[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5560-5576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02852]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Social Impact Partnerships To Pay for Results Act Demonstration
Projects
AGENCY: Office of Economic Policy, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of funding availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is issuing this
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to invite applications from State
and local governments for awards under the Social Impact Partnerships
to Pay for Results Act (SIPPRA).\1\ An award recipient will receive
payment if a specified outcome of the social impact partnership project
is achieved, as
[[Page 5561]]
determined by the project's independent evaluator. The payment to the
grantee cannot exceed the value of the outcome to the federal
government. Awards made under this NOFA will be administered by
Treasury or by another federal agency with expertise in the area of
social benefit addressed in the proposed project. Treasury expects to
award up to $66,290,000 in such competitive project grants under this
NOFA. In addition, State and local governments receiving project grants
will be eligible to receive up to 15 percent of the project grant to
pay for all or a portion of the cost of a statutorily required
independent evaluator, which will be paid to conduct an independent
evaluation regardless of whether outcomes have been met. Treasury
expects up to approximately $9,940,000 to be available to pay for the
costs of independent evaluators under this NOFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 115-123, Division E, Title VIII, 132 Stat. 269,
42 U.S.C. 1397n-1397n-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Opportunity Number: UST-SIPPRA-2019-001.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 21.017.
DATES: Applications under this NOFA must be submitted no earlier than
April 22, 2019 and no later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time May 22, 2019
electronically via www.Grants.gov. Treasury will not download and
receive such applications until after the application deadline. As
discussed in Section D.2.a, Notice of Intent to Apply, Treasury
encourages all potential applicants to submit a notice of intent to
apply on or prior to April 8, 2019.
For More Information: Questions about this announcement may be
directed to William Girardo, SIPPRA Coordinator, at (202) 622-0262 or
[email protected]. For complete application and submission
information, including online application instructions, please refer to
Section D of this NOFA.
A. Funding Opportunity Description
1. Program Purpose
In 2018 Congress appropriated $100 million to Treasury to implement
SIPPRA, which established a new grant demonstration program to
encourage funding social programs that achieve results. Under this
NOFA, Treasury announces the availability of up to $66,290,000 for
payments for successful outcomes of social impact partnership projects
through grants to State and local governments, and, for project
evaluations, the availability of up to approximately $9,940,000. All
awards provided through this NOFA are subject to funding availability.
As stated in SIPPRA, the purposes of SIPPRA are
(1) To improve the lives of families and individuals in need;
(2) To redirect funds away from programs that, based on objective
data, are ineffective, and into programs that achieve demonstrable,
measurable results;
(3) To ensure federal funds are used effectively on social services
to produce positive outcomes for both service recipients and taxpayers;
(4) To establish the use of social impact partnerships to address
some of the Nation's most pressing problems;
(5) To facilitate the creation of public-private partnerships that
bundle philanthropic or other private resources with existing public
spending to scale up effective social interventions already being
implemented;
(6) To bring pay for performance to the social sector, allowing the
United States to improve the impact and effectiveness of vital social
services programs while redirecting inefficient or duplicative
spending; and
(7) To incorporate outcomes measurement and randomized controlled
trials or other rigorous methodologies for assessing program impact.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Types of Funding and Funding Availability
SIPPRA provides funds for two types of awards: (1) Social impact
partnership project grants, including grants to pay for independent
evaluators for such projects and (2) feasibility study grants. This
NOFA only relates to funds for social impact partnership project grants
and funds for the cost of a grantee's independent evaluator. Treasury
will issue a separate NOFA for feasibility study grants, likely later
in 2019.
A grantee under this NOFA will receive a disbursement only if the
grantee achieves one or more outcomes specified in the award agreement
and such outcomes are validated by an independent evaluator. The
federal payment to the grantee for each specified outcome will be not
more than the value of the outcome to the federal government. Payment
for the cost of the independent evaluator will be made regardless of
whether outcomes have been met.
Treasury may make awards to all, some, or none of the applicants
under this NOFA and may make awards for amounts less than the amounts
requested by applicants.
SIPPRA provides that not less than 50 percent of all federal
payments made to carry out social impact partnership project agreements
shall be used for initiatives that directly benefit children.\3\
Treasury is implementing this provision by allocating 50 percent of the
$66,290,000 available under this NOFA for projects that directly
benefit children. Treasury will accordingly grant awards for projects
that do not directly benefit children only to the extent that potential
federal award payments for such projects in the aggregate do not exceed
$33,145,000. As long as the potential payments for award agreements for
projects that do not directly benefit children do not exceed
$33,145,000, the amount of potential payments for projects that do not
directly benefit children may exceed the amount of potential payments
for projects that do benefit children. For purposes of this
determination, Treasury is defining ``children'' as individuals under
the age of 18. For purposes of determining whether a project directly
benefits children, the children in question must meet this definition
at the time their participation in the project begins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Qualifying Outcomes
Applicants must propose to carry out a ``social impact partnership
project.'' \4\ To qualify as a social impact partnership project under
this NOFA, SIPPRA requires the project to be designed to produce one or
more measurable, clearly defined outcomes that result in social benefit
and federal, State, or local government savings through one or more of
the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c), 1397n-12(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Increasing work and earnings by individuals in the United
States who are unemployed for more than 6 consecutive months;
(2) Increasing employment and earnings of individuals who have
attained 16 years of age but not 25 years of age;
(3) Increasing employment among individuals receiving federal
disability benefits;
(4) Reducing the dependence of low-income families on federal
means-tested benefits;
(5) Improving rates of high school graduation;
(6) Reducing teen and unplanned pregnancies;
(7) Improving birth outcomes and early childhood health and
development among low-income families and individuals;
(8) Reducing rates of asthma, diabetes, or other preventable
diseases among low-income families and individuals to reduce the
utilization of emergency and other high-cost care;
[[Page 5562]]
(9) Increasing the proportion of children living in two-parent
families;
(10) Reducing incidences and adverse consequences of child abuse
and neglect;
(11) Reducing the number of youth in foster care by increasing
adoptions, permanent guardianship arrangements, reunifications, or
placements with a fit and willing relative, or by avoiding placing
children in foster care by ensuring they can be cared for safely in
their own homes;
(12) Reducing the number of children and youth in foster care
residing in group homes, child care institutions, agency-operated
foster homes, or other non-family foster homes, unless it is determined
that it is in the interest of the child's long-term health, safety, or
psychological well-being to not be placed in a family foster home;
(13) Reducing the number of children returning to foster care;
(14) Reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders, individuals
released from prison, or other high-risk populations;
(15) Reducing the rate of homelessness among our most vulnerable
populations;
(16) Improving the health and well-being of those with mental,
emotional, and behavioral health needs;
(17) Improving the educational outcomes of children with special
needs or from low-income families;
(18) Improving the employment and well-being of returning United
States military members; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This may include improving the employment and well-being of
United States military members as they transition to civilian status
either as non-activated members of the National Guard or Reserves or
as they become Veterans of the Armed Forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(19) Increasing the financial stability of low-income families;
(20) Increasing the independence and employability of individuals
who are physically or mentally disabled; or
(21) Other measurable outcomes defined by the State or local
government that result in positive social outcomes and federal
savings.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demonstration projects may propose enhancements or alternative
models that would add to or otherwise complement existing federal
programs.
4. Framework for Social Impact Partnership Projects
a. The Pay for Results Model
The pay for results model mandated by SIPPRA differs from that of
more traditional federal grant programs, in which the federal
government generally agrees to pay in advance for the cost of programs
and services regardless of their outcomes. Under the pay for results
model (also referred to as the ``pay for success'' model), instead of
paying for specific processes and services, the federal government
agrees to make payments only if specific, predetermined, measurable
outcomes are achieved within a given timeframe. SIPPRA provides that
the federal government's payment for an outcome cannot exceed the value
of the outcome to the federal government.
b. Outcome Payments
Under this NOFA, an applicant may propose one or multiple project
outcomes and receive separate payments at separate points in time for
each outcome achieved, subject to the independent evaluator validating
both the outcome and the value of the outcome to the federal government
in the independent evaluator's periodic progress reports and the
relevant federal agency's approval of the payment. See Section F.5.b
and F.5.c on evaluation progress reports and final reports,
respectively.
For each outcome, an applicant may elect to receive an outcome
payment if a specific outcome has been met, or, alternatively, may
propose a tiered outcome payment scheme based on levels of success in
achieving the outcome. In either case, however, only a single outcome
payment will be made for each outcome; progress payments will not be
made. To the extent that the proposed intervention affects multiple
outcomes that are not separable, applicants may only receive payment
for achieving the set of non-separable outcomes following the
independent evaluator validating that the project achieved the outcomes
related to the non-separable outcomes.
If an applicant proposes a tiered outcome scheme, it must (1)
specify a floor and the range of each outcome for which it proposes a
tiered payment and (2) propose a federal payment for each of those
outcomes. An applicant may propose a spread of outcomes, but no further
payments will be made if the outcome exceeds the proposed maximum
outcome. Applicants must propose a floor that represents a
significantly improved outcome over current conditions. Payments will
be made only to the extent that the value of the outcome to the federal
government is at least equal to the amount of the payment.
c. Partnership Structure
In designing and implementing a project producing one or more of
the statutory outcomes listed above, the State or local government as
the eligible applicant may work with other entities, referred to as
``partners.'' In addition to the applicant itself, the partnership may
include investors, a service provider, which is the entity that
delivers the intervention, and an intermediary. An applicant also may
fulfill one or more of these roles--for example--it may be the service
provider or the intermediary. See Appendix I.2, Other Key Parties, for
definitions of each of these terms.
d. Partnership Agreement
The partnership agreement between the applicant and the partners,
which must be attached to the grant application, must address each of
the following:
Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of each
partner;
A service delivery plan that is flexible and adaptive to
the problem and the target population;
An evaluation design plan;
A plan for sharing data among the partners, including but
not limited to a Memorandum of Understanding or Memorandum of
Agreement, which may be conditioned on award of a grant, that
appropriately safeguards the privacy of individuals in the targeted
population in accordance with applicable laws;
A representation that all project partners have reviewed
an independent evaluation plan for the project and an agreement by all
the partners to cooperate in the implementation of the evaluation plan
as necessary; and
A payment arrangement between the applicant and project
partners (including the intermediary and/or investors, as applicable),
demonstrating that all partners understand that payment by the federal
government is conditioned upon the independent evaluator's verification
that the project's predetermined outcome(s) and value generated have
been met within the grant period.
