NCITE has issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for project proposals for its seventh research year. Find instructions, documents, and details on our selection process below.
🎯 Snapshot
🗓️ Key Dates
- NOFO Issue Date: March 9, 2026
- White Paper Due Date: March 23, 2026
- Full Proposal for Select Applicants Due Date: May 8, 2026
Submit proposals by email to: NCITENOFO@unomaha.edu
🧭 Navigate This Page
- Overview
- Submission Guidance
- Appendix A: Challenge Questions
- Appendix B: White Paper/Pre-Proposal Requirements
- Appendix C: Full Proposal Requirements
- Appendix D: Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Overview
NCITE’s vision is to be the premier U.S. academic provider of counterterrorism research, technology, and workforce development. NCITE’s research seeks to innovate, educate, and create new strategies that support operators while building a workforce pipeline where it’s desperately needed: in STEM and Homeland Security fields.
As DHS’s trusted partner for counterterrorism research, NCITE seeks to bring together the brightest minds in the field. Our mission is to make these research findings relevant and ready. Our goal is to help America’s Homeland Security frontline be known as first in-class in counterterrorism.
Because NCITE is sponsored by the Office of University Programs in DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate, the intent of this call is to spark innovation from university labs and research teams. As such, only proposals led by universities will be considered for funding. However, we welcome collaborative proposals that include non-government organizations, individual consultants, and technology partners (although such partners are not required).
NCITE requests proposals across three strategic priorities:- Actors: NCITE identifies and explains the leadership structure, organizational networks, recruitment dynamics, and motivation of individuals and groups who seek to harm the U.S. – including cartels, transnational criminal organizations, foreign terrorist organizations, and other homeland threat actors.
- Tactics: NCITE leverages its expert bench of interdisciplinary researchers to understand how terrorists find creative ways to cause harm. This includes how they could exploit new technologies, including artificial intelligence, drones, and the AR/VR metaverse.
- Targets: NCITE research examines how we can better protect locations and sites that could be targeted by terrorists, including event venues, the U.S. border, and the 16 U.S. critical infrastructure sectors.
With those objectives in mind, NCITE requests proposals intended to address research questions and challenges that NCITE, DHS, and/or its partners in the Homeland Security Enterprise (HSE) have posed. Proposals undergo scientific review as well as DHS relevancy review.
Estimated Funding
Pending receipt of funding, NCITE intends to award 2-3 new projects in 2026-2027. These projects will be conducted starting July 1, 2026, or upon confirmation of the funding received. Continuation past the initial 12 months for 24-month projects is dependent on continued relevance and funding availability. The average award has been $174,000 for one year of effort.Eligible Grantees
As noted above, organizations eligible to receive NCITE subawards for 2026-2027 are institutes of higher education. NCITE does not award grants to individuals, private non-higher education organizations, or to federal, state, county, or local government entities — though those groups may be partners in the work conducted by the grant recipient. The proposal’s designated principal investigator must be an employee of the higher-education organization.
Eligible Projects
In 2026-2027, NCITE will fund research projects that generate new knowledge. Funding decisions will be made on how well a proposal meets the evaluation criteria detailed in Appendix D. Quantitative scoring of the evaluation criteria will be used by external scientific reviewers and DHS for a relevancy review. NCITE will fund projects that align to the challenge questions listed in Appendix A.
Please note that all selected projects must be able to complete the proposed research using non-DHS data sources or simulated and/or synthetic data. DHS is unable to provide operational data suitable for algorithm development and testing to performers under this award. Each proposal must identify how and where it will acquire real, simulated, or other synthetically generated data.
Additional Information
NCITE may contact applicants for additional information prior to selection.
NCITE reserves the right to fund, in whole or in part, any, all, or none of the applications submitted in response to this request for proposals.
Proposers are expected to understand that awardees are identified as subawards of the NCITE primary cooperative agreement and will be held to specific and timely extensive project requirements and workplan performance achievements.
In accordance with University of Nebraska at Omaha policy, NCITE does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, ethnicity, religion, national origin, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, sex, marital status, disability, or status as a U.S. veteran. As such, proposals will only be accepted by institutions that abide by these same practices.
