NIJ Posted Three Research Competitions on One Day. All Three Are Really About Finding a Police Partner Before November 30

On October 22, 2026, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) posted three research solicitations on the same day. All three share a deadline and a scoring rubric. Each one is built on the same assumption: the researchers who win will be the ones who already have a working relationship with a police department, prosecutor's office or service agency.

The three competitions are:

Together that is $8.3 million spread across roughly 12 to 14 awards, which works out to about $600,000 per project. All three use NIJ's two-step submission process:

• SAM.gov registration or renewal: begin now and finish no later than November 16, 2026
• Step 1, Grants.gov (SF-424 and SF-LLL): 11:59 p.m. ET, November 30, 2026
• Step 2, full application in JustGrants: 8:59 p.m. ET, December 7, 2026

That gives applicants about five and a half weeks from posting, and the window includes Thanksgiving. For a research team that still needs to sign a data-sharing agreement with a police agency, that is not much time.

Why three small solicitations matter more than their size suggests

These are not large competitions. NIJ's Byrne SCIP evaluation, posted two weeks earlier, puts $23.8 million into four awards. These three combined come to about a third of that.

They are worth studying anyway, because they show where NIJ's research agenda is heading under the FY 2026 appropriation (Pub. L. No. 119-74). All three open with the same framing: OJP exists to "directly support law enforcement, combat violent crime, protect American children" and supports DOJ's commitment to "Gold Standard Science." All three carry the same list of five agency funding priorities, led by "directly supporting law enforcement operations (including immigration law enforcement operations)." And all three define operational usefulness to police as the measure of a successful project.

For criminal justice researchers, especially in university criminology departments, this is the current shape of the NIJ portfolio. These three are the clearest example yet of what a winning application looks like inside it.

Solicitation 1: Drones as First Responders ($3.5M)

What NIJ is buying

The drone solicitation asks for "rigorous evaluations of implementations of drone technology to combat violent crime, immigration enforcement, and other law enforcement activities." The stated goal is "actionable information about police implementation of small drones through a collaboration between law enforcement agencies and researchers."

Drone as first responder (DFR) programs station drones in advance, often on rooftops or docking stations, so they can be launched to a 911 call and arrive before patrol officers do. Chula Vista, California, made the model famous around 2018. Since then, hundreds of agencies have adopted some version of it, usually under FAA waivers for flights beyond the operator's line of sight. What the field mostly lacks is independent evaluation. Most of the published evidence comes from vendors or from the agencies running the programs.

NIJ will fund two kinds of projects:

1. Evaluations of existing DFR programs at departments already flying them
2. New pilot programs or demonstrations, where the grant pays to stand up a DFR capability and then evaluate it

The second option is unusual for a research solicitation. Objective 4 is to "identify, procure, and deploy appropriate DFR products and services," and the NOFO states that participating law enforcement agencies "will have the option to retain any DFR technology purchased through the NOFO at the study's conclusion." In practice, a police department that partners with a research team can end up with a working drone program paid for by an NIJ research grant.

That makes the partnership attractive to agencies, which matters, since the eight objectives assume the agency is a full participant. Those objectives include developing DFR policy frameworks that address "regulatory and legal requirements, staffing, training, and infrastructure needs, technology deployment, public engagement," running the pilot, collecting operational data and transferring "policy documents and DFR technology" to the agency at the end.

What this means for your design

• Cost-benefit analysis is mandatory. Any applicant proposing evaluation research "must include cost/benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses." For DFR, the question an agency actually has is whether drones save officer hours and prevent unnecessary dispatches. That question is a cost-effectiveness question. Plan the cost model from the start rather than adding it at the end.
• The 36-month clock starts February 1, 2027. NIJ warns that "award clearing takes roughly three months, during which research may be prohibited or significantly constrained." If you are proposing a new pilot, procurement, FAA authorization and policy development will consume the first year. A realistic timeline sets aside at least 12 months of post-launch data for the outcome analysis.
• Pick outcomes the agency already records. Response time to first eyes on scene, the share of calls closed without dispatching a car, arrests, use-of-force incidents and complaints are all available in CAD and RMS data. A design that depends on new data collection by patrol officers will struggle.
• Address the privacy questions directly. The NOFO lists "public engagement" among the policy domains and requires a Privacy Certificate. Reviewers will expect a plan for data retention, flight logging and community notification. A team that treats civil liberties as part of the evaluation, not a compliance step, will score better on Potential Impact.

At $3.5 million for five or six awards, budgets will average roughly $580,000 to $700,000. NIJ says award amounts depend on the research proposed "up to the full dollar amount anticipated," but a single $3.5 million request will not be competitive. A new pilot that includes hardware should budget toward the upper end of that range. An evaluation of an existing program can come in lower.

