[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1269-E1271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               COMMENDATION OF THE SOCIAL INNOVATION FUND

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. HANSEN CLARKE

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 18, 2012

  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the Social Innovation Fund, 
operated out of the Corporation for National and Community Service, 
provides competitive grants to highly-successful non-profit 
organizations. In my district, the United Way for Southeastern Michigan 
was selected as a Social Innovation Fund grantee and is using its 
funding to develop promising, evidence-based solutions focused on 
replicating early childhood learning communities. The Social Innovation 
Fund uses a unique federal funding model that requires all grantees and 
sub-grantees to match federal resources 1:1, thereby increasing the 
return on taxpayer dollars and strengthening local support. In 
addition, it relies on outstanding existing grant-making intermediaries 
to select high-impact community organizations rather than building new 
government infrastructures. It also emphasizes rigorous evaluations of 
program results.
  The Social Innovation Fund is proof that by focusing our limited 
resources on those organizations and programs that are proven to be 
successful can reap tremendous results for our country. In my own 
state, the Social Innovation Fund has provided the United Way for 
Southeastern Michigan with $4 million over two years, or over $12 
million with the required match, to build on the expertise of its 
partnering organizations and facilitate the development of a portfolio 
of replicable early childhood learning communities in 10 underserved 
communities in metro Detroit and surrounding areas. They have a track 
record of using evidence to select grantees, validate programs, and 
support the replication and expansion of programs. The United Way for 
Southeastern Michigan is replicating and expanding its program from 
five sites, impacting 280 children, to twenty-nine sites, impacting 
12,000 children. In addition, they are using the funding for a four-
year longitudinal evaluation of its current early childhood grantees to 
measure the extent to which the program intervention improves school 
readiness.
  I want to highlight this emphasis on evaluation and the use of 
evidence in picking the grantees for the Social Innovation Fund. Last 
month, the Office of Management of Budget released a memorandum that 
encourages the use of both evaluation and evidence in the government's 
decisions around the FY 14 budget process, which I am introducing into 
the Congressional Record. This similar commitment to evidence-based 
models and evaluation not only benefits the United Way for Southeastern 
Michigan by making them eligible for unique funding streams, but also 
puts them on the leading edge of change in the Federal Government's 
commitment to `fund what works.'

[[Page E1270]]

                                Executive Office of the President,


                              Office of Management and Budget,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 2012.


     memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies

     From: Jeffrey D. Zients, Acting Director.
     Subject: Use of Evidence and Evaluation in the 2014 Budget.
       Since taking office, the President has emphasized the need 
     to use evidence and rigorous evaluation in budget, 
     management, and policy decisions to make government work 
     effectively. This need has only grown in the current fiscal 
     environment. Where evidence is strong, we should act on it. 
     Where evidence is suggestive, we should consider it. Where 
     evidence is weak, we should build the knowledge to support 
     better decisions in the future.
       Agencies should demonstrate the use of evidence throughout 
     their Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 budget submissions. Budget 
     submissions also should include a separate section on 
     agencies' most innovative uses of evidence and evaluation, 
     addressing some or all of the issues below. Many potential 
     strategies have little immediate cost, and the Budget is more 
     likely to fund requests that demonstrate a commitment to 
     developing and using evidence. The Budget also will allocate 
     limited resources for initiatives to expand the use of 
     evidence, including but not limited to approaches outlined 
     below. Agencies may include these initiatives in their 
     submission at the guidance level or with proposed addbacks.
       1. Proposing new evaluations. As in 2011 and 2012, OMB 
     invites agencies to propose new evaluations. Areas of 
     potential focus may include the following:
       Low-cost evaluations using administrative data or new 
     technology: As explained in the Coalition for Evidence-Based 
     Policy's recent brief, agencies can often use administrative 
     data (such as data on wages, employment, emergency room 
     visits or school attendance) to conduct rigorous evaluations, 
     including evaluations that rely on random assignment, at low 
     cost. Similarly, the private sector has used new software and 
     online tools to dramatically reduce the time and cost of 
     experimentation. Agencies should consider whether they can 
     use such data or technology to support rigorous evaluations 
     of their existing programs or new initiatives.
       Evaluations linked to waivers and performance partnerships: 
     One of the best ways to learn about a program is to test 
     variations and subject them to evaluation, using some element 
     of random assignment or a scientifically controlled design. 
     OMB invites agencies to explain how they will use existing 
     waiver authorities to evaluate different approaches to 
     improving outcomes. Agencies should also consider seeking 
     authority from Congress, through the FY 2014 budget process, 
     to allow new waivers linked to evaluation or to establish 
     cross-agency ``performance partnerships'' that enable 
     blending of multiple funding streams to test better ways to 
     align services and improve outcomes. Several agencies are 
     seeking such authority in 2013 for initiatives supporting 
     distressed communities and disconnected youth.
       Expansion of evaluation efforts within existing programs: 
     In addition to specifying evaluations to be performed with 
     dedicated funding, agencies can also add a general policy and 
     requirements favoring evaluation into existing grants, 
     contracts, or waivers. These measures may require new 
     legislation. For example, Congress recently approved the 
     Department of Labor's request for a small cross-agency set-
     aside for evaluation activities.
       Systemic measurement of costs and cost per outcome: 
     Agencies are encouraged to include measurement of costs and 
     costs per outcome as part of the routine reporting of funded 
     programs to allow for useful comparison of cost-effectiveness 
     across programs.
       Agencies should release evaluations promptly through either 
     their agency websites or alternative means. OMB particularly 
     welcomes agency proposals to improve public access to, and 
     understanding of, evidence about what works and what does 
     not.
       2. Using comparative cost-effectiveness data to allocate 
     resources. Through the Pew Charitable Trust's Results First 
     initiative, a dozen States are currently adopting a model 
     developed by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy 
     (WSIPP) that ranks programs based on the evidence of their 
     return on investment. Once evidence-based programs have been 
     identified, such an analysis can improve agency resource 
     allocation and inform public understanding. For example, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture are working together to incorporate evidence 
     about the cost-effectiveness of different pollution control 
     strategies in the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort.
       OMB invites agencies to identify areas where research 
     provides strong evidence regarding the comparative cost-
     effectiveness of agency investments. The research may pertain 
     to the allocation of funding across agency programs (e.g., 
     research showing that some funding streams have higher 
     returns on investments) or within programs (e.g., research 
     showing that some types of grantees or programmatic 
     approaches have higher returns). Agencies should describe the 
     body of research and then apply its results to support a 
     proposed resource reallocation. OMB is more likely to support 
     an existing resource allocation or a request for new 
     resources supported in this way, and may feature the agency's 
     reasoning in the 2014 Budget.
       3. Infusing evidence into grant-making. Grant-making 
     agencies should demonstrate that, between FY 2013 and FY 
     2014, they are increasing the use of evidence in formula and 
     competitive programs. Agencies should consider the following 
     approaches, among others:
       Encouraging use of evidence in formula grants: OMB invites 
     agencies to propose ways to increase the use of evidence-
     based practices within formula grant programs. For example, 
     formula funds can be conditioned on the adoption of evidence-
     based practices, and high-quality technical assistance can be 
     used to share and support implementation of evidence-based 
     practices. Competitive programs can assign points to 
     applicants based on their integration of such practices into 
     formula streams.
       Evidence-based grants: Several agencies--ranging from the 
     Department of Education to the U.S. Agency for International 
     Development--have implemented evidence-based grant programs 
     that apply a tiered framework to assess the evidence 
     supporting a proposed project and to determine appropriate 
     funding levels. Under this approach, programs supported by 
     stronger evidence, as established in a rigorous agency 
     process, are eligible for more funding. All programs are 
     expected to evaluate their results. Examples of tiered-
     evidence programs include the Department of Education's 
     Investing in Innovation program and the Department of Health 
     and Human Services' Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Home 
     Visiting programs.
       Even without creating tiers, agencies can provide points or 
     significant competitive preference to programs that the 
     agency determines are backed by strong evidence, and can 
     build the evidence base by embedding evaluation into 
     programs. Because running evidence-based programs requires 
     more resources, agencies may wish to combine multiple smaller 
     programs into larger, evidence-based efforts.
       Pay for Success: Taking the principle of acting on evidence 
     one step further, the Departments of Justice and Labor will 
     be inviting grant applicants to use a ``pay for success'' 
     approach, under which philanthropic or private entities (the 
     ``investors'') pay providers upfront and are only repaid by 
     the government if certain outcomes are met. Payment amounts 
     are based, in part, on the amount that the Federal, State, or 
     local government saves. A pay-for-success approach is 
     appropriate where: (i) improved prevention or other up-front 
     services can produce better outcomes that lead to cost 
     savings at the Federal, State, or local level; and (ii) 
     foundations or others are willing to invest.
       To date, the Administration has focused its Pay for Success 
     planning on programs financed with discretionary 
     appropriations. OMB invites agencies to apply a pay-for-
     success model for programs funded by either discretionary or 
     mandatory appropriations. Agencies should also consider using 
     the new authority under the America COMPETES legislation to 
     support incentive prizes of up to $50 million. Like Pay for 
     Success, well-designed prizes and challenges can yield a very 
     high return on the taxpayer dollar.
       4. Using evidence to inform enforcement. Rigorous 
     evaluation of strategies for enforcing criminal, 
     environmental, and workplace safety laws often reveals that 
     some approaches are significantly better than others at 
     securing legal compliance. OMB encourages agencies to 
     indicate how their allocation or reallocation of resources 
     among enforcement strategies is informed by such evidence.
       5. Strengthening agency evaluation capacity. Agencies 
     should have a high-level official who is responsible for 
     program evaluation and can:
       Develop and manage the agency's research agenda;
       Conduct or oversee rigorous and objective studies;
       Provide independent input to agency policymakers on 
     resource allocation and to program leaders on program 
     management;
       Attract and retain talented staff and researchers, 
     including through flexible hiring authorities such as the 
     Intergovernmental Personnel Act; and
       Refine program performance measures, in collaboration with 
     program managers and the Performance Improvement Officer.
       These goals can be accomplished by different kinds of 
     leaders, ranging from a chief evaluation officer who reports 
     to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary to the head of an 
     independent institute in the agency. An existing official 
     could play the role, or a forceful new position could replace 
     several less empowered ones. OMB invites agencies to propose 
     in their budget submissions ways to strengthen the agency's 
     evaluation capacity, within tight resource constraints.