All subawardees, contractors, and other entities participating under this award are required to comply with all applicable federal civil rights and civil liberties requirements, including those governing nondiscrimination and the protection of privacy and personally identifiable information including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Submission Guidance
- Deadline
- Format
- Multi-Year Project Proposals
- Applicant Notification and Timeline
- Privacy Guidelines
- Questions about this Notice of Funding Opportunity
Deadline
The due date for white paper is 11:59 p.m. EST on March 23, 2026, via email: NCITENOFO@unomaha.edu. We will request full proposal submissions from select applicants. These will be due May 8, 2026.
Format
For the 2026-2027 funding cycle, submissions will be conducted in two parts: 1) submission of a three-page white paper/pre-proposal and 2) invitation for full proposal.
- See Appendix B for details on white paper requirements.
- See Appendix C for details on full proposal requirements.
Multi-Year Project Proposals
Applicants may submit a proposal up to 24 months in length, with deliverables and budgets for each year within the period of performance: year one July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2027, and year two July 1, 2027 – June 30, 2028. Each one-year period of performance should have meaningful milestones and research translation products. Partners awarded with two-year projects must follow the same reporting schedule for semiannual and annual reports. Continued funding in year 2 will be contingent upon acceptable relevancy and performance reviews by NCITE and DHS, available funding, and continued need. Continued funding of a project is not guaranteed.
Applicant Notification and Timeline
Following initial white paper submission, NCITE will notify applicants regarding our invitation for full project submission on April 6, 2026, for a period of performance beginning on July 1, 2026. Please note that research start is contingent upon institutional IRB, DHS Compliance Assurance Program Office (CAPO), and DHS Privacy approvals.
Privacy Guidelines
Research subawards will be subject to the terms and conditions found on the NOFO webpage. Applicants are encouraged to review all the terms and conditions prior to drafting and submitting a proposal to determine their ability and/or willingness to adhere to the proposal requirements and to accept both the DHS Standard and Center of Excellence terms and conditions in a subaward should one be awarded. Applicants asked to submit full proposals should refer to Appendix C for additional privacy guidance.
Due to the nature of the cooperative agreement that governs NCITE from DHS and the flow down privacy guidelines to subawardees, projects are subject to additional privacy guidelines. Review of proposals will include an evaluation of risk to individuals’ privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. Web scraping and/or active social media data are not permissible; synthetic data is permissible. Any data collection must not profile, target, or discriminate against any individual based on the content of their speech and how they express themselves non-violently, their associations, how and whether they choose to worship, and how they choose to non-violently express their concerns or positions to government.
Ensure all research is in accordance with the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs). In the white paper proposal, please note your data source and method including type of data.
Data definitions:
- Third-party data is data not generated via project activities; this is data you do not create or collect. Third-party data includes any information not generated via project activities or information sourced from other than the research subject; for you to meaningfully use third-party data, these data need to appear in the project outputs. Studies would not be using third-party data if they solely collect original/new information through surveys, interviews, focus groups, or experiments. A non-exhaustive list of examples of this data includes publicly available open-source data, existing datasets, replication data from journal articles, de-identified survey data from other research, databases that collate public information, among others.
- Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is any information that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information that is linked or linkable to that individual, regardless of whether the individual is a S. citizen, legal permanent resident, visitor to the U.S., or employee or contractor to the Department.
- Sensitive PII is PII which, if lost, compromised, or disclosed without authorization, could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to an individual.
- Privacy sensitive means that the research activity could have an impact on an individual’s privacy – be it bodily privacy, communications privacy, territorial privacy, or information privacy.
Questions about this Notice of Funding Opportunity
Applicants should direct questions about this request for proposals to NCITENOFO@unomaha.edu. We will respond to questions until March 18, 2026.
Appendix A: Challenge Questions
- Challenge Area 1: Nature of Emerging Threat Actors
- Challenge Area 2: Emerging Tactics Used by Threat Actors
- Challenge Area 3: Targets
The NCITE challenge areas include general topics and specific research questions from NCITE, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and other partners in the homeland security enterprise (HSE) that new proposals should seek to address. Proposals should fit within one or more of the four challenge areas—it is not required to address a specific question. Each of the four themes will guide the direction of new projects for the 2026-2027 academic year.
Challenge Area 1: Nature of Emerging Threat Actors
2025 saw 25 new Foreign Terrorist Organization Designations. Projects that illuminate any subset or specific FTOs’ likely organizational structures, use of technology, and potential targets in the United States are welcomed. Innovative methods that also protect civil rights and civil liberties of individuals under examination are encouraged.
