed to be adult sex offenders with at least one sexual offense, currently receiving treatment, and under community supervision at the participating site.
What data system capacity did applicants need?
Sites needed automated data and information systems capable of tracking individuals across programs and services. The evaluation depended on reliably linking assessment data, treatment participation, supervision actions, and outcomes.
How many times did jurisdictions need to administer SOTIPS?
Jurisdictions were required to administer SOTIPS at three distinct intervals at a minimum: baseline (time 1), six months (time 2), and twelve months (time 3).
Why were three SOTIPS assessment timepoints required?
A key evaluation requirement was measuring risk at three intervals because SOTIPS is a dynamic tool intended to capture change over time. Multiple timepoints are essential to evaluate changes rather than a single snapshot.
What were the timeline expectations for completing SOTIPS assessments?
Preference went to jurisdictions that could complete the baseline assessment within the first 12 months of treatment for eligible participants. All three SOTIPS assessments were expected to be completed by month 18 of the grant period.
What were grantees required to do besides scoring SOTIPS?
Beyond collecting SOTIPS scores, sites were required to document how the tool informed supervision and treatment practices. This reflected the broader goal of integrating evidence-based assessment into decision-making rather than treating assessments as a purely administrative task.
What role did NIJ evaluators play, and what collaboration was required?
Grantees were expected to work collaboratively with NIJ evaluators to identify, provide, and share data needed for analysis, and to identify which existing data systems would be used to report study information.
What kinds of data elements were expected to be collected and tracked?
Examples included risk assessment scores, demographics, criminal history, arrests, convictions or reconvictions, and other interactions with criminal justice personnel. This reflected an emphasis on both process measures (assessment and supervision/treatment actions) and longer-term outcomes related to recidivism and public safety.
How many awards were anticipated and what was the funding amount?
The solicitation anticipated up to three awards with an estimated total funding amount of $675,000. The award ceiling was $225,000 per grant.
Was cost sharing or matching required?
No. The solicitation stated there was no cost-sharing or matching requirement.
When was the opportunity posted and when were applications due?
The opportunity was posted on April 17, 2012. The application closing date was June 1, 2012.
What does it mean that the opportunity was archived?
The solicitation was archived on July 1, 2012, indicating it was no longer an active open funding opportunity after that point.
What CFDA number was associated with this funding opportunity?
The funding fell under CFDA 16.750, Support for Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program.
What subject area or category did this grant fall under?
It was categorized under law, justice, and legal services.
What was the broader intent behind funding this work?
The overall intent was to accelerate adoption of evidence-based tools in sex offender management by supporting jurisdictions that could implement SOTIPS properly, produce high-quality data, and contribute to a stronger national evidence base on dynamic risk assessment and its practical impact on supervision and treatment.
Browse more opportunities from the same category: Law, Justice and Legal Services
Next opportunity: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Previous opportunity: Shared Birds Swainson s Thrush and Western Tanager Migration Research
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 SMART 2012 3312
[Watch] how do funding administrators access proposals?
Applicants also applied for:
Applicants who have applied for this opportunity (SMART 2012 3312) also looked into and applied for these:
| Funding Opportunity |
|---|
| BJA FY 12 Violent Gang and Gun Crime Reduction Program (Project Safe Neighborhoods) Apply for BJA 2012 3302 Funding Number: BJA 2012 3302 Agency: Bureau of Justice Assistance Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $500,000 |
| OJJDP FY 2012 EUDL Field Initiated Research and Evaluation Program Apply for OJJDP 2012 3299 Funding Number: OJJDP 2012 3299 Agency: Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $500,000 |
| BJA FY 12 Adult Drug Court Planning, Training, Technical Assistance, and Resource Center Initiatives Apply for BJA 2012 3315 Funding Number: BJA 2012 3315 Agency: Bureau of Justice Assistance Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $1,600,000 |
| SMART FY 12 Sex Offender Management Fellowship Program Apply for SMART 2012 3325 Funding Number: SMART 2012 3325 Agency: Department of Justice Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $150,000 |
| SMART FY 12 Promoting Evidence Integration in Sex Offender Management Circles of Support and Accountability for Project Sites Apply for SMART 2012 3328 Funding Number: SMART 2012 3328 Agency: Department of Justice Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $200,000 |
| SMART FY 12 Promoting Evidence Integration in Sex Offender Management Circles of Support and Accountability Training and Technical Assistance Project Apply for SMART 2012 3329 Funding Number: SMART 2012 3329 Agency: Department of Justice Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $500,000 |
| Low Income Taxpayer Clinic Apply for TREAS GRANTS 052013 001 Funding Number: TREAS GRANTS 052013 001 Agency: Low Income Taxpayer Clinic (LITC) Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $100,000 |
| BJA FY 12 National Initiatives Law Enforcement and Missing Persons with Alzheimers Disease Apply for BJA 2012 3332 Funding Number: BJA 2012 3332 Agency: Bureau of Justice Assistance Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $593,842 |
| BJA FY 12 Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Training and Technical Assistance Program Apply for BJA 2012 3313 Funding Number: BJA 2012 3313 Agency: Bureau of Justice Assistance Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $1,000,000 |
| OJJDP FY 2012 National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention TTA Project Apply for OJJDP 2012 3301 Funding Number: OJJDP 2012 3301 Agency: Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $900,000 |
| OJJDP FY 2012 Community Based Violence Prevention FIRE Program Apply for OJJDP 2012 3300 Funding Number: OJJDP 2012 3300 Agency: Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $500,000 |
| BJA FY 12 Visiting Fellows Program Apply for BJA 2012 3339 Funding Number: BJA 2012 3339 Agency: Bureau of Justice Assistance Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $220,000 |
| Mexico Travel and Logistics Program for Training Support Apply for INL 12 CA 0016 WHPMEXICO 05232012 Funding Number: INL 12 CA 0016 WHPMEXICO 05232012 Agency: International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affair Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $11,000,000 |
| OJJDP FY 2012 National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention Expansion Project Apply for OJJDP 2012 3314 Funding Number: OJJDP 2012 3314 Agency: Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $20,000 |
| Program to Support Criminal Law Reform in Moldova Apply for INL 12 GR 0018 EAMOLDOVA 06012012 Funding Number: INL 12 GR 0018 EAMOLDOVA 06012012 Agency: International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affair Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $400,000 |
| Evaluation of Rule of Law Programs in Colombia Apply for INL 12 CA 0021 WHP 06072012 Funding Number: INL 12 CA 0021 WHP 06072012 Agency: International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affair Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $1,000,000 |
| Capacity Building Training, Travel, and Support for Law Enforcement and Rule of Law in Central America Apply for INL 12 CA 0019 WHP 06072012 Funding Number: INL 12 CA 0019 WHP 06072012 Agency: International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affair Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $750,000 |
| OJJDP FY 2012 Alaska Native Youth At Risk TTA Project Apply for OJJDP 2012 3321 Funding Number: OJJDP 2012 3321 Agency: Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $500,000 |
| New China Rule of Law Program Apply for USAID RDMA 486 12 000026 RFA Funding Number: USAID RDMA 486 12 000026 RFA Agency: Thailand USAID Bangkok Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $12,450,000 |
| Azerbaijan Rights Consortium Project Apply for USAID AZERBAIJAN 12 002 RFA Funding Number: USAID AZERBAIJAN 12 002 RFA Agency: Azerbaijan USAID Baku Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $1,500,000 |
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 "SMART 2012 3312", 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.