[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83621-83640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26174]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Social Impact Partnerships To Pay for Results Act Projects

    Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA): Social Impact Partnerships 
to Pay for Results Act (SIPPRA) Projects.
    Announcement Type: Initial announcement.
    Funding Opportunity Number: UST-SIPPRA-2024-002.
    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CDFA) Number: 21.017.
    Application Deadline: Applications under this NOFA must be 
submitted no earlier than February 12, 2024 and no later than 11:59 
p.m. Eastern Time April 15, 2024 electronically via www.Grants.gov.
    Funding Ceiling: $47 million ($40.9 million for social impact 
projects, $6.1 million for evaluations).
    Period of Performance: Expected 48-60 months but project dependent.
    Anticipated Time to Awards: October 15, 2024. There will not be a 
rolling review.
    For More Information: Potential applicants are advised to review 
the Federal Register Notices for previous awards and other materials at 
https://home.treasury.gov/services/social-impact-partnerships/sippra-pay-for-results. Questions may be directed to Matthew Cook, SIPPRA 
Director, at [email protected].
    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 (the ``Act''). An award recipient will receive 
payment if a specified outcome of the social impact partnership project 
is achieved as determined by the project's independent evaluator. The 
payment to the Awardee must be less than or equal to the value of the 
outcome to the federal government over a period not exceeding ten years 
from the date implementation commences. Awards made under this NOFA 
will be administered by Treasury or by another federal agency with 
expertise in the social benefits addressed in the proposed project. 
Treasury expects to award up to approximately $40.9 million in such 
competitive project grants under this NOFA. Treasury will prioritize 
projects that directly benefit children in order to meet the statutory 
threshold that 50 percent of awarded funds be used on awards that 
directly benefit children. In addition, State and local governments 
receiving project grants will be eligible to receive a grant for up to 
15 percent of the project grant amount to pay for all or a portion of 
the cost of a statutorily required independent evaluation, which will 
be paid regardless of whether outcomes have been met. Treasury expects 
up to approximately $6.1 million to be available to pay for the costs 
of independent evaluations under this NOFA.

Table of Contents

A. Program Description
    1. Program Purpose and Authorizing Legislation
    2. Funding Type
    3. Limitations
    4. Pay for Results Framework
    5. Outcome Valuation Methodology
    6. Independent Evaluation
B. Federal Award Information
C. Eligibility Information
D. Application and Submission Information
E. Application Review Information
F. Federal Award Administration Information
G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact
H. Other Information
I. Appendix I: Example of Outcome Valuation Process
J. Appendix II: Integration of Managed Care Information/Data
K. Appendix III: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tools

A. Program Description

1. Program Purpose and Authorizing Legislation

    In 2018, Congress appropriated $100 million to Treasury to 
implement the Social Impact Partnership to Pay for Results Act (the 
``Act''), which established a new grant demonstration program to 
encourage funding social programs that achieve results (the ``SIPPRA 
program'').\1\ Under this NOFA, Treasury announces the availability of 
approximately $40.9 million for payments for successful outcomes of 
social impact partnership projects through grants to State and local 
governments, and, for required project evaluations, the availability of 
up to approximately $6.1 million. All awards provided through this NOFA 
are subject to funding availability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For more information, please see the program web page at 
https://home.treasury.gov/services/social-impact-partnerships/sippra-pay-for-results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the Act, the purposes of the SIPPRA program 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. Funding Type

    The Act provides funds for two types of awards: (1) social impact 
partnership project grants, including grants to pay for independent 
evaluations 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 evaluation. An 
awardee under this NOFA will receive a disbursement only if the awardee 
achieves one or more outcomes specified in the award agreement and if 
such outcomes are validated by an independent evaluation. The federal 
payment to the awardee for each specified outcome must be less than or 
equal to the value of the outcome to the

[[Page 83622]]

federal government over a period not exceeding ten years from the date 
implementation commences. Payment for the independent evaluation will 
be made regardless of whether outcomes have been met.

3. Limitations

a. Treasury Discretion To Make Awards
    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. Treasury is placing an upper limit on the 
amount of each project award--not including the associated independent 
evaluation--of $10 million.
b. Savings to the Federal, State, or Local Government
    According to the Act, projects may only be awarded if they produce 
savings to the federal, State, or local government, as defined in 
Section A.5 Outcome Valuation Methodology.
c. Positive Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA)
    For this NOFA, Treasury will only consider applications that have a 
positive Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA), as explained in Section A.5 
Outcome Valuation Methodology.
d. Directly Benefit Children
    The Act 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.'' \3\ Treasury will 
prioritize the funds available under this NOFA for projects designed to 
directly benefit children in order to meet the 50 percent threshold 
laid out in statute. To meet this threshold, taking into account the 
composition of the awards issued under the previous NOFA, 65 percent of 
the total possible award amount under this competition will be reserved 
for projects that directly benefit children. Other projects will be 
considered as long as Treasury reaches 50 percent of the overall 
available funding with its awards. Treasury will consider a project to 
``directly benefit children'' if (1) the target population is children 
(aged 0-19 at the beginning of the intervention); or (2) the target 
population is parents of children. If the project benefits parents, in 
order to be considered a project that directly benefits children, the 
application must present strong evidence demonstrating a close logical, 
causal, and consequential relationship between the project's effect on 
parents and the resulting positive effect on the parents' children, and 
being a parent must be a part of the intervention's eligibility 
criteria. Portions of projects can directly benefit children without 
having the entire project directly benefit children. Treasury welcomes 
questions regarding whether a specific project concept would qualify as 
a project that directly benefits children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Pay for Results Framework