This payment arrangement must include a plan and timeline
describing each payment point that the project partners have agreed on,
and the corresponding outcome targets that will be evaluated in the
impact evaluation. Although the federal government generally will make
payments to the grantee if the independent evaluator determines that
the project achieved the specified outcome as a result of the
intervention and the payment is less than or equal to the value of the
outcome to the federal government,\7\ it
[[Page 5563]]
is not responsible for making payments to the grantee's partners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(c)(1)(B) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Independent Evaluator
The applicant also must contract with an independent evaluator,
whose responsibilities include assessing whether the project has
achieved the outcomes on which payment by the federal government are
conditioned. As part of the evaluation, the independent evaluator must
also provide an analysis of the observed federal budgetary impact,
which the federal government will use to determine whether outcome
payment(s) will be made, and, if so, the amount of the payment(s). See
Section A.5, Independent Evaluations. The applicant must avoid the
selection of an independent evaluator whose objectivity might be
impaired. Payment for the evaluation must not be tied in any way to the
achievement of the outcomes, and the independent evaluator must not
have a financial or other stake in the project that would undermine its
objectivity.
5. Outcomes
An outcome is a positive impact on a target population that an
applicant expects to achieve as a result of an intervention over the
duration of a project. An outcome is measured by one or more indicators
that are specific, unambiguous, and observable during the intervention
period. Well-defined, achievable, and measurable outcomes form the
foundation of the pay for results concept. Whether suitable outcome
targets (also referred to as outcome goals) can be identified and
agreed upon by the partnership is a key determinant of whether pay for
results is the appropriate instrument for addressing the identified
social issue.
To qualify for an outcome payment, a project must meet one or more
positive outcomes that will result in value to the federal
government.\8\ Applicants must describe how specific outcomes will be
measured and provide rigorous evidence demonstrating that the
intervention can be expected to produce these outcomes.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(c).
\9\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(3), (20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Outcome Target
An outcome target is a change in an outcome measure or a percentage
improvement of the outcome measure over the duration of a project and
must be defined relative to the comparison or control group (the
baseline). Each outcome measure applicants propose should (1) be
observable, (2) able to be defined, as a function of the data
applicants intend to use so units of measurement are clearly defined,
and, (3) using historical data, show that the proposed outcome target
is an improvement over the current status of the target population.
Applicants must outline the data and metrics that will be used in
measuring outcomes and must also explain how the independent evaluator
will gain access to or collect the necessary data. The improvement over
the current status must be the result of the intervention and not
produced due to random chance, general economic conditions, other pre-
existing conditions or trends, or other causes.
b. Outcome Valuation
The outcome valuation is the public benefit resulting from
achieving the outcome target(s), including public sector savings
(defined as reduction in outlay costs) and changes in federal tax
receipts. The federal payment to the State or local government for each
specified outcome achieved as a result of the intervention must be less
than or equal to the value of the outcome to the federal government
over a period not exceeding the intervention period.\10\ For the
purposes of determining the value to the federal government, applicants
must use a budget impact analysis methodology to estimate the annual
and cumulative net effect of each intervention on federal revenues and
outlays overall, per dollar of intervention, and per participant over
the intervention period. This analysis involves estimating baseline
federal revenues and outlays for the target population and then
estimating the changes in federal revenues and outlays as a result of
each intervention. Estimated changes in federal revenue and outlays
must be the direct result of the SIPPRA intervention, i.e., the SIPPRA
intervention must have caused the change in outcome that affected
federal revenue and outlays. The outcome valuation should include
increases in costs due to intended or unintended impacts of the
intervention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(c)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In preparing the estimates, as part of the overall evaluation
strategy, applicants must document and submit their estimates of
baseline federal revenues and outlays and estimated changes to federal
revenues and outlays as a direct result of each proposed intervention
such that these estimates are easily replicable. The application must
provide sufficient information, e.g., all data sources, such as related
literature, assumptions, and justifications, to show how the applicant
arrived at the estimate of the baseline federal revenues and outlays,
and changes in federal revenues and outlays as a direct result of the
proposed intervention.
Using this methodology, applicants will need to estimate the value
to the federal government of the proposed intervention(s) before the
intervention(s) take place. The estimate must be submitted as part of
the application and will be the applicant's baseline for the
intervention. Using the same methodology, independent evaluators will
assess the value of the intervention(s) to the federal government after
the intervention has taken place.
The following shows the steps involved in calculating the outcome
value:
Step 1: Estimate target population baseline over the intervention
period under current law (before intervention performed)
A. Estimate total amount of federal revenue paid by target
population in dollars, if applicable.
B. Estimate total amount of federal outlays expended on target
population, in dollars (includes cost of all federal programs used by
target population).
Step 2: Estimate outcomes and federal outlays and revenues over the
intervention period under current law (as of the date this NOFA is
published in the Federal Register) assuming intervention takes place
The estimate of value will be limited to the intervention period
only and may not be extrapolated beyond the intervention period (which
is not to exceed seven years).
C. Estimate total federal taxes paid by target population after its
outcomes have changed as a direct result of the SIPPRA intervention.
D. Estimate total amount of federal outlays expended on the target
population after its outcomes have changed as a direct result of the
SIPPRA intervention. Applicants should carefully consider how the
intervention may cause the substitution of federal benefits delivered
through one social program for another. Specifically, applicants should
carefully consider how the intervention will affect eligibility for
other federal programs and how this will affect the change in federal
outlays.
Any changes in federal revenue or spending must flow through the
changes in outcomes caused by the SIPPRA intervention; these changes
must be attributed only to the SIPPRA intervention and not to other
causes. As explained below, randomized controlled trials (RCT) or
quasi-experimental
[[Page 5564]]
designs are to be used to determine causation.
Step 3: Estimate total value of intervention to the federal
government in dollars
Value = change in revenue-change in spending = (c-a)-(d-b)
In accordance with SIPPRA, the federal government will pay no more
than the value estimated in Step 3.
The estimates of baseline federal outlays and revenues and the
estimated federal outlays and revenues after the intervention should be
rounded to the nearest hundred, rounding up any number that ends in a
number greater than $50 to the nearest $100.
Applicants proposing or generating value to the federal government
only through reductions in federal administrative expenses will not be
considered eligible to receive outcome payments.
As part of the overall evaluation strategy, applicants must
document and submit their estimates of baseline federal revenues and
outlays and estimated changes to federal revenues and outlays as a
direct result of each proposed intervention such that these analyses
can be replicated.\11\ Specifically, the application must describe all
data sources, such as related literature, assumptions, and
justifications, used to arrive at the estimates of the changes in
federal revenues and outlays as a direct result of the proposed
intervention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A tool to assist grantees in their calculations will be
available on Treasury's SIPPRA website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In estimating the effect on federal revenues and outlays,
applicants should carefully consider the funding structure of the
program and whether or not the program is oversubscribed, i.e., the
program has more eligible individuals than funding available for
services, such that when one individual is removed from the program
another eligible individual replaces him or her.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Examples of budget impact analysis may be found in
appendices of Congressional Budget Office publications. See, e.g.,
The Effects of Potential Cuts in SNAP Spending on Households With
Different Amounts of Income (2015), https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49978; Possible Higher Spending Paths for Veterans' Benefits (2018),
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995). An additional reference to
calculate federal outlays and revenues are available from the
National Bureau of Economic Research TAXSIM at http://
users.nber.org/~taxsim/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Independent Evaluations
This section gives an overview of the following: The role of post-
award independent evaluation, independent evaluator qualifications,
outcomes definitions and measurement, impact evaluation designs and
methodology, and outcome valuation.
a. Overview
Pay for Results evaluations must be conducted by independent
evaluators. Grantees can expect to commit significant time and
resources to the formal evaluations of their project. All grantees are
eligible to receive evaluation funding to help support post-award
evaluation costs, regardless of whether outcomes are met. In each case,
the federal government will fund only up to 15 percent of the amount of
the project award for an independent evaluation of the project. The
federal government will base its maximum award of funds for the
grantee's cost of an independent evaluator on the amount of the top
tier outcome payment. The federal government will fund only completed
post-award evaluation work; it will not pay for the portion of an
evaluator's contract contemplating evaluation work that is not
completed in the event a project terminates earlier than expected.
b. Evaluation Design Plan
Evaluations must meet evidence standards for high quality
experimental or non-experimental research to receive agreed-upon
outcome payments. (See the definitions of ``randomized controlled
trial'' and ``quasi-experimental design'' in Appendix I.3, Key Concepts
and Other Terms.) Evaluations must use the most appropriate and
rigorous research method suitable for the project to estimate impacts.
RCTs are preferred to the extent their use is consistent with federal,
state and local laws; quasi-experimental designs will be accepted if
experimental designs are infeasible. An applicant not using a RCT
should explain why a RCT is not appropriate for the particular project.
