Opportunity Information: Apply for SMART 2015 4157
Apply for SMART 2015 4157
- The Department of Justice in the law, justice and legal services sector is offering a public funding opportunity titled "SMART FY 15 Campus Focused Sexual Assault Perpetration Prevention and Education Program" and is now available to receive applicants.
- Interested and eligible applicants and submit their applications by referencing the CFDA number(s): 16.203 Promoting Evidence Integration in Sex Offender Management Discretionary Grant Program.
- This funding opportunity was created on May 12, 2015 and posted on Apr 15, 2015.
- Applicants must submit their applications by May 28, 2015. (Agency may still review applications by suitable applicants for the remaining/unused allocated funding in 2026.)
- The funding agency has allocated a total of $1,000,000.00 to eligible and selected applicants.
- Each selected applicant is eligible to receive up to $1,000,000.00 in funding.
- The number of recipients for this funding is limited to 1 candidate(s).
- Eligible applicants include: Private institutions of higher education Nonprofits having a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education Others (see text field entitled Additional Information on Eligibility for clarification) Public and State controlled institutions of higher education For profit organizations other than small businesses Small businesses.
- Tribal institutions of higher education
[Watch] Creating a grant proposal using the step-by-step wizard inside the applicant portal:
Opportunity Summary:
The SMART FY 15 Campus Focused Sexual Assault Perpetration Prevention and Education Program was a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) grant opportunity administered by the SMART Office (Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking). It was built around a widely cited problem in campus safety: sexual assault is common in college settings, most assaults are committed by someone the victim knows, many incidents involve incapacitation, and formal reporting to law enforcement is extremely low (the announcement cites an average of about 12 percent reporting). The solicitation stresses that while many campuses have strengthened victim services over time, they often lack comparable capacity to prevent perpetration, to respond effectively to students found responsible for sexual assault, or to address students who may be at risk of engaging in abusive behavior. The program frames sexual violence as a serious, potentially lifelong trauma for victims and argues that prevention strategies need to go beyond awareness campaigns to reduce perpetration at the population level.
A major theme of the opportunity is a shift away from “single dose” prevention approaches, like brief one-time educational sessions designed mainly to increase knowledge or change attitudes. The solicitation notes that rigorous evaluations have often shown limited impact from these short-term psychoeducational models. Instead, it encourages applicants to design and implement more robust, multi-session and community-oriented strategies, building on emerging evidence from programs that show measurable effects on behavior. It references several promising models such as Safe Dates (a multi-session curriculum for younger students that has shown reductions in later victimization and perpetration) and bystander-focused programs used in high school and college contexts (e.g., Bringing in the Bystander, Coaching Boys into Men, and Green Dot). At the same time, it argues that curriculum-only approaches may not be enough if they do not address the broader campus environment and the situational conditions that enable offending.
The core intervention approach emphasized in this solicitation is “situational prevention,” a criminological framework that looks at how specific conditions, locations, routines, policies, enforcement practices, and environmental factors can increase or decrease the likelihood of crime in particular settings. Applied to campuses, this means designing prevention strategies that change the context in which sexual violence occurs, not just the beliefs of individual students. The announcement highlights an example from earlier research, Shifting Boundaries, which combined a curriculum with building-level policy and safety changes in middle schools and reportedly produced sizable reductions in peer sexual violence in the months after implementation. The SMART Office uses this kind of evidence to justify the idea that structural and policy-driven interventions, when paired with education and integrated into campus operations, can potentially produce meaningful reductions in perpetration.
The stated goal of the grant is to promote evidence-based knowledge that prevents and reduces sexual assault on college and university campuses by developing and implementing situationally based prevention programs. Applicants were expected to name the campus or campuses where implementation would occur and to gather baseline and contextual information about those settings. That information includes sexual assault statistics (with attention to both victimization and perpetration where possible), existing adjudication processes and available sanctions, and an inventory of other prevention programs already operating on the campus. The application was expected to clearly show how the proposed project would create a comprehensive strategy that includes both targeted and universal prevention efforts, addresses community-level risk and protective factors, and is embedded in existing campus practices so that environmental, policy, or procedural changes become part of day-to-day operations rather than a standalone initiative.
The solicitation also sets several program expectations that shape what “good” implementation looks like. Prevention strategies were expected to be culturally relevant and attentive to diverse campus communities. Victim safety was treated as a non-negotiable priority: the program design should include supportive services and advocacy and should avoid approaches that could retraumatize victims or shift blame onto them. Applicants were encouraged to leverage existing evidence-based educational curricula and to pair those curricula with safety policies and environmental changes that strengthen situational prevention. Beyond implementation, the program emphasized building the knowledge base for perpetration prevention so that the field can better understand what works on campuses and replicate effective models elsewhere. Grantees were expected to collaborate closely with the SMART Office and to be prepared to participate in external research or evaluation efforts if additional funding became available later.
