Laserfiche WebLink
14 <br />OJPComnlianceRerJorting(c�usdoi.gov at the time of application submission: <br />• The federal agency that currently designated the applicant as high risk; <br />• Date the applicant was designated high risk; <br />• The high risk point of contact name, phone number, and email address, from that <br />federal agency; and <br />• Reasons for the high risk status. <br />OJP seeks this information to ensure appropriate federal oversight of any grant award. <br />Unlike the Excluded Parties List, this high risk information does not disqualify any <br />organization from receiving an OJP award. However, additional grant oversight may be <br />included, if necessary, in award documentation. <br />10. Additional Attachments (if applicable) <br />Research and Evaluation independence and Integrity <br />If a proposal involves research and/or evaluation, regardless of the proposal's other <br />merits, in order to receive funds, the applicant must demonstrate research/evaluation <br />independence, including appropriate safeguards to ensure research/evaluation objectivity <br />and integrity. <br />For purposes of this solicitation, research and evaluation independence and integrity <br />pertains to ensuring that the design, conduct, or reporting of research and evaluation funded <br />by BJA grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts will not be biased by any personal or <br />financial conflict of interest on the part of the investigators responsible for the research and <br />evaluation or on the part of the applicant organization. Conflicts can be either actual or <br />apparent. Examples of potential investigator (or other personal) conflict situations may <br />include those in which an investigatorWould be in a position to evaluate a spouse's work <br />product (actual conflict), or an investigator would be in a position to evaluate the work of a <br />former colleague (potential apparent conflict). With regard to potential organizational <br />conflicts of interest, as one example, generally an organization could not be given a grant to <br />evaluate a project if that organization had itself provided substantial prior technical <br />assistance to that project, as the organization in such an instance would appear to be <br />evaluating the effectiveness of its own prior work. The key is whether a reasonable person <br />understanding all of the facts would be able to have confidence that the results of any <br />research or evaluation project are objective and reliable. Any outside personal or financial <br />interest that casts doubt on that objectivity and reliability is a problem. <br />In the attachment dealing with research and evaluation independence and integrity, the <br />applicant should explain the process and procedures that the applicant has put in place to <br />identify and eliminate (or, at the very least, mitigate) potential personal or financial conflicts <br />of interest on the part of its staff, consultants, and/or subrecipients. It should also identify <br />any potential organizational conflicts of interest on the part of the applicant with regard to the <br />proposed research/evaluation. If the applicant reasonably believes that no potential personal <br />or organizational conflicts of interest exist, then the applicant should provide a brief narrative <br />explanation of how and why it reached that conclusion. Documentation that may be helpful <br />in this regard could include organizational codes of ethics/conduct or policies regarding <br />organizational, personal, and financial conflicts of interest. <br />18 <br />111 <br />