Program models that have a moderate or strong existing base of evidence
for their effectiveness are strong candidates for pay for results
projects. See Section A.6.e, Evidence Standards, for more information
on bases of evidence.
The evaluation design plan must:
1. Describe the existing base of evidence and cite available
research literature;
2. Explain how the project is suitable for the proposed evaluation;
3. Describe an approach for coordinating all partners and required
evaluation activities, including assisting the independent evaluator in
collecting and accessing the necessary data, and include a timeline;
4. Document the project evaluation's research question(s), the data
to be collected and analyzed, how data quality and integrity will be
maintained, e.g., how attrition will be minimized, and specify overall
and subgroup samples;
5. Describe how the project will be implemented with fidelity,
e.g., how random assignment to treatment and control groups will be
ensured;
6. Describe the metrics that will be used in the evaluation to
determine whether the outcomes have been achieved as a result of the
intervention, i.e., key outcomes and outcome targets; an explanation of
how the metrics will be measured; and an explanation of how the metrics
are independent, objective indicators of impact and are not subject to
manipulation by the service provider, the intermediary, or investors,
if any;
7. Explain how the independent evaluator will collect or gain
access to the metrics that will be used;
8. Explain how the method used to measure the anticipated outcomes
will produce rigorous evidence that the outcomes were not produced due
to random chance, general economic conditions, or participant selection
(see Section A.6.e, Evidence Standards, for more information);
9. Propose all important covariates that will be used in evaluation
analysis, including how these measures will be operationalized, and the
data used for them;
10. Explain how the methodology will measure relevant unanticipated
outcomes and/or negative impacts;
11. Include a proposed logic model (theory of change) (see Section
A.5.c, Evaluation Method);
12. Provide and justify the selected evaluation strategy, i.e., RCT
or quasi-experimental design;
13. Describe anticipated statistical and analytical methods, such
as regression equations to be used, power calculations, and minimal
detectable impacts for each proposed outcome;
14. Include the anticipated customized randomization plan if
applicable;
15. State whether the design is likely to generate evidence that
can support causal conclusions, as described in Section A.6.e, Evidence
Standards;
16. Describe anticipated challenges, e.g., attrition, failed
randomization, oversubscription and plans to mitigate them; and
17. Show how the evaluation will be independent of the intervention
and financing structure.
The design plan may evolve during a project's early implementation
period (approximately the first 6-12 months) to ensure proper
measurement of project outcomes. However, outcome targets may not
change without prior approval from Treasury or the administering
[[Page 5565]]
federal agency. Grantees must submit the design plan to Treasury or the
administering federal agency once it is finalized. The evaluation
design plan will be posted on the Federal Interagency Council on Social
Impact Partnerships (Interagency Council) \13\ website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-10(3)(J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Evaluation Method
The design plan must also incorporate an appropriate evaluation
method. It must outline a narrative theory of change (or logic model).
A compelling theory of change (1) identifies key assumptions upon which
an intervention is based; (2) provides a set of testable hypotheses
that measure the effect of the proposed strategy; (3) identifies
expected outcomes; and (4) where available, describes interim outputs
and outcomes that show the project's progress toward the same or
similar interventions, or components of the intervention, in the same
or similar context.
To the extent feasible and appropriate, applicants should employ
experimental design methodologies that use random assignment to create
treatment and control groups to measure outcomes. If such an approach
is infeasible, a quasi-experimental design in which outcomes for the
treatment group, or a broader target population that includes both the
treatment group and those outside the treatment group, are measured
relative to a comparison group may be used. Applicants that cannot
implement a RCT study will not be penalized for implementing a quasi-
experimental design. This quasi-experimental design must address other
possible causes of the outcomes, such as selection, other policies,
economic conditions, and other confounding factors. (See the definition
of ``quasi-experimental design'' in Appendix I.C, Key Concepts and
Other Terms.) If selecting this approach, the applicant must explain
why an experimental design was infeasible, inappropriate, or unethical,
why the proposed evaluation method is a reasonable alternative, and why
the proposed approach will yield findings that support causal
inference.
d. Evaluation Facilitation
Grantees are expected to participate in and manage several
activities to ensure the successful independent evaluation of
demonstration projects. These activities include:
Working with the independent evaluator to facilitate the
execution of the overall evaluation strategy and to ensure the
intervention is performed according to the evaluation design plan
described above;
Reporting progress and final evaluation results to
Treasury and/or the relevant federal agency are delivered on schedule;
Over the course of the performance period, working with
the independent evaluator to ensure that project randomization
procedures and other evaluation processes are adhered to;
Working with the independent evaluator to modify
evaluation plans, as appropriate; and
Participating in technical assistance initiatives that
Treasury, federal agencies, or experts may provide to ensure evaluation
quality and consistency across projects.
e. Evidence Standards
Independent Evaluation: The evaluation used to determine whether a
State or local government will receive outcome payments under SIPPRA
shall use experimental designs using random assignment or other
reliable evidence-based research methodologies, as certified by the
Interagency Council, that allow for the strongest possible causal
inferences when random assignment is not feasible.\14\ The project's
independent evaluation must be designed to assess the strength of the
causal evidence, i.e., the degree to which the research establishes the
causal impact of the intervention on the outcomes of interest not due
to other factors.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(c).
\15\ More information on evidence standards in the context of
Federal program evaluations can be found at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oss/technicalassistance/edgarrevisionsfactsheet101617.pdf. General explanation of Federal
guidelines regarding evaluation and evidence can be found in OMB
Circular No. A-11 (2018), Part 6, Section 200.22, ``Evaluation'' and
``Evidence'' entries: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/a11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence Base for Selecting a Project Model: Pay for results
projects must be informed by designs that support causal conclusions
(i.e., studies with high internal validity) and that, in total, include
enough of the range of participants and settings to support scaling up
to the state, regional, or national level (i.e., studies with high
external validity). These include well-designed and well-implemented
experimental studies or well-designed and well-implemented quasi-
experimental studies that support the effectiveness of the practice,
strategy, or program; and large, well-designed and well-implemented
randomized controlled, multi-site trials that support the effectiveness
of the practice, strategy, or program.
f. Contract With Independent Evaluator
Because the evaluation findings provide the basis for pay for
results payments to the grantee, the contract each applicant enters
into with an independent evaluator should require an agreed-upon
evaluation design and methodology, observed outcome measure(s), and
findings regarding outcome targets.
The contract with the independent evaluator should address the
following:
Plan to obtain relevant datasets from various sources, for
example, local agencies, state agencies, or other federal agencies,
including the responsibilities of the grantee and evaluator in
accomplishing this task;
Design and coding of a management information system, as
needed, that is tailored for research or evaluation, to track
participants and obtain individual-level data;
Collection or assessment of individual-level data. The
independent evaluator must work directly with the applicant and other
organizations to enter into one or more agreements for the access and
use of the data. These agreements should include assuring data quality
and adherence to all federal and state data privacy statutes and
policies and data security standards;
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to ensure the
protection of human subjects, to the extent applicable; and
Submission of progress reports to Treasury, the
Interagency Council, and the head of the relevant agency in accordance
with the reporting requirements described in Section F.5b, Evaluation
Progress Reports, and Section F.5.c, Evaluation Final Reports.
B. Federal Award Information
1. Type of Federal Award
Treasury expects to award up to $66,290,000 in grants under this
NOFA. Treasury anticipates making between five and fifteen grants for
social impact partnership demonstration projects under this NOFA. The
total amount awarded under this NOFA will be determined based on the
strength of the applications received, the number of successful
applications for projects for the direct benefit of children, and other
programmatic considerations. Treasury reserves the right to make no
awards or to make awards for amounts less than the amounts requested by
applicants. As noted above, for projects funded under this NOFA, the
federal government, under separate agreements with grantees, will also
make available up to 15 percent of the project award amount for the
cost of an independent evaluator.
[[Page 5566]]
These agreements to pay for evaluations will provide for payment
regardless of outcomes, but the agreements will limit payments to
evaluation work performed.
2. Project Period
The period of performance for demonstration project awards may not
exceed seven and a half years, which includes an intervention period of
up to seven years followed by up to six months for final measurement,
analysis, evaluation, submission of the independent evaluator's final
report, and submission of payment requests to the federal
government.\16\ Applicants should carefully construct their project
timeline to allow sufficient time for all required activities.
Applicants must specify the intervention period and explain the basis
for specifying such period. Requests to extend the period of
performance beyond seven and a half years will not be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ SIPPRA provides that the period of performance under the
award agreements may not exceed 10 years. See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-
2(c)(1)(C). Treasury will strive to maximize use of the amounts
Congress appropriated to make awards and outcome payments. To help
achieve this goal, Treasury decided on a seven and a half year
maximum period of performance to provide sufficient flexibility for
Treasury to issue an additional NOFA for SIPPRA demonstration
projects with a similar period of performance. In order to make an
additional round of awards and any outcome payments associated with
such awards, Treasury determined that the period of performance for
the first round of awards should not exceed seven and a half years.
To elaborate, SIPPRA appropriates funds that are available for ten
years to make awards. See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-9 and 1397n-13. Federal
law generally provides that disbursements of funds awarded within
the SIPPRA 10 year window (e.g., outcome payments) must occur within
five years after that ten year window closes. See 31 U.S.C. 1552(a).