A monitoring and evaluation plan was required as part of the application, with an emphasis on collecting and analyzing data that can demonstrate progress and inform improvements. The solicitation lists outcomes and measures applicants were encouraged to track, including changes in student knowledge of consent standards, relevant state and federal laws, campus policies, and available resources; reductions in rape myths; improved prevention skills such as bystander intervention capabilities; and shifts in attitudes about the acceptability of abusive, harassing, or violent behavior. It also encouraged documenting strategies used to reach underserved populations, explicitly naming groups such as LGBT students, students with disabilities, and racial and ethnic groups that may be underserved or overlooked (including African American, Tribal, Hispanic, Asian Pacific Islander, and international students). Additional suggested measures include behavioral intentions (both intentions to avoid committing harmful behaviors and intentions to intervene as a bystander), as well as self-reported experiences related to dating violence, sexual violence, or sexual harassment, and participant background factors like prior attendance in related training and prior dating/dating-violence history.
The final deliverable for the project was a comprehensive report. That report was expected to present the final situational prevention strategies and/or perpetration-focused curriculum that was developed, explain the theoretical and evidence base behind the approach, and document the implementation process in detail. It also needed to include descriptive reach data (how many people were served or engaged), campus profiles (demographics, climate survey information if available, adjudication and sanctioning information, and descriptions of related prevention programming), an ongoing monitoring and evaluation plan, and any outcome findings available from the tracked measures. In other words, the report was meant to serve as both an accountability product and a practical resource that other campuses could learn from.
Administratively, this was a discretionary funding opportunity using a cooperative agreement, meaning the SMART Office anticipated active involvement during the project rather than a purely hands-off grant. The funding opportunity number was SMART-2015-4157, with an estimated total funding amount of $1,000,000 and an award ceiling of $1,000,000 (with an award floor listed as $10,000). The solicitation anticipated making 1 award. There was no cost sharing or matching requirement. Eligible applicants included public and private institutions of higher education, Tribal institutions of higher education, nonprofits with 501(c)(3) status, and certain for-profit entities including small businesses. The program fell under CFDA 16.203 (Promoting Evidence Integration in Sex Offender Management Discretionary Grant Program). Key dates included a posted date of April 15, 2015 and a closing date of May 28, 2015, with the opportunity later archived on June 27, 2015. The listed contact for access issues was Faith Baker, Associate Director, at the SMART Office.
FAQs: SMART FY 15 Campus Focused Sexual Assault Perpetration Prevention and Education Program
What is this grant opportunity?
The SMART FY 15 Campus Focused Sexual Assault Perpetration Prevention and Education Program was a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) grant opportunity administered by the SMART Office (Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking). It focused on preventing and reducing sexual assault on college and university campuses by developing and implementing situationally based prevention programs.
What problem was the solicitation trying to address?
The solicitation described sexual assault as common in college settings, often committed by someone the victim knows, frequently involving incapacitation, and rarely reported to law enforcement (the announcement cited an average reporting rate of about 12%). It emphasized that many campuses have built victim services, but often lack comparable capacity to prevent perpetration, respond effectively to students found responsible, or address students at risk of engaging in abusive behavior.
What is the main goal of the program?
The stated goal was to promote evidence-based knowledge that prevents and reduces sexual assault on campuses by developing and implementing situationally based prevention programs. The emphasis was on strategies that can reduce perpetration at the population level, not just increase awareness.
What does "perpetration prevention" mean in the context of this grant?
In this solicitation, perpetration prevention refers to prevention approaches designed to reduce the likelihood that students will commit sexual assault or related abusive behaviors, including addressing risk factors, campus conditions, and environments that enable offending, along with education and skill-building.
What approach did the solicitation discourage?
It discouraged "single dose" prevention approaches such as brief, one-time educational sessions focused mainly on increasing knowledge or changing attitudes. The solicitation noted that rigorous evaluations have often shown limited impact from short-term psychoeducational models.
What kinds of prevention approaches did the solicitation encourage instead?
The solicitation encouraged robust, multi-session, community-oriented strategies that build on emerging evidence and show measurable effects on behavior. It also emphasized combining education with policy, procedural, and environmental changes that affect real-world conditions on campus.
What is "situational prevention" as used in this program?
Situational prevention is a criminological framework focused on how specific conditions, locations, routines, policies, enforcement practices, and environmental factors can increase or decrease the likelihood of crime in particular settings. Applied to campuses, it means changing the context in which sexual violence occurs, not only influencing individual beliefs.
Did the solicitation provide examples of promising models or strategies?
