Opportunity Information: Apply for SMART 2014 3915
Apply for SMART 2014 3915
- The Department of Justice in the law, justice and legal services sector is offering a public funding opportunity titled "SMART FY Campus Sexual Assault Perpetrator Treatment Pilot Project" 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 Apr 30, 2014 and posted on Apr 29, 2014.
- Applicants must submit their applications by Jun 13, 2014. (Agency may still review applications by suitable applicants for the remaining/unused allocated funding in 2026.)
- The funding agency has allocated a total of $1,500,000.00 to eligible and selected applicants.
- Each selected applicant is eligible to receive up to $1,500,000.00 in funding.
- The number of recipients for this funding is limited to 1 candidate(s).
- Eligible applicants include: Small businesses Private institutions of higher education Nonprofits having a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education Public and State controlled institutions of higher education.
[Watch] Creating a grant proposal using the step-by-step wizard inside the applicant portal:
Opportunity Summary:
The SMART FY Campus Sexual Assault Perpetrator Treatment Pilot Project was a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) funding opportunity run through the SMART Office under CFDA 16.203 (Promoting Evidence Integration in Sex Offender Management). It was created in response to research showing that campus sexual assault is common, often involves victims who are incapacitated due to alcohol or drugs, and is frequently committed by repeat or serial offenders. The solicitation highlights that reporting to law enforcement is typically very low (about 12 percent in the cited research), that many assaults are committed by someone the victim knows, and that campus disciplinary outcomes often do not result in meaningful accountability or behavior-focused intervention for the person who caused harm. In practice, campuses may rely on sanctions like reprimands, suspensions, no-contact orders, housing restrictions, or general counseling, while expulsion is described as rare and treatment specifically targeting sexually abusive behavior is generally not used as a consequence or option.
The core purpose of the grant was to address this gap by funding the development, implementation, and initial testing of an evidence-based treatment curriculum designed specifically for campus sexual assault perpetrators. The solicitation points to a broader research base indicating that treatment for people who commit sexual offenses can reduce recidivism when it is grounded in rigorous methods and delivered with fidelity. Examples cited include cognitive-behavioral and relapse-prevention approaches showing substantially lower sexual reoffense rates compared with no treatment, and findings that structured treatment with aftercare can both reduce recidivism and produce significant cost-benefit returns. Using that evidence as a foundation, SMART sought one applicant to build a curriculum that campuses could later replicate, while also generating practical knowledge about how sanctions and adjudication outcomes currently work on campuses and how a treatment program could fit within those systems.
Applicants were expected to name the participating college campus or campuses and to document how sexual assault cases are adjudicated there, what outcomes result for perpetrators, and what sanctions are actually available and used for individuals found responsible. A central theme is that the project should both develop a treatment option and produce usable evidence for the field about sanctions and intervention strategies on campus. The proposed program was expected to be implemented with fidelity to an evidence-based model and to include key operational components such as risk and needs assessment processes, the treatment modality and structure, dosage recommendations (how much treatment and for how long), methods to track participant progress, clear provider qualifications, staff training requirements, and an accounting of the resources available to support delivery.
Victim safety is treated as a non-negotiable requirement. The solicitation stresses that the project must protect victims and avoid processes that could retraumatize them or shift blame onto them. Alongside implementation, the applicant had to collect program development and participant data, work collaboratively with the SMART Office under a cooperative agreement structure, and be prepared to participate in a later formal evaluation if additional funds became available. In other words, this was not just a service-delivery grant; it was set up as a pilot intended to generate a model curriculum and the groundwork for stronger evaluation and replication.
A required element of the application was a monitoring and evaluation plan describing how information would be collected and analyzed. The opportunity encouraged applicants to track outcomes such as descriptive characteristics of perpetrators and the eligible population on the campus(es), recidivism (including new sexual, violent, or other criminal offenses), measurable behavioral change indicators (for example, pro-criminal attitudes or antisocial behavior), participant employment and housing outcomes, drug and alcohol use, participation in other services (like substance abuse or mental health treatment), and overall cost effectiveness. The grant’s final deliverable was a comprehensive report that included the finalized treatment curriculum, the theoretical and empirical rationale supporting it, documentation of how implementation occurred, counts and categories of perpetrators served, offender profiles (demographics, adjudication details, risk/needs results, treatment received, and any related supervision or adjunct services), descriptive information about services provided to the victims of those perpetrators, and the ongoing monitoring and evaluation plan with any available outcome results.
