Funding Opportunity Number: 26CS06
Assistance Listing Number: 16.602
Due Date for Applications: May 4, 2026
Applicants must register with Grants.gov prior to submitting an application. NIC encourages applicants to register several weeks before the application submission deadline. In addition, NIC urges applicants to submit applications 72 hours prior to the application due date. All applications are due to be submitted and in receipt of a successful validation message in Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on May 4, 2026. Late applications are neither reviewed nor considered.
Purpose:
Establish a process evaluation framework specifically tailored for state Department of Corrections (DOC) agencies to facilitate a systematic and in-depth examination of the decision-making processes involved in releasing incarcerated individuals to halfway houses and reentry centers. This is not a funding opportunity to establish halfway homes, build halfway homes nor staffing for halfway homes. The central aim is to uncover the precise operational mechanisms, identify the challenges encountered, and understand the various factors that influence these critical determinations. It is important to clarify that this evaluation focuses on understanding.
SPECIAL NOTE: Applications must be ‘VALIDATED’ by Grants.gov by the application deadline. This can take up to 48 hours after successful submission. See Section 5, Timely Receipt Requirements and Proof of Timely Submission, for more information. It is strongly recommended that applications be submitted at least 2 business days ahead of the application deadline.
Executive Summary
The release decision-making process is crucial to the criminal justice system and should be intentional and deliberate. Reentry decisions should consider factors such as the inmate’s risk, needs and responsivity (RNR) principles and community safety concerns. There has been some attention surrounding the utilization of halfway houses but, additional assessment and review is needed to understand the current state of halfway house utilization and make transformational changes that supports successful reentry outcomes in halfway houses. The questions to explore are simple and complex. For example, what and how is criteria (risk assessments, protective factors, etc.) used in the decision-making process from prison to halfway house; how are case managers planning for halfway house release with their residents; what does the “hand-off” from prisons officials to halfway house organizations entail; how are the community, business, education and other public or non-profit entities involved in this release process to halfway house and; what is the continuum of support/care provided during their reentry/transition period at halfway houses (e.g., employment, life skills, mental health, substance use). These are some of the broad questions this work seeks to answer.
One notable dynamic to explore in the decision-making processes involves the tension between discretionary authority and standardized procedures. Multiple sources highlight that release decisions involve "discretionary judgment", and key actors like wardens, community corrections managers, and case managers are the final decision makers. How each of these actors makes decisions varies, leaving the possibility of subjective judgment in the process. Simultaneously, there are explicit legal mandates, state statutes, and zoning requirements that outline specific criteria, timelines, and procedures for release to halfway houses.
While policies and assessment tools aim for consistency, fairness, and evidence-based decision making, the space where discretion exists can lead to variations in which individuals are being considered for release. This human factor introduces the potential for inconsistencies in eligibility determinations, or deviations from the policy and program criteria/design or inconsistent application of policy and procedures. This points to the dilemma between discretionary release practices versus standardized releasing decision-making.
Therefore, a process evaluation created should be conducted to understand currently how discretion is applied within defined policy parameters. Dynamics to understand include: are policies consistently applied across different unit teams, case managers, or community corrections boards; are there informal norms or unwritten rules that influence decisions more than formal policy; what are the perceived trade-offs between strict adherence to policy and the flexibility needed for individualized case management?
The primary objective is to systematically examine the current decision-making point governing the process of prison residents release to halfway houses. This process evaluation should aim to illuminate the operational realities and challenges in order for NIC to discern how those underlying factors can be changed and improved upon. By focusing on the “why” and “how” of this decision point, we will better understand halfway house placement implementation.
Please note, this is NOT a funding opportunity to plan, establish, revise, fund, staff or build a halfway house in any community.
Agency Contact Information:
Application Submission and Form Information:
Cameron Coblentz
202-514-0053
Program Specific Information: Comments or questions submitted should be concise and to the point, eliminating any unnecessary verbiage. In addition, the relevant page, part and paragraph of the NOFO should be referenced. Responses to programmatic questions will be posted on NIC’s website for public review. The website will be updated regularly, and postings will remain on the website until the closing date of this solicitation. Questions submitted within two weeks prior to a submission deadline may not be answered, and the due date for proposal submission will not be extended.
Kendall Rhyne, National Program Advisor
KRhyne@bop.gov
Questions and Answers about this C.A.
Following are the responses to questions received as of March 20, 2026 in response to the above solicitation:
Question 1: The NOFO describes a 12-month project period with a two-year scope. Year 1 focuses on data collection from state DOCs regarding halfway house placement decision-making, and Year 2 involves convening working groups of criminal justice subject matter experts to develop national recommendations. Could you clarify whether the $100,000 award is intended to cover both Year 1 and Year 2 activities, or whether Year 2 will be funded through a separate continuation award or supplemental funding?
Answer: The funding available for year 1 is 100,000. Funding for year 2 is subject to availability of funds and amount is yet to be determined.
Question 2: The NOFO notes that data collection instruments (surveys, interview protocols) will need to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Should applicants build time into their project timeline for OMB clearance prior to data collection, or will NIC handle this process independently of the project period?
Answer: The National Institute of Corrections will work with the awardee in developing a process that allows for the collection of information in a manner that is compliant with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Question 3: The last two objectives on pg 9 ('Develop a plan for conducting the meetings' and 'Facilitate working group sessions to reach consensus/recommendations') appear to be objectives that were outlined on pg 8 as part of Year 2 Objectives. Should the applicant address how these objectives will be accomplished in the proposal narrative, noting this work would take place in Year 2?
Answer: The applicants should only address objectives for year 1. The approved applicant (awardee) will respond to year 2 objectives at the appropriate time.
Question 4: Does NIC plan on playing a role in selecting the DOCs the funding recipient will outreach to?
Answer: The applicants are responsible for developing a research methodology, it can include how to determine which DOCs should be in the outreach. NIC will have final approval of the methodology.
Question 5: Will applications be given preference if the proposal forecasts work with 3 or 4 DOCs, instead of 5? If the preference is engaging with 5 DOCs, will applications be given priority if site visits are planned for all 5 sites or is there flexibility?
Answer: There are no preferences given. Applicants should refer to the section in the NOFO application on “Application Review Information” to understand how applications are selected.
Question 6: The NOFO describes convening a working group of criminal justice subject matter experts in Year 2. Could you clarify how NIC envisions the composition of this working group, and whether participants are expected to be compensated from award funds or whether they typically serve in a voluntary or official government capacity? This will inform both budget development and the methodology implementation plan.
Answer: Applicants are only expected to respond to the scope of work and objectives for year 1. The approved applicant (awardee) will respond to year 2 objectives at the appropriate time.
Question 7: The NOFO states that the awardee shall not proceed with data collection until the Project Monitor obtains OMB clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act. I appreciate that NIC carries this responsibility. Could you provide an estimated timeline for OMB clearance so that I can build a realistic Year 1 milestone chart? Specifically, should I assume that data collection will not begin until a certain month of Year 1, and are there aspects of methodology development or instrument design that can proceed in parallel with the clearance process?
Answer: Applicants should build their timelines based on a 12 month period to complete all work, inclding the design of the methodology and the data collection.