Yes. It referenced several promising models such as Safe Dates and bystander-focused programs like Bringing in the Bystander, Coaching Boys into Men, and Green Dot. It also highlighted Shifting Boundaries as an example of combining curriculum with building-level policy and safety changes, which reportedly reduced peer sexual violence after implementation.
Were applicants expected to use a curriculum-only approach?
No. The solicitation suggested that curriculum-only approaches may not be sufficient if they fail to address the broader campus environment and the situational conditions that enable offending. Applicants were encouraged to pair evidence-based curricula with safety policies and environmental changes.
What campuses could be included in a proposal?
Applicants were expected to name the campus or campuses where implementation would occur. The proposal needed to be grounded in baseline and contextual information about those specific settings.
What baseline and contextual information were applicants expected to gather?
The solicitation expected applicants to gather information such as sexual assault statistics (including victimization and perpetration where possible), existing adjudication processes and available sanctions, and an inventory of other prevention programs already operating on campus.
What did the solicitation mean by a "comprehensive strategy"?
A comprehensive strategy was expected to combine targeted and universal prevention efforts, address community-level risk and protective factors, and be embedded in existing campus practices so that environmental, policy, or procedural changes become part of day-to-day operations rather than functioning as a standalone initiative.
How did the solicitation address cultural relevance and underserved populations?
It stated that prevention strategies were expected to be culturally relevant and attentive to diverse campus communities. It also encouraged documenting strategies used to reach underserved populations, explicitly naming groups such as LGBT students, students with disabilities, and racial and ethnic groups that may be underserved or overlooked (including African American, Tribal, Hispanic, Asian Pacific Islander, and international students).
What did the solicitation say about victim safety?
Victim safety was treated as a non-negotiable priority. The program design was expected to include supportive services and advocacy and avoid approaches that could retraumatize victims or shift blame onto them.
Was a monitoring and evaluation plan required?
Yes. A monitoring and evaluation plan was required as part of the application, with an emphasis on collecting and analyzing data to demonstrate progress and inform improvements.
What outcomes and measures were encouraged for evaluation?
The solicitation encouraged tracking measures such as changes in student knowledge of consent standards, relevant state and federal laws, campus policies, and available resources; reductions in rape myths; improved prevention skills (including bystander intervention capabilities); and shifts in attitudes about the acceptability of abusive, harassing, or violent behavior.
Did the solicitation include behavioral and experience-related measures?
Yes. It encouraged measuring behavioral intentions (including intentions to avoid committing harmful behaviors and intentions to intervene as a bystander), along with self-reported experiences related to dating violence, sexual violence, or sexual harassment. It also suggested collecting participant background factors such as prior attendance in related training and prior dating/dating-violence history.
What was the final deliverable expected from grantees?
The final deliverable was a comprehensive report presenting the final situational prevention strategies and/or perpetration-focused curriculum developed, the theoretical and evidence base behind the approach, and detailed documentation of implementation. It also needed to include reach data, campus profiles (demographics, climate survey information if available, adjudication and sanctioning information, and descriptions of related prevention programming), an ongoing monitoring and evaluation plan, and any available outcome findings from tracked measures.
Was this grant a standard grant or a cooperative agreement?
It was a discretionary funding opportunity using a cooperative agreement, meaning the SMART Office anticipated active involvement during the project rather than a hands-off grant structure.
What was the funding opportunity number?
The funding opportunity number was SMART-2015-4157.
How much funding was available?
The estimated total funding amount was $1,000,000. The award ceiling was $1,000,000, and the award floor was listed as $10,000. The solicitation anticipated making 1 award.
Was cost sharing or matching required?
No cost sharing or matching requirement was listed.
Who was eligible to apply?
Eligible applicants included public and private institutions of higher education, Tribal institutions of higher education, nonprofits with 501(c)(3) status, and certain for-profit entities including small businesses.
What CFDA program was this opportunity associated with?
The program fell under CFDA 16.203 (Promoting Evidence Integration in Sex Offender Management Discretionary Grant Program).
What were the key dates for this opportunity?
The opportunity was posted on April 15, 2015 and closed on May 28, 2015. It was later archived on June 27, 2015.
Who was listed as the contact for access issues?
The listed contact for access issues was Faith Baker, Associate Director, at the SMART Office.
Browse more business programs for Education Programs
Browse more opportunities from the same agency: Department of Justice
Browse more opportunities from the same category: Law, Justice and Legal Services
Next opportunity: Perinatal Hepatitis B Prevention Program Auxiliary Prevention Projects
Previous opportunity: Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP) /State Health Insurance Assistance Program(SHIP) Hard to Reach Beneficiary Project
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 2015 4157
[Watch] how do funding administrators access proposals?
