Please enable JavaScript to allow page to load properly.

Examples of Applications Funded in FY 2010

To provide additional assistance and transparency about the process for selecting grants, BJA is posting examples below of applicants that were recommended for funding in FY 2010. BJA is committed to ensuring a fair and consistent process for awarding grants. BJA reviews applications to make sure that the information presented is reasonable, understandable, measurable, and achievable, as well as consistent with program and legislative requirements as stated in the solicitation. Applications are initially screened to determine whether the applicants meet all eligibility requirements. Only applications submitted by eligible applicants that meet all other requirements (such as timeliness, includes all required attachments, and responsiveness to the scope of the solicitation) will be evaluated, scored, and rated by a peer review panel. A peer reviewer is an expert in the field of the subject matter of a given solicitation. Peer reviewers' ratings and any resulting recommendations are advisory only. In addition to peer review ratings, considerations may include, but are not limited to, underserved populations, geographic and topical diversity, strategic priorities, past performance, fiscal integrity and financial capability of applicants, and available funding. Absent explicit statutory authorization or written delegation of authority to the contrary, all final grant award decisions were made by the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs. Please note that the rating of applications can vary from year to year, based upon changes in selection criteria, feedback of the peer reviewers and other relevant considerations such as those listed above.