A pre-application webinar is planned but has not yet been scheduled, so check the NIJ funding page.

Solicitation 2: Gangs and Organized Criminal Groups ($3M)

The policy anchor

This NOFO cites its policy drivers explicitly. Funded projects will "inform law enforcement strategies and operations to effectuate EO 14157, 'Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations And Specially Designated Global Terrorist'" and Chapter 4 of the 2026 National Drug Control Strategy, "Global Campaign Against Transnational Criminal Threats," along with firearm, human and other trafficking violence.

Despite that framing, the research request is a conventional NIJ evaluation call. NIJ wants "rigorous evaluations of new or existing strategies intended to reduce violent crime associated with gangs and organized criminal groups or networks" that are "led by or collaborate with law enforcement agencies."

Design requirements

• Outcomes must be violent crime measures: "murder, aggravated assault, and robbery along with relevant intermediate and process outcomes." Studies measured only in arrests, seizures or gang-database counts do not meet this standard.
• Methods: randomized controlled trials "when feasible," quasi-experimental designs, matched comparisons and mixed methods. A process evaluation is expected alongside the outcome work.
• Multi-site and cross-jurisdictional evaluations are encouraged. For transnational groups, this is how to make the "transnational" element measurable. A study that follows one network's violence across several cities or a border region fits the NOFO's framing better than a single-city gang unit evaluation.
• Context factors: evaluations "should consider how individual, group, organizational, situational, or other relevant contextual factors interact with the strategies being studied."

The period of performance runs up to 60 months. That is long enough for a real outcome evaluation of a focused-deterrence or group violence intervention strategy with a year or more of follow-up. With five awards from $3 million, the average is about $600,000 over as many as five years, roughly $120,000 per year. That is a lean budget for a multi-site RCT. Use administrative data heavily and keep primary data collection targeted.

Where the applicant pool will compete

The obvious candidates are focused-deterrence and group violence intervention models. They have the longest evaluation history, so a new study has to add something. The stronger angles are likely:

• Strategies aimed specifically at cartel-linked or transnational networks operating domestically, where the evidence base is thin
• Interagency task-force models that combine local police with federal partners, which match the NOFO's operational focus
• Trafficking-related violence, which the NOFO names directly

Researchers who have historically framed gang work as community violence intervention will need to reframe it. This NOFO wants strategies that are "led by or collaborate with law enforcement," and the scoring will reward that partnership.

Solicitation 3: Elder Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation ($1.8M)

This is the smallest of the three and the most tightly scoped. NIJ will consider only proposals in four topic areas, and "applications proposing research projects not addressing one of these four areas will not be considered":

1. Emerging technologies in fraud and exploitation, including how "machine learning, super intelligence, and other emerging technologies might support law enforcement, prosecutors, financial institutions, and Adult Protective Services" in detecting suspicious activity
2. Forensic research to distinguish abuse and neglect from illness, injury or age-related decline, so cases can be built "from the start of an investigation"
3. Program evaluations, either formative or evaluability-assessment work, or outcome and impact evaluations of well-developed programs
4. Research to inform education and intervention programs addressing financial fraud against older adults

The strategic read

Topic 1 is the most competitive and probably the most fundable. Elder financial exploitation is now largely a technology crime: romance scams, impersonation schemes, cryptocurrency fraud and AI-generated voice cloning. Financial institutions hold the data that could reveal the patterns. A team that pairs a university data science group with a bank's fraud unit and a state APS agency can answer the NOFO's question directly. Data-access letters will decide the score, not the algorithm.

Topic 3 has a two-stage structure that should shape your ask. NIJ invites formative evaluations and evaluability assessments for programs "not ready to support rigorous outcome evaluations." Recipients "can then submit a subsequent application for funding of further evaluation research," and NIJ "may give applications for subsequent funding a higher priority consideration." For a program that has never been evaluated, a modest evaluability assessment is the realistic first step and may lead to later funding.

For outcome evaluations, NIJ "will only fund projects that evaluate well-developed programs" and wants supporting documentation: logic models, manuals, prior evaluation findings, staffing and funding information. As with the drone NOFO, cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis is required for evaluation research. No funds may be budgeted for direct services.

With two or three awards from $1.8 million, budgets will average roughly $600,000 to $900,000 over as many as five years.

The shared scoring rubric

All three NOFOs score applications the same way:

The narrative limit is 30 double-spaced pages in 12-point type. NIJ notes that it "may reduce the score/ranking" of a narrative that ignores the format rules.