On the administrative side, this was a discretionary grant offered as a cooperative agreement, with an expected single award. The total estimated funding and ceiling were $1,500,000 (with a listed floor of $10,000), and there was no cost-sharing or matching requirement. Eligible applicants included public and state-controlled institutions of higher education, private institutions of higher education, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations (other than higher education institutions), and small businesses. The opportunity was posted in late April 2014 and closed June 13, 2014, with the SMART Office (DOJ) listed as the sponsoring agency and Faith Baker identified as the contact for access issues with the full announcement.
FAQs: SMART FY Campus Sexual Assault Perpetrator Treatment Pilot Project (CFDA 16.203)
What is the SMART FY Campus Sexual Assault Perpetrator Treatment Pilot Project?
It was a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) funding opportunity administered by the SMART Office under CFDA 16.203 (Promoting Evidence Integration in Sex Offender Management). The project was designed as a pilot to develop, implement, and initially test an evidence-based treatment curriculum specifically for campus sexual assault perpetrators.
Why was this funding opportunity created?
The solicitation cited research indicating that campus sexual assault is common, often involves victims incapacitated by alcohol or drugs, and is frequently committed by repeat or serial offenders. It also highlighted that reporting to law enforcement is typically low (about 12 percent in the cited research), assaults are often committed by someone the victim knows, and campus disciplinary outcomes often do not provide meaningful accountability or behavior-focused intervention for the person who caused harm.
What gap was the grant intended to address?
The opportunity aimed to address the lack of treatment options on campuses that specifically target sexually abusive behavior as part of consequences or interventions for individuals found responsible. The solicitation noted that campuses may rely on sanctions such as reprimands, suspensions, no-contact orders, housing restrictions, or general counseling, while expulsion is described as rare and specialized treatment is generally not used.
What was the core purpose of the grant?
The core purpose was to fund the development, implementation, and initial testing of an evidence-based treatment curriculum designed specifically for campus sexual assault perpetrators, while generating practical knowledge about current campus sanctions and adjudication outcomes and how a treatment program could fit within those systems.
Was this grant meant for service delivery only?
No. It was structured as a pilot intended to produce a model curriculum and lay groundwork for stronger evaluation and replication. It required data collection, a monitoring and evaluation plan, and coordination with the SMART Office under a cooperative agreement structure, with the expectation that the project could participate in a later formal evaluation if additional funds became available.
How many awards were expected?
The solicitation indicated an expected single award.
What type of award mechanism was used?
It was a discretionary grant offered as a cooperative agreement, meaning the recipient would be expected to work collaboratively with the SMART Office during the project.
What was the estimated funding amount and award ceiling?
The total estimated funding and ceiling were listed as $1,500,000.
Was there a minimum (floor) amount listed?
Yes. The solicitation listed a floor of $10,000.
Was cost sharing or a match required?
No. The opportunity stated there was no cost-sharing or matching requirement.
Who was eligible to apply?
Eligible applicants included public and state-controlled institutions of higher education, private institutions of higher education, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations (other than higher education institutions), and small businesses.
Did applicants need to identify participating campus sites?
Yes. Applicants were expected to name the participating college campus or campuses as part of the proposal.
What information about campus processes did applicants need to document?
Applicants were expected to document how sexual assault cases are adjudicated on the participating campus(es), what outcomes result for perpetrators, and what sanctions are actually available and used for individuals found responsible.
What treatment approach did the solicitation emphasize?
The solicitation emphasized evidence-based treatment grounded in rigorous methods and delivered with fidelity. It referenced research supporting approaches such as cognitive-behavioral and relapse-prevention models, including findings that structured treatment with aftercare can reduce recidivism and produce cost-benefit returns.
What does "implemented with fidelity" mean in the context of this solicitation?
Based on the solicitation language, it meant the proposed program was expected to follow an evidence-based model closely and include operational details that support consistent delivery, such as defined assessments, treatment structure, dosage recommendations, progress tracking, provider qualifications, staff training requirements, and a clear accounting of resources used to support delivery.
What operational components were expected in the proposed treatment program?