Applicants also applied for:
Applicants who have applied for this opportunity (SMART 2015 4157) also looked into and applied for these:
| Funding Opportunity |
|---|
| SMART FY 15 Promoting Evidence Integration in Sex Offender Management Applying Circles of Support and Accountability in Indian Country Project Sites Apply for SMART 2015 4285 Funding Number: SMART 2015 4285 Agency: Department of Justice Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $250,000 |
| Georgia Law Enforcement Exchange Program Apply for SINLEC10CA0003EUR02252010 Funding Number: SINLEC10CA0003EUR02252010 Agency: International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affair Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $400,000 |
| Law Enforcement and Rule of Law Programs in Afghanistan Apply for SINLEC10GR0004NEA04022010 Funding Number: SINLEC10GR0004NEA04022010 Agency: International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affair Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $2,500,000 |
| Kosovo Rule of Law Program Justice Sector Reform Apply for INL 10 CA 0006 EUR 07 23 2010 Funding Number: INL 10 CA 0006 EUR 07 23 2010 Agency: International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affair Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $1,275,000 |
| OJJDP FY 16 Juvenile Drug Courts Training and Technical Assistance Program Apply for OJJDP 2016 9097 Funding Number: OJJDP 2016 9097 Agency: USDOJ-OJP Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $1,000,000 |
| FUNDING OPPORTUNITY: PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN SOUTHERN AFRICA Apply for FUNDING OPPORTUNITY 674 16 00001 Funding Number: FUNDING OPPORTUNITY 674 16 00001 Agency: USAID-SAF Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $750,000 |
| Community Based Policing development in the Kyrgyz Republic Apply for INL 16GR0004 EAKYRGYZTAN 11102015 Funding Number: INL 16GR0004 EAKYRGYZTAN 11102015 Agency: DOS-INL Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $1,000,000 |
| Criminal Defense Community Development in the Kyrgyz Republic Apply for INL 16GR0005 EAKYRGYZTAN 11132015 Funding Number: INL 16GR0005 EAKYRGYZTAN 11132015 Agency: DOS-INL Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $450,000 |
| U.S. Department of Justice Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation Apply for DOJ 2016 4369 Funding Number: DOJ 2016 4369 Agency: USDOJ Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $4,000,000 |
| International Narcotics and Law Enforcement – Mexico Police Professionalization Program Apply for INL 16CA0007 WHPMEXICO 11032015 Funding Number: INL 16CA0007 WHPMEXICO 11032015 Agency: DOS-INL Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $5,000,000 |
| NIJ FY16 Research on Measurement of Teen Dating Violence Apply for NIJ 2016 9001 Funding Number: NIJ 2016 9001 Agency: USDOJ-OJP-NIJ Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $250,000 |
| National Youth Leadership Initiative Apply for ONDCP NYLI 2016 Funding Number: ONDCP NYLI 2016 Agency: ONDCP Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $200,000 |
| OJJDP FY 16 Second Chance Act Strengthening Relationships Between Young Fathers, Young Mothers, and Their Children Apply for OJJDP 2016 9135 Funding Number: OJJDP 2016 9135 Agency: USDOJ-OJP-OJJDP Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $350,000 |
| OJJDP FY 16 Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force National Training Program Apply for OJJDP 2016 9156 Funding Number: OJJDP 2016 9156 Agency: USDOJ-OJP-OJJDP Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $1,100,000 |
| OJJDP FY 16 Alaska Native Youth Training and Technical Assistance Project Apply for OJJDP 2016 9140 Funding Number: OJJDP 2016 9140 Agency: USDOJ-OJP-OJJDP Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $500,000 |
| SMART FY 2016 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) Workshops and National Symposium on Sex Offender Management and Accountability Planning Project Apply for SMART 2016 8954 Funding Number: SMART 2016 8954 Agency: USDOJ-OJP-SMART Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $750,000 |
| OJJDP FY 16 VOCA Regional Children Advocacy Center Program Apply for OJJDP 2016 9155 Funding Number: OJJDP 2016 9155 Agency: USDOJ-OJP-OJJDP Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $1,250,000 |
| OJJDP FY 16 Second Chance Act: Implementing Statewide Plans To Improve Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System Apply for OJJDP 2016 9142 Funding Number: OJJDP 2016 9142 Agency: USDOJ-OJP-OJJDP Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $1,000,000 |
| OJJDP FY 16 National Girls Initiative Apply for OJJDP 2016 9138 Funding Number: OJJDP 2016 9138 Agency: USDOJ-OJP-OJJDP Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $750,000 |
| Developing Improved Means to Collect Digital Evidence Apply for NIJ 2016 8976 Funding Number: NIJ 2016 8976 Agency: USDOJ-OJP-NIJ 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 2015 4157", 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.