If grantees receiving awards under this NOFA do not receive outcome
payments for the full amount of their awards after the seven year
and a half year performance period, the difference between the award
amounts and the outcome payments made will be available to make
awards under the additional SIPPRA demonstration project NOFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
Only States or local governments are eligible applicants;
applications from any other entities will not be reviewed. SIPPRA
defines the term ``State'' to mean each State of the United States, the
District of Columbia, each commonwealth, territory, or possession of
the United States, and each federally recognized Indian tribe.\17\ For
purposes of this NOFA, the term ``State'' shall, consistent with the
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) at 2 CFR part 200,
include any of a State's agencies or instrumentalities, and the terms
``local government'' and ``federally recognized Indian tribe'' shall
have the meanings given in the Uniform Guidance and set forth in
Appendix I.1, Applicants.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-12(6).
\18\ See 2 CFR 200.54, 200.64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
Cost sharing or matching funds, as defined in the Uniform
Guidance,\19\ are not required, and the financial contributions from
any investors for project implementation are not characterized as cost
sharing or matching funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 2 CFR 200.29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Other Eligibility Criteria
The identified social problem(s) or other social benefits to be
addressed by the intervention must relate to one of the outcomes
identified in SIPPRA and listed in Section A.3, Qualifying Outcomes.
D. Application and Submission Information
1. How To Obtain an Application Package
This NOFA, found at www.Grants.gov and www.Treasury.gov/SIPPRA,
contains all of the information and links to forms needed to apply for
grant funding. An application package may be obtained from Grants.gov
by using this NOFA's CFDA number: 21.017 or by calling the SIPPRA
Coordinator at (202) 622-0262. Information on how to apply for grants
can be found at https://www.Grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
a. Notice of Intent To Apply
Treasury strongly encourages State and local governments interested
in applying to submit to Treasury a Notice of Intent to Apply to the
SIPPRA Program Office. Obtaining advance information about the
potential number of applications, as well as the general structure of
the proposed intervention projects and evaluation plans, prior to the
application deadline will assist Treasury in developing a more
efficient application review process. A Notice of Intent to Apply
should be submitted via email to [email protected] on or prior to
April 8, 2019. Please use ``Intent to Apply'' in the email subject line
and include the following information:
1. The applicant's name and address;
2. A general overview of the intervention, including the target
population and social problem the project will address, anticipated
outcome(s) of the project, and a brief summary of the evaluation design
(including, where applicable, federal data sets to which the project
partners and/or evaluator anticipate needing to access, and the plan to
gain access to that data);
3. Any preliminary information identifying the project partners;
4. The intervention period (not to exceed seven years); and
5. Total anticipated funding and total anticipated budget for the
proposed project.
An applicant that does not submit a Notice of Intent to Apply may
still apply for a project grant, and an application may differ from
what the applicant included in its Notice of Intent to Apply.
b. Application for Project Award
Applications submitted in response to this NOFA must consist of the
following:
1. SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance;
2. SF-424A, Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs (if
applicable);
3. SF-424C, Budget Information for Construction Programs (if
applicable);
4. Project Narrative, which must include an executive summary that
outlines key information and provides a brief description of the
applicant's proposal. The project narrative must include the following:
[cir] The outcome goals of the project, formulated as discussed in
Section A.4.f, and rigorous evidence demonstrating that the
intervention can be expected to produce the desired outcomes; \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(1), (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] The project timeline, including the project intervention
period; \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(15), (17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] A description of each intervention in the project and
anticipated outcomes of the intervention; \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] A work plan for delivering the intervention through a social
impact partnership model, including the proposed payment terms (e.g.,
the terms of any tiered payment scheme proposed by the applicant) and
performance thresholds (i.e., the outcome target or, in the case of a
tiered payment scheme, range of targets); \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(9), (15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] The target population that will be served by the project and
the criteria used to determine the eligibility of an individual for the
project, including how the target population will be
[[Page 5567]]
identified, how individuals will be referred to the project, how they
will be enrolled in it, and the extent to which affected stakeholders
will be engaged in the development and implementation of the project;
\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(4), (c)(18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] A summary of the unmet need in the area where the
intervention will be delivered or among the target population who will
receive the intervention \25\ and the expected social benefits to
participants who receive the intervention and others who may be
impacted; \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(14).
\26\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] The detailed roles and responsibilities of each entity
involved in the project, including any State or local government
entity, intermediary, service provider, independent evaluator,
investor, or other stakeholder; \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] A description of whether and how the applicant and service
providers plan to sustain the intervention, if it is timely and
appropriate to do so, to ensure that successful interventions continue
to operate after the period of the social impact partnership; \28\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(24). An applicant may discuss its
commitment to scalability and building capacity or plans to maintain
project benefits and/or continue the intervention beyond the period
of performance in the event the intervention successfully addresses
the needs of the target population. An applicant may include plans
to make adaptations within its environment to strengthen or expand
its proposed intervention beyond the period of performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] Whether and how the project is for the direct benefit of
children.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Project Narrative Attachments;
6. SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities;
7. Grant.gov Lobbying Form;
8. SF-424B, Assurance for Non-Construction Programs (if
applicable);
9. SF-424D, Assurance for Construction Programs (if applicable);
The following items are required to be submitted as attachments to
the project narrative:
Project budget: Provide a narrative for the budget,
including amounts expected to be expended by partners.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(16). The budget must include any
projected federal, State, and local government costs and other costs
to conduct the project. See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partnership agreements: Provide a partnership agreement
between the applicant and all project partners. The partnership
agreement must either be signed or, if submitted in draft form, must be
accompanied by signed letters of intent to enter into such an agreement
should the application be successful. Refer to Section A.4.d,
Partnership Agreements for what must be included in partnership
agreements.
Partner qualifications: Describe the expertise of each
service provider that will administer the intervention, including a
summary of the experience of the service provider in delivering the
proposed intervention or a similar intervention, or demonstrating that
the service provider has the expertise necessary to deliver the
proposed intervention.\31\ This description should include a discussion
of the capacity of the service provider to deliver the intervention to
the number of participants the State or local government proposes to
serve in the project.\32\ In addition, to the extent the applicant
intends to use investors and has not already identified and received
commitments from them, the application should discuss the experience of
the State or local government, intermediary, if any, or service
provider in raising private and philanthropic capital to fund social
service investments.\33\ With respect to any intermediary specifically,
the application should discuss the intermediary's mission and goals;
its experience and capacity for providing or facilitating the provision
of the type of intervention proposed; information on whether the
intermediary is already working with service providers that provide
this intervention or an explanation of the capacity of the intermediary
to begin working with service providers to provide the intervention;
its experience working in a collaborative environment across government
and nongovernmental entities to implement evidence-based programs; its
previous experience collaborating with public or private entities to
implement evidence-based programs; its ability to raise or provide
funding to cover operating costs, as applicable; its capacity and
infrastructure to track outcomes and measure results, including its
capacity to track and analyze program performance and assess program
impact; its experience with performance-based awards or performance-
based contracting and achieving milestones and targets; and an
explanation of how the intermediary would monitor program success,
including a description of the interim benchmarks and outcome
measures.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(10), (13).
\32\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(23).
\33\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(11).
\34\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent evaluator qualifications: Provide a summary
explaining the independence of the evaluator from the other entities
involved in the project and the evaluator's experience in conducting
rigorous evaluations of program effectiveness including, where
available, well-implemented RCTs on the intervention or similar
interventions.\35\ Applicants should address the following
qualifications of the evaluator:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experience working with the datasets the project expects
to use;
Prior work in conducting implementation and causal impact
analyses and how their past methodologies and evaluation design
experience will be used in the proposed project;
Qualifications of the individuals designing and overseeing
the evaluation and ensuring its quality, including their education or
training and type and years of experience;
Experience in managing similar evaluation protocols (e.g.,
this type of sampling, data collection, analysis); and
Experience dealing with unforeseen data or implementation
issues in other program evaluations. Provide specific examples and
experiences dealing with unforeseen data or implementation issues.
Evaluation design plan: Provide an evaluation design \36\
plan as described in Section A.5.b, Evaluation Design Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(19)-(21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent evaluator contract. Provide a copy of the
contract to be entered into between the State or local government and
the independent evaluator as described in Section A.6.f, Contract with
Independent Evaluator.
Outcome valuation: Provide an attachment supporting the
outcome valuation, as described in Section A.5.b, Outcome Valuation,
and a discussion of project savings not otherwise incorporated into the
outcome valuation, including projected federal, State, and local
government savings and other savings, including an estimate of the
savings to the federal government, on a program-by-program basis and in
the aggregate, if the project is implemented and the outcomes are
achieved as a result of the intervention and, if savings resulting from
the successful completion of the project are estimated to accrue to the
State or local government, the likelihood of the State or local
government to realize those savings.\37\ Applicants must provide the
estimated total value and savings, estimated value and savings per
project participant, and estimated value and
[[Page 5568]]
savings per dollar spent on the intervention, as well as the
methodology used by the applicant in arriving at such estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(7), (8). A tool for these
calculations will be made available on Treasury's SIPPRA website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal compliance: If an applicant proposes a project
including a construction component, the applicant must identify the
State and federal environmental laws, regulations, and policies that
will apply to the project, and the environmental documents required
under State and federal laws. If an applicant proposes a project
including a transportation component, the applicant must identify
applicable federal, State, and local laws relating to that component,
and any transportation-related permitting and licensing documents
required under federal, State and local laws. The applicant must
identify laws applying to the population being served and demonstrate
that the project will be in compliance with those laws. The applicant
must also comply with applicable federal, State, and local privacy
laws. The applicant must also identify any approved waivers of any
existing laws or regulations, including but not limited to
environmental or transportation laws or regulations, required by the
intervention design; if waivers are pending, the applicant must include
documentation that it has sought the waiver, that it is under
consideration, and when approval is expected to be received. Failure to
obtain a necessary waiver may be grounds for termination of a grant.