The 5 percent weight on the problem statement is important. Reviewers already know that elder fraud is rising and that gangs drive violence. Use two paragraphs to establish the gap in the literature, then spend the space on methods. Potential Impact is worth a quarter of the score. NIJ asks for dissemination products for practitioners and says grantees should "devote equal effort" to those products and to the scholarly ones. A one-page translation plan aimed at police chiefs or APS directors is a scored deliverable, not optional extra work.

The priorities and the compliance language

Priority consideration is opt-in, and it requires work

Each NOFO lists five "agency funding priorities": supporting law enforcement operations, including immigration enforcement; combatting violent crime; supporting services to American citizens; protecting American children; and supporting American victims of trafficking and sexual assault. To be considered under them, you must complete the Agency Funding Priorities Inventory in JustGrants and state in the proposal narrative which priorities your project advances and how.

The drone and gang solicitations fit the first two priorities naturally. The drone NOFO lists immigration enforcement as a use case in its opening paragraph. For the elder abuse solicitation, the clearest fit is supporting law enforcement operations through investigations and prosecutions.

NIJ notes that priority consideration "is one of many factors" and "does not guarantee funding." In a competition with five awards, though, it can decide close cases. If your project genuinely advances one of the priorities, say so specifically.

The scope exclusions apply at every tier

All three NOFOs carry OJP's FY 2026 unallowable-activities language. Out of scope is any program that "directly or indirectly" violates or impedes federal immigration law, "including by failing to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, give access to DHS agents, or honor DHS requests." The NOFOs also exclude programs that violate civil rights law, including by unlawfully favoring "individuals in any race or protected group," and costs for legal services to removable noncitizens.

The phrase "at any tier" matters for research partnerships. It reaches subrecipients, which means the police agency or city you partner with. A university applicant proposing to work with a department in a jurisdiction with sanctuary-style policies should have counsel review this before December 7. We analyzed how this language operates across OJP's portfolio in our breakdown of BJA's Integrity in American Elections program.

Who can apply

Eligibility is broad. State, county, city, township and special district governments; federally recognized and other tribal governments; public and private institutions of higher education; school districts; nonprofits with or without 501(c)(3) status; and for-profit organizations, including small businesses, are all eligible. The drone NOFO also lists public housing authorities and other units of local government. Non-U.S. entities are not eligible.

No match is required. You may submit more than one application if each proposes a different project. Partners must be subrecipients, not co-applicants, and one entity can be a subrecipient on several applications.

That last rule creates an opening. A police department running a well-regarded DFR program could appear as a subrecipient on two or three competing university applications. If you want an exclusive arrangement with a strong agency partner, secure it early.

Recommendations by applicant type

University criminology and public policy programs. Choose one solicitation, not three. Lead with the agency partner and its data. Make sure the letter of support names the specific data systems the agency will share, and have the data-sharing agreement at least in draft before December 7.

Police departments already flying drones. You have something every DFR applicant needs: an operating program and data. You can apply directly, since local governments are eligible, with a university evaluator as a subrecipient. Or you can choose the strongest research team that approaches you. Either way, ask about the equipment-retention provision.

Departments considering DFR. The pilot option is a way to fund a launch, but reviewers will look closely at readiness. Before submitting, arrange FAA authorization, a draft use policy and political support from city leadership.

Elder justice organizations, APS agencies and financial institutions. Topics 1 and 4 need your data. A bank or credit union fraud team can be a valuable subrecipient. A nonprofit elder abuse program that has never been evaluated should ask for a formative evaluation under Topic 3, not an RCT.

Research firms and for-profit evaluators. You are eligible. With an average award near $600,000, your indirect rate will receive scrutiny under the 15 percent budget criterion.

What to do this week

1. Confirm SAM.gov is active and your registration will not lapse before December 7. NIJ's own cutoff for starting renewal is November 16.
2. Choose your solicitation based on which agency partner you can secure, not which topic interests you most.
3. Get a signed letter of commitment from the agency partner that names data systems and staff contacts.
4. Draft the cost-effectiveness model if you are proposing an evaluation. It is required, and it is the hardest piece to add late.
5. Decide on priority consideration and draft the paragraph explaining how your project advances the priorities.
6. File the Grants.gov SF-424 well before November 30. If you miss Step 1, you are locked out of Step 2.

For other DOJ research competitions on similar timelines, see our analyses of NIJ's Byrne SCIP evaluation and BJA's Missing and Unidentified Human Remains program. For counter-drone funding, as distinct from police drone programs, see our breakdown of FEMA's FY 2027 C-UAS grant program.

If you are building an application for any of these three competitions, Granted can help you draft the narrative against NIJ's scoring weights, structure the cost-effectiveness section and prepare the JustGrants attachments before the November 30 Grants.gov deadline.