Specific challenge question(s):
- What structural and behavioral dynamics within online environments facilitate or inhibit the escalation of vulnerable youth from digital exposure to engagement and ultimately to mobilization toward violent extremism? How can online ecosystems be structured or influenced to effectively disrupt mobilization pathways?
Challenge Area 2: Emerging Tactics Used by Threat Actors
Emerging technologies – such as AI-enabled systems, cyber tools, and unmanned systems – are reshaping the tactics available to terrorists and other illicit threat actors. Projects in this area may examine how threat actors adopt and adapt novel technologies, as well as the technical and organizational constraints that shape their use. Research examining emerging TTPs as well as potential technical, legal, and policy interventions, is welcome.
Specific challenge question(s):
- What risks do autonomous or semi-autonomous AI systems pose within the terrorism and extremism landscape once deployed without ongoing human oversight or control? Specifically, how might AI agents that operate beyond the intent, supervision, or direct manipulation of a threat actor introduce novel operational, strategic, or attribution challenges? With an emphasis on technical characteristics (e.g., autonomy, goal persistence, model drift, recursive self-improvement, tool use, networked coordination), what unique failure modes or exploitation pathways could emerge if such systems are intentionally or unintentionally released into open or semi-open environments?
- What emerging technical, legal, policy, and operational countermeasures are most effective in mitigating extremist or terrorist exploitation of AI systems? How should defensive strategies be differentiated across distinct use cases (e.g., synthetic media generation, automated reconnaissance, cyber intrusion enablement, weapon design assistance, or operational planning support)? Which countermeasures are most promising at the model, platform, infrastructure, and ecosystem levels (e.g., model safeguards, watermarking, content provenance, compute governance, monitoring, red-teaming, or access controls), and what are their known limitations?
- What are the current technological constraints limiting the malign use of physical AI-enabled systems (e.g., robotics, autonomous vehicles, drone swarms) by non-state actors? Consider constraints related to hardware access, cost, supply chains, sensor fidelity, navigation robustness, autonomy in unstructured environments, energy density, command-and-control resilience, and scalability. How might these constraints be incrementally or rapidly overcome through technological diffusion, open-source development, dual-use innovation, or state sponsorship? What indicators would signal a meaningful shift in capability?
- U.S. counter-drone policy and legislation is actively clarifying authorizations and expanding counter-drone capabilities. As commercial and industry unmanned systems (UxS) extend from the air into other domains — namely, maritime and ground — what unique risks are presented or persist related to their potential exploitation by malign threat actors?
- How do emerging commercial drone capabilities affect the near-term risks presented by malign use of drones to U.S. homeland security and defense, e.g., AI-assisted navigation, swarm coordination APIs, fiber optic, LEO satellite connectivity?
- Based on emerging drone tactics and manufacturing techniques, what are the “skill-based precursors” to enable advanced drone weaponization and modification? How can these be proactively identified in threat networks, including designated Mexican cartels? What does this mean for threat actor recruitment profiles for those intending to scale their drone operations?
Threat actors continuously reassess and adapt their targeting strategies in response to technological, social, and geopolitical change. Projects in this area should examine how actors identify, prioritize, and surveil potential targets in the United States, including critical infrastructure, public venues, and symbolic or population-based targets. Research may analyze target selection, pre-operational behaviors, and attack vectors, as well as effective countermeasures.
Specific challenge question(s):
- What emerging risks threaten space infrastructure and space-based operations within the terrorism, extremism, and hybrid threat landscape? Specifically, how might vulnerabilities across commercial, civil, and military space architectures—including satellites, proliferated LEO constellations, ground stations, space traffic management systems, launch infrastructure, and supporting cyber-physical networks—be exploited to disrupt, degrade, manipulate, or coerce space-enabled services?
- With an emphasis on technical and operational characteristics (e.g., orbital congestion, proximity operations, software-defined payloads, signal spoofing and jamming, cyber compromise of command-and-control links, supply chain dependencies, reliance on commercial cloud infrastructure, and dual-use satellite servicing capabilities), what novel failure modes, escalation dynamics, or asymmetric exploitation pathways could emerge?