An application may contain additional supporting documentation as
attachments such as an existing feasibility study.
3. Other
a. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number and
System of Award Management (SAM)
Applications will be identified by the DUNS number of the State or
local government lead applicant. A DUNS number is a unique, nine-digit
sequence recognized as the universal standard for identifying and
keeping track of over 70 million entities worldwide. Sub-awards may be
made only to entities that have DUNS numbers. Information on how to
obtain a DUNS number may be obtained from Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. at
http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform or by calling 866-705-5711. Applicants
should obtain this DUNS number immediately to ensure all registration
steps are complete prior to submitting an application. The DUNS number
should be entered in the block with the applicant's name and address on
the cover page of the application, block 8c on the Form SF 424,
Application for Federal Assistance. The name and address in the
application should be exactly as given for the DUNS number. After
obtaining a DUNS number, applicants must also register with the SAM, a
federal governmentwide portal used for acquisition and federal
assistance processes, and maintain an active SAM registration until the
application process is complete and, if a grant is awarded, throughout
the life of the award. SAM registration must be renewed annually.
Treasury suggests finalizing a new registration or renewing an existing
one at least one month before the application deadline to allow time to
resolve any issues that may arise. Applicants must use their SAM-
registered legal name and address on all grant applications to
Treasury. Treasury will not make an award to an applicant if the
applicant has not complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM
requirements.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ For more information about SAM, see the information
provided by the General Services Administration at https://www.sam.gov/SAM/pages/public/generalInfo/aboutSAM.jsf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Privileged or Confidential Information
SIPPRA establishes a Commission on Social Impact Partnerships
(Commission) whose principal obligation is to make recommendations to
Treasury regarding the funding of SIPPRA demonstration project and
feasibility studies.\39\ The Commission is subject to the provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which generally requires
that documents made available to the Commission be made available for
public inspection and copying.\40\ Treasury expects to provide to the
Commission all complete applications received under this NOFA from
eligible applicants and expects to make these applications available
for public inspection and copying. However, FACA also provides that
trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is
privileged or confidential under the Freedom of Information Act
(confidential business information) need not be made publicly
available.\41\ In order to comply with FACA's public disclosure
requirements while protecting confidential business information in
accordance with FACA, each applicant must propose redactions of
confidential business information. An applicant may omit pages for
which it does not propose any redactions. Proposed redactions must be
highlighted in a way that leaves the material proposed to be redacted
visible to Treasury staff. Treasury will review the redactions proposed
by each applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-6.
\40\ See 5 U.S.C. App. 2 10(b).
\41\ See id.; 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Submission Date, Times, Process and Addresses
Applications must be submitted between 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time on
April 22, 2019, March 28, 2019 and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 22,
2019. Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov.
Mail, email, telegram, or facsimile (FAX) submissions will not be
accepted. Registration for Grants.gov is a multi-step process that may
take several weeks to complete before an application may be submitted.
Grants.gov scheduled maintenance and outage times are announced on the
Grants.gov website, http://www.Grants.gov. The deadline will not be
extended due to scheduled maintenance or outages. Applicants take a
significant risk by waiting to the last day to submit by Grants.gov.
General information for registering and submitting applications
through Grants.gov can be found at https://www.Grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html along with specific instructions for the forms and
attachments required for submission. Applicants encountering a problem
with Grants.gov may call the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-
4726 or 606-545-5035 to speak to a Customer Support Representative, or
email Grants.gov">support@Grants.gov. The Contact Center is open 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, other than on federal holidays, when it is closed.
All required documents comprising the application must be included at
the time the application is submitted as set forth in Section D.2,
Content and Form of Application.
Applications may be withdrawn by providing written notice to
[email protected] at any time before an award is made.
5. Intergovernmental Review
This funding opportunity is subject to Executive Order 12372,
``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,'' as amended by
Executive Order 12416. Some States require that applicants contact
their State's Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to comply with the State's
SPOC process established pursuant to Executive Order 12372. Names and
addresses of the SPOCs are listed on the Office of Management and
Budget's homepage at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/SPOC-Feb.-2018.pdf. Applications from federally-recognized
Indian tribes are not subject to intergovernmental review.
[[Page 5569]]
6. Funding Restrictions
Grants will only be awarded to those entities and for those
projects that are eligible as described in Section C, Eligibility
Information. As discussed above in Section A.2, Types of Funding and
Funding Availability, SIPPRA provides that not less than 50 percent of
all federal payments made to carry out social impact partnership
project agreements shall be used for initiatives that directly benefit
children.
E. Application Review Information
1. Review and Selection Process
Review of applications for grants under this NOFA will be conducted
through the following five phases.
Phase 1: Completeness and Eligibility Review
In the first review phase, Treasury will review all applications to
determine eligibility and completeness, which will consist of a non-
substantive review to determine whether the applicant is a State or
local government; whether the proposed project qualifies as an eligible
project as set forth in Section A.3, Qualifying Outcomes; and whether
each of the application content requirements set forth in Section D.2,
Content and Form of Application, has been satisfied. An application
received from an ineligible entity or for an ineligible project will be
rejected. Applicants are required to establish that the proposed
project is an eligible project. Incomplete applications may, at
Treasury's discretion, receive further consideration. Treasury expects
to afford applicants a reasonable opportunity to cure such
incompleteness.
Phase 2: Subject Matter Expert Panel Review
Treasury will assign complete applications submitted by eligible
applicants to one or more panels of subject matter experts who will be
selected based on their knowledge of the social benefit(s) or
problem(s), technical expertise in the type of intervention, experience
working with the target population that is the subject of the
application, or other considerations. Review panelists may be selected
from federal agencies or from the private sector, or both. Reviewers
will be screened for conflicts of interest.
The panel assigned to an application will score that application in
accordance with the criteria set forth in the table below, which
reflects the considerations that Treasury, in consultation with the
Interagency Council and the head of the relevant federal agency, is
required by SIPPRA to consider when granting awards \42\ and each of
the application content requirements under SIPPRA.\43\ The total and
component scores will serve as a reference in the further phases of
review discussed below, and awards may be made out of rank order. The
panel scores will not be binding with respect to these further phases
of review; furthermore, Treasury may reject applications that show
significant deficiencies with respect to any one component that is
critical to the success of the project under the pay for results model,
e.g., an application that does not identify an evaluator that is
independent from the other project participants, regardless of the
applicant's total score.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b).
\43\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c), 1397n-1(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of and Savings from the Project.............. 15 points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Value to the federal 10 points..........
government.
-----------------------------------------
--Savings to the State or 5 points...........
local government.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likelihood of Achieving Outcomes................... 50 points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Evidence demonstrating 15 points..........
intervention can be
expected to achieve
desired outcome.
---------------------
--Project budget, work 20 points..........
plan, timeline, and
partnership agreement.
---------------------
--Project partners........ 15 points..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality of Evaluation.............................. 30 points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Evaluation design and 20 points..........
metrics.
---------------------
--Evaluator independence 10 points..........
and experience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity and Commitment to Sustain the Intervention 5 points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 100 points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of and Savings From the Project
SIPPRA requires Treasury to take into consideration the value to
the federal government of the outcomes expected to be achieved if the
outcomes specified in the grant agreement are achieved as a result of
the intervention.\44\ SIPPRA also requires Treasury to take into
consideration both the savings to the federal government and the
savings to the State and local governments.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b)(2).
\45\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The outcome valuation is the public benefit resulting from
achieving the outcome target(s), including public sector savings,
defined as reduction in outlay costs, and changes in federal tax
receipts. The federal payment to the State or local government for each
specified outcome achieved as a result of the intervention must be less
than or equal to the value of the outcome to the federal government
over a period not exceeding the intervention period.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(c)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value calculated for the purpose of this NOFA is discussed in
Section A.4.f.ii, Outcome Valuation. The term ``savings'' refers to
reduced outlays, whether by the federal or State or local government,
as applicable, as a result of the project. Interventions may also
result in savings to the State or local government, which will be taken
into consideration when deciding which projects to fund.\47\ As noted
above, however, the federal payment to the
[[Page 5570]]
State or local government for each specified outcome achieved as a
result of the intervention will be limited to the value of the outcome
to the federal government, which is the sum of (1) savings to the
federal government and (2) increased federal revenues as a result of
the project, over a period not exceeding the intervention period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The panels will review the applicant's identified target
population, outcome goals and proposed intervention(s) and description
of the unmet need in the area where the intervention will be delivered
or among the target population that will receive the intervention.\48\
The required description of expected social benefits to participants
who receive the intervention and others who may be impacted will also
be relevant to the extent they impact the value of and savings from the
project.\49\ In addition, savings to the federal government and State
and local governments are specifically addressed by the requirements
for applicants to provide projected federal, State, and local
government savings and other savings, including an estimate of the
savings to the federal government, on a program-by-program basis and in
the aggregate, if the project is implemented and the outcomes are
achieved as a result of the intervention,\50\ and, if savings resulting
from the successful completion of the project are estimated to accrue
to the State or local government, the likelihood of the State or local
government to realize those savings.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(1), (2), (4), (14).
\49\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(5).
\50\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(7).
\51\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating applications with respect to both value and savings,
the panels will take into consideration the estimated total value and
savings, estimated value and savings per project participant, and
estimated value and savings per dollar spent on the intervention, as
well as the methodology used by the applicant in arriving at such
estimates.