                 support for evidence-based initiatives

       OMB invites your agency to participate in a number of 
     forums to improve use of evidence:
       OMB and the Council of Economic Advisers will organize a 
     series of topical discussions with senior policy officials 
     and research experts in the agencies. The meeting agendas 
     will focus on administrative and policy levers for driving an 
     increasing share of Federal investments into evidence-based 
     practices. We will plan summer meetings in order to help 
     inform agencies' evaluation plans and budget submissions, and 
     will also have follow-up meetings in the fall.

[[Page E1271]]

       OMB will reinvigorate the interagency evaluation working 
     group established in 2010 with a series of meetings focused 
     on issues commonly affecting evaluators, such as procurement 
     rules, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the integration of 
     evidence in agencies' decision-making process.
       The Performance Improvement Council will convene research, 
     performance management, and program officials to develop ways 
     to improve performance measures, validate their correlation 
     with outcome data from program impact evaluations, and use 
     data analytics to support more cost-effective decision-
     making.
       The Office of Science and Technology Policy has created a 
     ``community of practice'' for agency personnel involved in 
     designing and managing incentive prizes and has organized a 
     Science of Science Policy working group that is developing 
     tools aimed at establishing a more scientific, empirical 
     evidence basis for science and technology policymaking.
       To discuss which ideas in this memo make most sense at your 
     agency, please contact your agency's OMB contact. For more 
     general support on evidence-based policy and evaluation, you 
     also may contact Dan Rosenbaum (Dan T. 
     R[email protected]).

                          ____________________