- How might increasing commercialization, international participation, and private-sector control of critical space assets alter attribution challenges, response thresholds, and deterrence dynamics? What indicators would signal a meaningful shift in the accessibility, scalability, or impact potential of attacks against space-based systems?
- What lessons can be learned from the FIFA World Cup and America250 events that can inform collaboration and coordination for LA28?
Appendix B: White Paper/Pre-Proposal Requirements
The white paper is intended to provide reviewers with a concise, standardized presentation of the proposed research concept, its scientific merit, and its relevance to the Department of Homeland Security mission in counterterrorism. Submitted white papers are not binding and will be considered proprietary to the submitter. The Office of University Programs conducts scientific reviews of each proposal. Proposals that are deemed sound methodologically will advance to members of the DHS workforce to identify project relevancy to current operational and policy requirements. Awarded proposals may be subject to public disclosure.
All proposals must be no more three pages in 12-point Calibri, single space, with 1-inch margins. Submissions longer than three pages, not including citations, will not be considered. All project proposals in response to this funding opportunity must explicitly include the following sections below.
1. Cover page (not included in 3-page limit):- Project Title
- Date of Submission
- NCITE Strategic Priority
- Challenge Question Addressed
- Project Information
- Principal Investigator | Name, Institution, and Email Contact
- Other Key Personnel (e.g., co-PI) | Name, Institution, and Email Contact
- Administrative Contact | Name, Institution, and Email Contact
- Objectives/Purpose
- In this section, share the research question your project will address, as well as the expected benefit(s) of your findings.
- Include key citations to support the scholarly support for your approach, and address what gaps your project addresses in the academic literature and the homeland security enterprise.
- Be sure to demonstrate how this project will add to (and differ from) current projects supported by the NCITE consortium.
- Proposed Methods
- Describe your planned research method to allow reviewers to gauge the scientific rigor of your proposed plan.
- Data
- Describe the types of data and data sources you anticipate using to complete the proposed research.
- Identify if you will be using any third-party data or privacy-sensitive data (e.g., data requiring execution of a license or consent/cooperation of current owner or custodian, PII or sensitive PII, protected critical infrastructure information, 1st amendment rights information).
- Project Outputs
- Applicants should explain how the proposed work will produce actionable results that improve DHS capability to understand the nature of the terrorist threat landscape (e.g., threat actors, tactics, targets).
- Describe how the project’s outcomes will advance or impact current policies, procedures, technologies, or capabilities for operators.
- Budget Overview
- Budget estimate (one to two sentences) to include direct cost categories (e.g., student labor, faculty time) and university indirect costs.
- Key Citations (not included in the 3-page limit)
- Qualifications (not included in 3-page limit)
- Provide NSF biosketches of senior and key personnel of the project.
Appendix C: Full Proposal Requirements
- Describe how the project will contribute academically as well as to the homeland security mission.
- Describe how you deliver end-user value.
- List and describe current DHS or homeland security enterprise stakeholders and partner relationships knowledgeable of your subject matter or prior research. Identify specific DHS components and other HSE agencies, owners, and operators that would benefit.
- Describe any potential risks or barriers to completing the work as described within the period of performance.
- Required templates will be provided on the NOFO landing page.
- Using the template and sample outputs below, list example research translation products you will produce. All proposals incorporate the five listings below, in addition to project specific outputs (e.g., research brief on how your project informs a current practice in the CT workforce).
Required Milestones and Reporting
There are several reporting and milestone requirements throughout the course of the project. These items will be required prior to research work allowability to begin.
- Submission of project to your university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB).
- Submission of institutional approvals to the DHS Compliance Assurance Program Office (CAPO) and Privacy Office via NCITE administrative team and OUP Program Manager.
- Submission of project’s Data Acquisition and Management Plan.
- Government kick-off meeting via Microsoft Teams.
These items will be required at various times during the period of performance.
- Impact spreadsheet: tracking quantitative metrics. A template will be provided.
- Semiannual project update: updates or changes to workplan progress. A template will be provided.