Likelihood of Achieving Outcomes
SIPPRA requires Treasury to take into consideration the likelihood,
based on evidence provided in the application and other evidence, that
the State or local government in collaboration with the intermediary
and the service providers will achieve the specified outcomes.\52\
Projects showing a greater likelihood of success will receive more
points from the panels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence Demonstrating Intervention Can Be Expected To Achieve Desired
Outcomes
In connection with this consideration, panels will assess
applicants' compliance with the requirement to provide rigorous
experimental evaluations or quasi-experimental studies demonstrating
that the intervention can be expected to produce the desired
outcomes.\53\ More points will be given for applications providing
greater evidence in support of the intervention and its specified
outcomes; in particular, points will be awarded for evidence based on
previous interventions or interventions similar to the proposed
intervention that were shown to produce the desired outcomes as a
direct result of the intervention and not as a result of other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(3), 1397n-2(c)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Budget, Work Plan, Timeline, and Partnership Agreement
The likelihood of success is also determined by whether the
particular project is designed, structured, and implemented in a way
that will foster success. To this end, the panels will assess the
thoroughness and comprehensiveness of the applicant's work plan for
delivering the intervention, including the proposed payment terms
(e.g., the terms of any tiered payment scheme proposed by the
applicant), and the payment schedule (i.e., the intervention period),
and performance thresholds (i.e., the outcome target or, in the case of
a tiered payment scheme, range of targets).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(9), (15). As to 42 U.S.C. 1397n-
1(c)(15), the methodology used to calculate outcome payments is
discussed under ``Quality of the Evaluation'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The panels will also assess the applicant's project budget,
including projected costs, and the project timeline.\55\ The panels
will assess the strength of the partnership agreement to the extent not
covered under other components of the panel's scoring criteria.
Applications will be assessed with respect to both the thoroughness of
the budget, timeline, and partnership agreement and the extent to which
the intervention is achievable under the budget, work plan, timeline,
and partnership agreement, particularly the service delivery plan
included in the partnership agreement. To the extent the applicant
intends to use investors and has not already identified and received
commitments from them, the panel will consider the experience of the
State or local government, intermediary, or service provider in raising
private and philanthropic capital to fund social service
investments.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(6), (16), (17).
\56\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panels will also review the criteria used to determine the
eligibility of an individual for the project, including how the target
population will be identified, how individuals will be referred to the
project, and how they will be enrolled in it.\57\ Applications will be
assessed based on the soundness of the methodology for identifying the
target population and the thoroughness of the applicant's plan for
referring and enrolling individuals, including assurances that the
process avoids targeting easier-to-serve individuals from the target
population for enrollment. The panel will also consider whether, to the
extent applicable, the applicant has demonstrated that members of the
target population are not being unfairly discriminated against in the
selection, referral, and enrollment process. (See Section F.2.c, Non-
discrimination laws and regulations.) Panelists will also review the
extent to which the target population and related community will be
engaged in the development and implementation of the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Partners
In recognition that the likelihood of success is also determined by
the capabilities of the project partners, the panels will assess the
assigned responsibilities and the qualifications of the partners. This
will include an assessment of the applicant's description of the roles
and responsibilities of each entity involved in the project, including,
to the extent applicable, any State or local government entity,
intermediary, service provider, investor, or other stakeholder.\58\ The
panel will also assess the relevance and depth of expertise of each
service provider and capacity of each service provider to deliver the
intervention, as described by the applicant.\59\ Likewise, the panel
will review the relevance and depth of experience of any project
intermediary and the capacity of the intermediary to fill the roles
assigned to it.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(12), (d)(8).
\59\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(10), (13), (23).
\60\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality of Evaluation
SIPPRA requires Treasury to consider the expected quality of the
evaluation that would be conducted with respect to the agreement.\61\
The panels will assess the project's evaluation design; \62\ the
[[Page 5571]]
metrics that will be collected and analyzed in the evaluation to
determine whether the outcomes have been achieved as a result of the
intervention and how the metrics will be measured; \63\ and the
applicant's explanation of how the metrics used in the evaluation are
independent, objective indicators of impact and are not subject to
manipulation by the service provider, intermediary, or investors, if
any.\64\ Additionally, the panel will assess the independence of the
evaluator from the other entities involved in the project and the
evaluator's experience in conducting rigorous evaluations of program
effectiveness, including, where available, well-implemented RCTs on the
intervention or similar interventions.\65\ As discussed above, the
independence of the evaluator is crucial to the pay-for-results
financing model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b)(6).
\62\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(19).
\63\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(20).
\64\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(21).
\65\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity and Commitment To Sustain the Intervention
Finally, SIPPRA requires Treasury to take into consideration the
capacity and commitment of the State or local government to sustain the
intervention, if appropriate and timely and if the intervention is
successful, beyond the period of the social impact partnership.\66\
Panels will consider applicants' submissions with respect to State or
local government and service providers' plans to sustain the
intervention.\67\ Although the primary focus with respect to an
application will be on the project period, with respect to this
consideration, panels will provide additional points to applications
that demonstrate a commitment from the State or local government and
service providers and the availability of sufficient funding to extend
the project, if appropriate, beyond the project period.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b)(7).
\67\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(24).
\68\ As noted above, an applicant may discuss the commitment to
scalability and building capacity or plans to maintain project
benefits and/or continue the intervention beyond the project period
in the event the intervention successfully addresses the needs of
the target population. An applicant may include plans to make
adaptations within its environment to strengthen or expand its
proposed intervention beyond the period of performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 3: Consistency Review and SIPPRA Commission Recommendation
Following the panel review, Treasury will review application scores
for consistency among subject matter experts on each panel and across
panels and rank the applications. The SIPPRA Commission will then
review applications and make award recommendations to Treasury.
Phase 4: Interagency Council Certification and Treasury Determination
The Interagency Council, which is required to certify that
applications contain rigorous, independent data and reliable, evidence-
based research methodologies before Treasury makes its award
decision,\69\ will determine which applications warrant certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-5(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treasury, in consultation with the Interagency Council and the head
of any federal agency administering a similar intervention or serving a
population similar to that served by the project, will review the
applications taking into account the statutory considerations
referenced above as well as the recommendations made by the SIPPRA
Commission and the Interagency Council certification (or absence
thereof). Depending on the number of meritorious applications, Treasury
may also take into consideration the extent to which proposed projects
would foster innovation in social policy, yield a diversity of target
populations and grantees, and benefit economically distressed rural and
urban areas, including qualified opportunity zones, as described in
Executive Orders 13790 and 13853.
Finally, as noted above, SIPPRA requires that ``[n]ot less than 50
percent of all Federal payments made to carry out agreements under this
section shall be used for initiatives that directly benefit children.''
\70\ As discussed above, to give effect to this statutory provision,
Treasury will allocate a minimum of 50 percent of the funds available
under this NOFA to projects designed to directly benefit children. This
means that Treasury will award no more than $33,145,000 under this NOFA
for projects that do not directly benefit children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 5: Review of Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity
Information System Information Data and Risk Evaluation
As required by the Uniform Guidance, Treasury will review and
consider any information about an applicant that is in the Federal
Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) before
making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold
(currently $250,000) over the period of performance. Each applicant may
review information in the designated integrity and performance systems
accessible through SAM and comment on any information about itself that
a federal awarding agency previously entered and is currently in the
designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM.
Treasury will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to
other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about the applicant's
integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal
awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as
described in the Uniform Guidance.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See 2 CFR 200.205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, as required by Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, non-
federal entities (NFEs) are required to disclose in FAPIIS any
information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, or
affirm that there is no new information to provide.\72\ This applies to
NFEs for which the total value of active grants, cooperative
agreements, and procurement contracts received from all federal
awarding agencies exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time during the
period of performance of an award or project. This means that Treasury
may reject an application based on the information contained in FAPIIS
even if the applicant otherwise scores highly under the 100 point
scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See 2 CFR part 200, appendix XII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treasury will comply with the requirements of 31 CFR part 19,
Government wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement).
Additionally, as part of its risk evaluation, Treasury may impose
special conditions on an award that correspond to the degree of risk
identified in Treasury's review of the application. Criteria to be
evaluated include: (1) Financial stability; (2) quality of management
systems and ability to meet the management standards prescribed in the
Uniform Guidance; (3) the applicant's record in managing awards,
cooperative agreements, or procurement awards, if it is a prior
recipient of such federal awards, including timeliness of compliance
with applicable reporting requirements and, if applicable, the extent
to which any previously awarded amounts will be expended prior to
future awards; (4) reports and findings from audits performed under
Subpart F, Audit Requirements of the Uniform Guidance, or the reports
and findings of any other available audits and monitoring reports
containing findings, issues of non-compliance or questioned
[[Page 5572]]
costs; and (5) the applicant's ability to effectively implement
statutory, regulatory, or other requirements imposed on recipients.
2. Application Clarification and Feedback
During the course of the review process and risk assessment
evaluation, Treasury may ask some applicants to provide confirming or
clarifying information. Treasury staff uses such information to inform
funding recommendations. A request for confirmation or clarification
does not guarantee a grant award. If an applicant does not respond by
the deadline to a request for information, Treasury may remove its
application from consideration.
Upon request, Treasury expects to provide feedback to unsuccessful
applicants after grant awards have been announced.
F. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
Before the actual grant is awarded, Treasury may enter into
negotiations with the applicant regarding program components, staffing
and funding levels, and/or administrative systems in place to support
grant implementation. If the negotiations do not result in a mutually
acceptable submission, Treasury reserves the right to terminate the
negotiations and decline to fund the award.