The solicitation expected key components including risk and needs assessment processes, the treatment modality and structure, dosage recommendations (how much treatment and for how long), methods to track participant progress, clear provider qualifications, staff training requirements, and an accounting of available resources to support delivery.
What were the victim safety requirements?
Victim safety was described as non-negotiable. The solicitation stressed that the project must protect victims and avoid processes that could retraumatize them or shift blame onto them.
What kinds of data collection were applicants expected to conduct?
Applicants were expected to collect program development and participant data, and to include a monitoring and evaluation plan describing how information would be collected and analyzed.
What outcomes did the solicitation encourage applicants to track?
The opportunity encouraged tracking outcomes such as descriptive characteristics of perpetrators and the eligible population on the campus(es); recidivism (including new sexual, violent, or other criminal offenses); measurable behavioral change indicators (for example, pro-criminal attitudes or antisocial behavior); participant employment and housing outcomes; drug and alcohol use; participation in other services (such as substance abuse or mental health treatment); and overall cost effectiveness.
What was the final deliverable required by the grant?
The final deliverable was a comprehensive report that included the finalized treatment curriculum; the theoretical and empirical rationale supporting it; documentation of how implementation occurred; counts and categories of perpetrators served; offender profiles (including demographics, adjudication details, risk/needs results, treatment received, and any related supervision or adjunct services); descriptive information about services provided to the victims of those perpetrators; and the ongoing monitoring and evaluation plan with any available outcome results.
Did the solicitation require information about services provided to victims?
Yes. The final report was expected to include descriptive information about services provided to the victims of the perpetrators served by the program.
Was recidivism specifically mentioned as an outcome measure?
Yes. The monitoring and evaluation guidance encouraged tracking recidivism, including new sexual, violent, or other criminal offenses.
Were substance use and related services included in the suggested outcomes?
Yes. The solicitation encouraged tracking drug and alcohol use, as well as participation in other services such as substance abuse or mental health treatment.
Was cost effectiveness part of the expected evaluation thinking?
Yes. The solicitation encouraged applicants to track overall cost effectiveness, and it referenced research findings indicating that structured treatment with aftercare can yield significant cost-benefit returns.
Could the project be formally evaluated later?
Yes. The solicitation stated that the recipient should be prepared to participate in a later formal evaluation if additional funds became available.
When was the opportunity posted and when did it close?
It was posted in late April 2014 and closed on June 13, 2014.
Which agency sponsored the opportunity?
The sponsoring agency was the SMART Office within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
What CFDA program was associated with this solicitation?
The solicitation was associated with CFDA 16.203, titled Promoting Evidence Integration in Sex Offender Management.
Who was listed as a contact for access issues with the full announcement?
Faith Baker was identified as the contact for access issues with the full announcement.
Browse more opportunities from the same category: Law, Justice and Legal Services
Next opportunity: Ecologically Sustainable Fire Risk Reduction
Previous opportunity: Minority AIDS Initiative Continuum of Care Pilot Integration of HIV Prevention and Medical Care into Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment Programs for Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations at High Risk for Behavioral Health Disorders and HIV
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 2014 3915
[Watch] how do funding administrators access proposals?
Applicants also applied for:
Applicants who have applied for this opportunity (SMART 2014 3915) also looked into and applied for these:
| Funding Opportunity |
|---|
| Estate Planning Services for American Indians and Alaska Natives Apply for D15AP00008 Funding Number: D15AP00008 Agency: Department of the Interior Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: Case Dependent |
| SMART FY 15 Support for Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program Apply for SMART 2015 4074 Funding Number: SMART 2015 4074 Agency: Department of Justice Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $400,000 |
| 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 4107 Funding Number: SMART 2015 4107 Agency: Department of Justice Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $250,000 |
| SMART FY 15 Promoting Evidence Integration in Sex Offender Management Applying Circles of Support of Accountability in Indian Country Training and Technical Assistance Apply for SMART 2015 4150 Funding Number: SMART 2015 4150 Agency: Department of Justice Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $500,000 |
| SMART FY 15 Campus Focused Sexual Assault Perpetration Prevention and Education Program Apply for SMART 2015 4157 Funding Number: SMART 2015 4157 Agency: Department of Justice Category: Law, Justice and Legal Services Funding Amount: $1,000,000 |
| 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 |
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 2014 3915", 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.