- Annual project report: scientific and applied outcomes of research, government engagement, and field and industry outreach. A template will be provided.
|
Deliverable Type
|
Description of Proposed Activity (include approximate page count) |
Projected Date |
|
REQUIRED MILESTONE |
Submission of IRB Approvals |
ASAP |
|
REQUIRED MILESTONE |
Hold Kickoff Meeting with Project Team/NCITE/Government |
August 2026 |
|
REQUIRED MILESTONE |
Data Acquisition and Management Plan |
August 2026 |
|
REQUIRED REPORTING |
Semiannual project update |
January 2027 |
|
REQUIRED REPORTING |
Annual Progress Report and COE Accomplishment/Impact Spreadsheet |
July 2027 |
Type & Sub-Type Definitions
Milestone: a key project step or activity that is submitted to NCITE to show progress but is not intended to be public facing. Examples include draft manuscripts for publication, stakeholder presentation materials, or supporting research artifacts. These are used to demonstrate performance and obtain early feedback from NCITE and their board members.
- Research Report: A comprehensive, full-length report >10 pages that will undergo NCITE center review and will be shared with government stakeholders. Journal article submissions during the period of performance can be counted as this type of RTP. However, projects that only generate academic products (e.g., journal articles, conference submissions) will likely not meet DHS relevancy requirements of the NCITE review process.
- Research Brief: A short report <10 pages, describing interim results or summary of a research report that will receive NCITE center review and will be shared with government stakeholders.
- Infographic: An RTP designed to concisely convey key findings using graphics and summarized text that will receive NCITE center review and will be shared with government stakeholders.
- Engagement: Meetings, presentations, workshops, trainings or other form of knowledge transition. Proposals must include a minimum of two engagements to solicit feedback and/or share findings. The project kickoff meeting may count as one of the required engagement meetings.
Data Sources and Protections
Description of the data, particularly third-party data, and description of data acquisition, management, and protection of that data, including the potential use of privacy-enhancing technologies. Principal investigators shall incorporate safeguards to ensure alignment with the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) and adequately protect data, especially if a project includes methods or data sources that could result in the collection, generation, or use of personally identifiable information (PII), sensitive PII, or other privacy sensitive information. Information on those safeguards should be provided in the full proposal, and NCITE will work with awardees to ensure they are in accordance with the FIPPs.
Examples of projects that meet the definition of privacy sensitivity may include those that involve commingling information with other data sources that may make it privacy sensitive. Although, in general, NCITE can fund projects that are privacy sensitive, please be advised that those projects may require additional levels of review by NCITE and DHS. This process can take up to 3-6 months, so it is important that researchers build privacy reviews from the funder into their workplans as a funded activity.
Project Data Acquisition and Management Plan (not included in 10-page limit)
Separate attachment; see template below.
🗐 Application Documents
- DHS Terms and Conditions
- COE Terms and Conditions
- Single-Year Budget Template
- Multi-Year Budget Template
- DHS Budget Justification Template
- Research & Related Budget
- Subrecipient Commitment Form
Appendix D: Proposal Evaluation Criteria
The technical description of the proposed project will be reviewed in two phases. The DHS Office of University Programs manages an external review process to conduct a peer review of all proposals. All projects that meet scientific review will also be scored for relevance to the Homeland Security Enterprise operational needs.
DHS New Project Proposal Evaluation Process
DHS S&T will use a two-phase review process to evaluate new COE project proposals. These two evaluation phases are completed in sequence and are scored independently. Only the applications scoring above the minimum threshold level, as described below, in the external or internal reviews move forward to the next phase. Under no circumstances will an application be further considered if both the mean and the median overall ratings are below 3.0 (Good).
The review phases are:
- External scientific quality review conducted by a panel of peers external to DHS.
- Internal DHS mission relevancy review conducted by a panel of DHS Subject Matter Experts (SMEs).
Each panel will be comprised of a set of reviewers and will focus on the evaluation criteria as described below. Panelists will rate each criterion in both phases of the review process using ratings from 1 to 5 on the scale below that must be supported by narrative comments.
- (Poor)
- A proposal where weaknesses far outweigh strengths.
- (Fair)
- A proposal with strengths and weaknesses approximately equal.
- (Good)
- A proposal where there are more strengths than weaknesses.
- (Very Good)
- A proposal with many strengths and few weaknesses.
- (Excellent)
- A proposal where strengths far outweigh weaknesses.