Treasury expects to announce the results of this competition by
November 2019. Treasury will provide successful applicants with a
Notice of Award (NoA) that will set forth the amount of the award and
other pertinent information. The NoA is the legal document issued to
notify an applicant that an award has been made. Treasury expects that
the NoA will also include standard Terms and Conditions and any Special
Award Conditions related to participation in the Social Impact
Partnerships Demonstration program. The NoA will be sent through the
U.S. Postal Service to the applicant listed on the SF-424; a copy will
also be sent to the electronic mail address listed on the SF-424. The
applicant's signature on the SF-424, including electronic signature via
E-Authentication on http://www.grants.gov, constitutes a binding offer
by the applicant. Note that any communication between Treasury and
applicants prior to the issuance of the NoA and prior to the execution
of any award agreement is not authorization to begin performance on the
project.
Unsuccessful applicants will be notified of their status by letter,
which will likewise be sent through the U.S. Postal Service to the
applicant listed on the SF-424. Unsuccessful applicants may apply under
subsequent NOFAs.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
Successful applicants selected for awards must agree to comply with
additional applicable legal requirements upon acceptance of an award.
All grants are subject to the Office of Management and Budget's
regulatory requirements for grants codified in the Uniform Guidance.
Grantees and, if applicable, sub-recipients must agree as part of their
award agreement to comply with all requirements under 2 CFR part 200,
as applicable. Treasury does not expect that the cost principles in
Subpart E of 2 CFR part 200 will be applicable, except with regard to
federal funding for the independent evaluator.
a. Administrative Program Requirements
Awards under this NOFA are subject to federal laws, regulations,
and policies concerning grants. Below is a non-exhaustive list of
requirements with which the applicant will need to comply:
1. Lobbying Restrictions at 31 CFR part 21.
2. Government-wide Debarment and Suspension Requirements at 31 CFR
part 19.
3. Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace at 31 CFR
part 20.
4. Award Term for Trafficking in Persons at 2 CFR part 175.
b. Environmental Requirements
Treasury approval of financial assistance is subject to compliance
with applicable federal and State environmental requirements. As
discussed under Section D.2.b, Application for Project Award, the
applicant must identify the State and federal environmental laws,
regulations, and policies that may apply to the project and the
environmental documents that may be required under State and federal
laws. As to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended
(NEPA),\73\ specifically, project applications will be evaluated in
accordance with Treasury's NEPA procedures and categorical exclusions.
Grantees whose projects do not fall within Treasury's categorical
exclusions will be required to assist Treasury in conducting an
Environmental Analysis and an Environmental Impact Statement for the
project, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Non-Discrimination Laws and Regulations
All grantees, partners, and sub-recipients, if applicable, must
comply with applicable non-discrimination statutes and regulations.
These include but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000-2000d7), which prohibits discrimination on
the basis of race, color of national origin, and Treasury's
implementing regulations, 31 CFR part 22; (b) Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683, and 1685-1686),
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; (c) Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, and Treasury's
implementing regulations, 31 CFR part 28; (d) the Individuals with
Disabilities Act, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.); (e) the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101-6107), which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, and Treasury's
implementing regulations, 31 CFR part 23; (f) the Drug Abuse Office and
Treatment Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-255), as amended, relating to
nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; (g) the Comprehensive
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation
Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination
on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; (h) Section 523 and 527 of
the Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 290dd-3 and 290ee-3),
as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse
patient records; and (i) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the
sale, rental or financing of housing.
d. Other Requirements
Grantees must comply with existing laws and regulations governing
the subject area of the project and the relevant federal agency
administering the project. If the intervention design requires
exceptions to any such existing laws and regulations, the applicant
must obtain a waiver from the governing federal, State, or local
agency.
e. Transparency Act Requirements
Applicants must ensure that they have the necessary processes and
systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements of the
Federal Funding Accountability and
[[Page 5573]]
Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282, as amended by Sec. 6202 of
Pub. L. 110-252) (Transparency Act). All applicants, except for those
excepted from the Transparency Act, must ensure that they have the
necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the sub-award
and executive total compensation reporting requirements of the
Transparency Act, should they receive funding. Upon award, applicants
will receive detailed information on the reporting requirements of the
Transparency Act, as described in 2 CFR part 170, Appendix A. No sub-
award of an award made under this NOFA may be made to a sub-recipient
that is subject to the terms of the Transparency Act unless that
potential sub-recipient acquires and provides a DUNS number.
3. Special Program Requirements
a. Access to Records/Oversight
By accepting a project award under this NOFA, the grantee agrees to
make available to Treasury, the Comptroller General, agency Inspectors
General, the administering agency, or any of their authorized
representatives, all data and documents that might be needed, including
contracts and agreements, regardless of whether outcomes are achieved
and payment is received, in the grantee's possession or available to
the grantee. Grantees must also agree to provide timely and reasonable
access to program operating personnel, project partners, and
participants. This evaluation may make use of program management
information system data, local administrative data, financial data, and
program progress reports. It is critical that grantees keep this
information up to date and accurate for performance measurement,
evaluation, and auditing purposes. Grantees may be required to: (1)
Provide access to pertinent documents; (2) host site visits; (3)
facilitate interviews with grantee staff, partners and the independent
evaluator; (4) attend grantee meetings; and (5) provide additional
data. By accepting a project award under this NOFA, the grantee also
agrees to participate in a national cross-site evaluation in the event
that the federal government conducts one.
b. Evaluation Agreement
For each social impact project grant approved by Treasury, the head
of the relevant federal agency, as recommended by the Interagency
Council and determined by Treasury, will enter into an agreement with
the grant recipient to pay for all or part of the independent
evaluation for the project up to 15 percent of the award amount.\74\
Under SIPPRA, the head of the relevant federal agency may not enter
into an agreement with a State or local government unless the head
determines that the evaluator is independent of the other parties to
the agreement and has demonstrated substantial experience in conducting
rigorous evaluations of program effectiveness including, where
available and appropriate, well-implemented randomized controlled
trials on the intervention or similar interventions.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(a).
\75\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Federal Register Publication of Notice of Award
SIPPRA provides that not later than 30 days after entering into an
agreement for an award, Treasury must publish a notice in the Federal
Register that includes the following information about the award:
(1) The outcome goals of the project.
(2) The target population that will be served by the project.
(3) A description of each intervention in the project.
(4) The expected social benefits to participants who receive the
intervention and others who may be impacted.
(5) The detailed roles, responsibilities, and purposes of each
federal, State, or local government entity, intermediary, service
provider, independent evaluator, investor, if any, or other
stakeholder.
(6) The payment terms, the methodology used to calculate outcome
payments, the payment schedule, and performance thresholds.
(7) The project budget.
(8) The project timeline.
(9) The project eligibility criteria.
(10) The evaluation design.
(11) The metrics that will be used in the evaluation to determine
whether the outcomes have been achieved as a result of each
intervention and how these metrics will be measured.
(12) The estimate of the savings to the federal, State, and local
government, on a program-by-program basis and in the aggregate, if the
agreement is entered into and implemented and the outcomes are achieved
as a result of each intervention.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, SIPPRA requires that this information, along with
progress reports and final reports relating to each project, be posted
on a website established and maintained by the Interagency Council.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Changes to the Statement of Work
Upon grant of an award, the proposal will become the grant's
statement of work. Treasury discourages any changes to the target
population, outcome(s), intermediary, and independent evaluator. Under
extenuating circumstances, Treasury and/or the relevant federal agency
administering the grant at its sole discretion may approve revisions to
the statement of work. Changes to the intervention strategy and source
of up-front project funding may be made with prior written approval
from Treasury or the administering federal agency. To start this
process, a grantee must timely notify William Girardo, SIPPRA
Coordinator, at (202) 622-0262 or [email protected] of these changes
as they occur and provide appropriate documentation to update the
statement of work.
4. Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual property rights relating to the activities of the
grantee and all partners in the project, including the evaluator,
intermediary, and service provider(s) are subject to 2 CFR 200.315.
5. Administrative Reporting
Grantees must agree to meet the reporting requirements as listed
below or as specified in the award agreement. Administrative reports
must be submitted electronically to Treasury or to the relevant federal
agency, as specified in the award agreement.
a. Performance Report
(1) Projects With No Construction Component
An OMB-approved Annual Performance Report form must be submitted
within 90 days of the end of each calendar year of the award period of
performance. A final performance report is due 90 calendar days after
the period of performance end date. Each report must summarize project
activities, including the current stage of program implementation;
progress towards achieving the outcome goals, including number of
people served; significant milestones of the grantee, intermediary,
investors, if any, and evaluator; and related results of the project.
It should thoroughly document the partnership activities and decision-
making structure used to implement the pay for results model. These
reports will be made publicly available. Upon award, Treasury or the
administering federal agency will provide detailed formal guidance
about the data and other information that is required to be
[[Page 5574]]
collected and reported on either a regular basis or special request
basis.