Each reviewer’s overall rating for a proposal will be calculated by first multiplying the weight for each criterion by its rating, then adding the weighted scores together for an overall proposal rating. For each proposal, DHS will calculate the mean and median rating for all reviewers. DHS reserves the right to use either the mean or the median rating as the final rating for proposals. A minimum threshold level will be established for referral of proposals from the external scientific quality review to the internal DHS mission relevancy review. DHS will select the minimum threshold level based on the ratings of proposals for this funding opportunity. For example, if DHS receives six proposals, three of which have a rating of 4.0 or higher in the external scientific quality review phase, while the other three are less than 3.5, 4.0 will be the minimum threshold for passing applications to the internal DHS mission relevancy review phase. Under no circumstances will an application be further considered if both the mean and the median ratings are below 3.0 (Good).
Phase I. External Scientific Quality Review:
DHS will conduct a scientific quality review of proposals by an external review panel of SMEs from academia, non-profit research organizations, industry, and/or federal, state, or local agencies. The panelists will have expertise and/or experience in academic disciplines relevant to the applications received.
Reviewers will rate how the proposal addresses the following criteria:
- Research Project Originality (35%)
- Is the proposed research original i.e., does the proposed effort challenge and seek to shift current research or paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches, or methodologies?
- Is it innovative i.e., is the proposal a novel refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches, or methodologies proposed?
- Does this research have the potential to generate influential peer-reviewed publications in the scientific community or lead to new discoveries or areas of investigation?
- Project Goals and Methodologies (35%)
- Does the proposal identify specific technical gaps being addressed and the steps necessary to fill those gaps?
- Are the research goals clear, feasible, and based on sound theory?
- Are the proposed methods clearly stated, feasible, and appropriate for testing the hypotheses?
- Are the data generation or collection approaches appropriate for the research methods and does the team have access to the necessary data?
- Is the proposed timeframe to complete the project(s) appropriate?
- Has the project team defined metrics or targets that are appropriate for the stated goal?
- If software-based, does the proposed research adhere to standards, software requirements specifications, design descriptions, verification and validation plans, configuration management, interoperability, and security standards that are required by potential customers?
- Qualifications of Personnel and Suitability of Facilities (20%)
- Does the research team have the qualifications – credentials, expertise, and experience – to carry out the proposed research?
- Are the facilities suitable for the proposed research? If so, does the applicant demonstrate a commitment from facility owners to allow researchers to use necessary facilities? Are the facilities currently approved for the work being proposed?
- Does the research proposal demonstrate that the researchers possess a sufficient amount of understanding of regulatory requirements, market conditions, and legal constraints necessary to execute the proposed work, if applicable?
- Project Costs (10%)
- Are the proposed costs appropriate and reasonable?
Phase II. Internal DHS Mission Relevancy Review:
DHS will conduct an internal mission relevancy review of proposals by a panel of SMEs from across DHS. Reviewers will rate how the proposal addresses the following criteria:
- DHS Mission Alignment (40%)
- Do the goals of the proposed research relate to DHS’s mission?
- Does the applicant discuss where, in what circumstances, and by whom would research results be used? Are these relevant to the DHS mission?
- Are the potential research outcomes and customers of the research well- described?
- Has the applicant demonstrated an understanding of DHS’s existing R&D programs, information systems, and databases in relevant areas?
- Capability Gap (20%)
- Does the research proposal address questions posed by the Request for Proposals? Does the project address a knowledge gap important to the Homeland Security Enterprise that is not currently being addressed by other research and development programs?
- Research Outcomes and Transition Potential (40%)
- Does the project proposal describe potential pathways to transition results (e.g., technologies, tools, and knowledge products) into use within the Homeland Security Enterprise?
- Do the project proposals include efforts to assess the market and evaluate various transition pathways for the products being developed?
- Does the proposal include a process to identify and engage customers and end-users throughout the entire duration of the project?
About NCITE
The National Counterterrorism Innovation, Technology, and Education Center (NCITE), based at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, tackles pressing and complex human-centered challenges to homeland security. As a partner to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the interagency homeland security workforce, NCITE develops cutting-edge insights, tools, and training in support of securing the U.S. homeland from violent transnational criminal organizations, terrorists, and other illicit threat actors. NCITE’s work is end user focused with a commitment to measurable impact. More information may be found at https://www.unomaha.edu/ncite/.
Grant Acknowledgement: This material is based on work supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Grant Award Number 20STTPC00001.
Disclaimer: The views and conclusions included here are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.