(2) Projects With a Construction Component
The federal government will require additional evidence of onsite
technical inspections and certified percentage of completion date
information on construction elements of projects but will not require
performance requirements other than the Annual Performance Report
required for projects with no construction component. Projects that
include the acquisition and/or improvement of real property are subject
to the Uniform Guidance's Property Standards.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See 2 CFR 200.310-316.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Evaluation Progress Reports
Not later than two years after a project has been approved and
biannually thereafter, the independent evaluator must submit a written
report to the head of the relevant federal agency and the Interagency
Council summarizing the progress that has been made in achieving each
outcome specified in the award agreement.\79\ Data in evaluation
progress reports and final reports will be made available to all
federal agencies represented on the Interagency Council, and data
content requirements will be specified in the agreement between the
grantee and the head of the relevant federal agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(d)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a grantee's intervention has achieved one or more outcomes,
pre-defined outcome target(s) have been met, and the grantee wishes to
receive an outcome payment in accordance with the outcome payment
structure originally proposed, the independent evaluator must submit to
the head of the relevant federal agency and the Interagency Council a
written report that includes the results of the evaluation conducted to
determine whether an outcome payment should be made. The report must
include information on the unique factors that contributed to achieving
or failing to achieve the outcome in the context of the intervention,
including but not limited to any major change in policy or law that may
have affected the project intervention and whether or not the project
was implemented with fidelity, e.g., randomization of treatment and
control groups; the challenges faced in attempting to achieve the
outcome; and information on the improved future delivery of this or
similar interventions.\80\ The report must also assess the degree to
which the project was delivered as intended, including a discussion of
how closely the project's theory and intended procedures aligned with
actual project implementation. The report should include information
related to the intervention model, including whether it has evolved and
whether the intervention was delivered with fidelity to the plan;
staffing; recruitment/identification and screening of participants;
selection and enrollment; how the intervention was implemented; and
findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(d)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The progress report must include an assessment by the independent
evaluator of the value to the federal government as discussed and
defined in Section 4.f.ii, Outcomes: Outcome Valuation. In calculating
the value to the federal government of the completed outcome(s), the
independent evaluator may only take into consideration changes in
federal outlays and revenues that have occurred as of the completion of
the outcome and not extrapolate to later points in time or assume that
other outcomes will be achieved. That is, the value calculation must
only take into account the value achieved as the result of the
completed outcome(s).
The Interagency Council will submit these reports to Treasury and
to each committee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and
Senate within 30 days of receipt.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Final Evaluation Report
Within six months of project completion, the independent evaluator
must submit a final report to the head of the relevant federal agency
and the Interagency Council.\82\ The report should assess the effects
of the intervention and include a discussion of the findings and
implications, as well as a definitive statement about whether the
predetermined outcomes have been met and whether the State or local
government has fulfilled each obligation of the agreement. This must
include information on the unique factors that contributed to the
achievement or failure to achieve outcomes, including but not limited
to any major change in policy or law that may have affected the project
intervention, a description of the research methods, e.g.,
randomization of treatment and control groups, if applicable, data,
sample size and characteristics, measures, and other factors, as well
as findings, including impacts--for exploratory and confirmatory, short
and long-term, subgroup analyses, and other findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must also assess whether, and the degree to which the
project was delivered as intended. This must include a discussion of
how closely the project's theory and intended procedures aligned with
actual project implementation. This portion of the report must include
information related to the intervention model, including whether it has
evolved and whether the intervention was delivered with fidelity;
staffing; recruitment/identification and screening of participants;
selection and enrollment; and how the intervention was implemented. The
report must also discuss information regarding the improved future
delivery of this or similar interventions.
The independent evaluator's final report for a project must include
an assessment of the value to the federal government as discussed and
defined in Section 4.f.ii, Outcomes: Outcome Valuation. In calculating
the value to the federal government of the completed outcome(s), the
independent evaluator may only take into consideration changes in
federal outlays and revenues.
The Interagency Council will submit this final report to Treasury
and to each committee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives
and Senate within 30 days of receipt.\83\ This report will be made
publicly available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Record Retention
Applicants must follow federal guidelines on record retention,
which require grantees to maintain all records pertaining to grant
activities for a period of not less than three years from the time of
final grant close-out.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See generally 2 CFR 200.333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Agency Contacts
For further information about this NOFA, please contact William
Girardo, SIPPRA Coordinator, at (202) 622-0262 or [email protected].
Applicants should email all technical questions to [email protected]
and must specifically reference NOFA/CFDA 21.017, and include a contact
name, fax and phone number. This NOFA is also available on Treasury's
SIPPRA website at https://www.treasury.gov/SIPPRA and at http://www.Grants.gov.
H. Other Information
Treasury has determined that this NOFA imposes new information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The information collection for the Notice of Intent to Apply, Project
Narrative, Administrative Reporting, and Records Retention provisions
contained in this NOFA has been approved under OMB control number 1505-
0260. Other
[[Page 5575]]
information requirements gathered via the SF-424 family of forms have
already been approved under the following OMB control numbers:
Information for Federal Assistance covered under 4040-0004, Budget
Information for Non-Construction Programs covered under 4040-0006,
Budget Information for Construction Programs covered under 4040-0008,
Disclosure of Lobbying Activities covered under 4040-0013, Assurance
for Non-Construction Programs covered under 4040-0007, Assurance for
Construction Programs covered under 4040-0009 and Key Contacts, Project
Abstract and Project/Performance Site Location covered under 4040-0010.
Appendix I. Definitions
1. Applicants
Eligible applicant. A State or local government is an eligible
applicant for an award under this NOFA. See definitions of ``State''
and ``local government'' below.
Federally recognized Indian tribe means any Indian tribe, band,
nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska
Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or
established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
U.S.C. Chapter 33), which is recognized as eligible for the special
programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because
of their status as Indians (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)). See the annually
published Bureau of Indian Affairs list of Indian Entities Recognized
and Eligible to Receive Services.\85\ Federally recognized Indian
tribes are eligible applicants under this NOFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See 2 CFR 200.54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local government means any unit of government within a state,
including a: (a) County; (b) borough; (c) municipality; (d) city; (e)
town; (f) township; (g) parish; (h) local public authority, including
any public housing agency under the United States Housing Act of 1937;
(i) special district; (j) school district; (k) intrastate district; (l)
Council of governments, whether or not incorporated as a nonprofit
corporation under state law; and (m) any other agency or
instrumentality of a multi-, regional, or intra-state or local
government.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See 2 CFR 200.64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State means any State of the United States, the District of
Columbia, each commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United
States, and each federally recognized Indian tribe (see definition
above), and includes any agencies or instrumentalities thereof.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-12(6), 2 CFR 200.90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Other Key Parties
The Commission on Social Impact Partnership (SIPPRA Commission) is
the nine-member advisory commission established by SIPPRA consisting of
a non-federal Chair appointed by the President and eight non-federal
members chosen by congressional leaders. The SIPPRA Commission will
make recommendations to Treasury regarding funding of social impact
partnership agreements and feasibility studies.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships
(Interagency Council) is the eleven member Interagency Council
established by SIPPRA. The Interagency Council is chaired by the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget and its other members
consist of representatives from the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, Agriculture, Justice, Housing and Urban Development,
Education, Veterans Affairs, and Treasury, the Social Security
Administration, and the Corporation for National Community Service. The
Interagency Council has ten enumerated responsibilities.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The independent evaluator conducts an evaluation to determine
whether the intervention achieved the outcome(s) sought and prepares
evaluation progress reports and a final project report which the
grantee submits to the federal government.
Investor(s) are entities that, if the State or local government is
not doing so, provide the funding for the social service interventions.
Investors may be not-for-profit or for-profit entities or public sector
funds. They accept the risk that they will not be repaid in the event
that the target outcome(s) are not achieved.
The intermediary may be selected by the applicant to coordinate the
pay for results arrangement. The role of the intermediary may include
(1) being responsible for achieving the negotiated outcome(s) for the
target population by contracting with service delivery providers; (2)
raising funds from investors (if applicable) to cover the operating
costs of implementing the services or programs; (3) changing or
modifying service delivery methods and providers, with concurrence of
the other partners, including the independent evaluator and, if
applicable, investors; and (4) if outcome target(s) are met, receiving
outcome payments from the State or local government and making payments
to the investors, if applicable. It is not requisite that the
partnership include an intermediary organization, and a service
provider, described below, may also serve as an intermediary.
Service provider(s) deliver the intervention designed to achieve
the outcomes sought in a pay for results partnership agreement. An
applicant, or, where applicable, an intermediary arranges with a
service provider to provide services and/or administer the
interventions. Note that a service provider may be a State or local
government agency.
3. Key Concepts and Other Terms
Intervention period means the period of performance minus the final
six months of the period of performance that the statute stipulates is
the time available for the submission of evaluation reports at the
completion of all other project activities.\90\ For awards under this
NOFA, Treasury caps the intervention period at seven years, and the
period of performance at seven and a half years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An outcome is an impact that can be measured by one or more
indicators that are specific, unambiguous, and observable during the
intervention period.
Outcome measure means an assessment of what a program seeks to
effect using data calculated on both target and comparison groups.
Outcomes are measured using relevant program data with defined units of
measurement.
Outcome target means a change in an outcome measure or a percentage
improvement of the outcome measure over the duration of a project. It
must be defined relative to a comparison or control group.
Quasi-experimental design means an evaluation design in which
outcomes for the treatment group, or a broader target population that
includes both the treatment group and those outside the treatment
group, are measured relative to a comparison group. Such a design
attempts to approximate an experimental design and can support causal
conclusions, without random assignment. Sophisticated analytic
techniques are used to control for factors that might be associated
with the outcome being analyzed.
Randomized controlled trial (RCT) means a sample selection
technique in which individuals are randomly assigned to a treatment or
control group. The use of random assignment ensures that participants
have an equal chance of being selected for either the treatment or
control group. It also helps to ensure
[[Page 5576]]
that there are no significant differences between the groups. The two
groups are compared to detect the difference made by the product and/or
service. Such a design provides the most rigorous and widely accepted
evidence of effectiveness.
Savings means a reduction in outlay costs. For example, a project
yields savings to the federal government if it results in lower federal
outlays. This could be the result of dollars not spent because the
intervention eliminates a need for the outlay.
Target population means the population that the social impact
partnership project is intended to serve.
Dated: February 12, 2019.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-02852 Filed 2-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-P