    This section provides an overview of the main features of the 
SIPPRA program's social impact partnerships: the pay for results model, 
outcomes, outcome payments, partnership formation, and the independent 
evaluations. Social impact partnerships are part of a pay for results 
model where groups of stakeholders including state and local 
governments, service providers, philanthropy, intermediaries, or others 
seek to produce outcomes that result in social benefit and federal, 
State, or local savings. Treasury, the Commission (Section E.2.c Phase 
3: Consistency Review and Commission Recommendation), and the 
Interagency Council (Section E.2.d Phase 4: Interagency Council 
Certification and Treasury Determination) expect that approaches to 
these partnerships will differ across applications.
    Applications under this NOFA must provide all required application 
elements set out in the Act at 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(1)-(24).
a. The Pay for Results Model
    The pay for results model mandated by the Act differs from many 
other federal grant programs, in which the federal government funds the 
cost of programs and services prior to implementation of the programs. 
Under the pay for results model (also referred to as the ``pay for 
success'' model), the federal government agrees to make payments only 
if specific, pre-determined, measurable outcomes are achieved. If the 
intervention does not achieve the pre-determined outcomes, then the 
federal government will not make an outcome payment. The Act provides 
that the federal government's payment for an outcome must be less than 
or equal to the value of the outcome to the federal government over a 
period not exceeding ten years from the date implementation commences. 
Value to the federal government in this NOFA is defined as the net 
benefits from a BCA. For additional information, see Section A.5.a 
Federal Value for the SIPPRA Program.
b. Outcomes
    The Act requires that the social impact partnership ``produce one 
or more measurable, clearly defined outcomes that result in social 
benefit and federal, State, or local savings.'' \4\ 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. 
The partnership's ability to identify, achieve, and agree upon suitable 
outcomes is a key determinant of whether pay for results is the 
appropriate funding instrument for addressing the identified social 
issue. The statute identifies the following outcomes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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.
    (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

[[Page 83623]]

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 special-needs or low-
income children.
    (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.
    (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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An outcome is measured by one or more indicators that are specific, 
unambiguous, and observable. The outcomes must be measured for the 
duration of the intervention period.\7\ These outcomes must result in 
social benefit and savings to the federal, State, or local government. 
Outcome measurements are used to calculate the value to the federal 
government as discussed in Section A.5 Outcome Valuation Methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The duration of a SIPPRA project may not exceed 10 years. 42 
U.S.C. 1397n-2(c)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Outcome Payments
    The federal government will only make a payment if the evaluation 
successfully shows, using the outcome valuation methodology described 
in Section A.5 Outcome Valuation Methodology, that an Awardee achieved 
the pre-determined outcome levels as a result of the intervention. To 
qualify for an outcome payment, an Awardee's project must meet one or 
more positive outcome targets.\8\ An outcome payment must be less than 
or equal to the value of the outcome to the federal government over a 
period not exceeding ten years from the date implementation commences, 
and for projects under this NOFA, Treasury is capping outcome payments 
at $10 million. 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 depending on how the 
partnership designs the intervention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Partnership Formation
    The State or local government as the eligible applicant may work 
with other entities, referred to as ``partners,'' to successfully 
achieve the outcomes. In addition to the Applicant, the partnership may 
include investors, service providers, and intermediaries. The Applicant 
also may fulfill one or more of these roles. Below are examples of 
possible partners:
     Investor(s) are entities that, if the Applicant 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 as a result of the 
intervention.
     Intermediary(ies) 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 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 Awardee and making payments to the 
investors, if applicable. The partnership is not required to 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.
e. Independent Evaluations
    The Applicant must contract with an independent evaluator to 
determine if the project achieved the pre-determined outcome levels as 
outlined in the project agreement. To ensure the objectivity of 
evaluations and to preserve the independence of evaluators, the statute 
requires that the federal government enter an agreement separate from 
the project grant to recipients exclusively to fund an evaluator's work 
on the project. 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.\9\ Treasury will make the payment for the 
independent evaluator regardless of whether outcomes have been met. 
This separate grant may not be used to pay for other project expenses 
or for fees associated with project stakeholder participation in the 
project. The independent evaluator must not have a financial or other 
stake in the project that would undermine its objectivity, and the 
Applicant must avoid the selection of an independent evaluator whose 
objectivity might be impaired. See Section D.2.a.g.4 Independent 
evaluator qualifications for the independent evaluator's required 
qualifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(a) and (f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The independent evaluator must determine whether the intervention 
achieved the expected outcome(s) following the evaluation design plan. 
If successful, the federal government will then make a payment or 
payments to the Awardee based on the agreed upon payment schedule. See 
Section A.6. Independent Evaluation for more information on the 
requirements for the independent evaluation.

5. Outcome Valuation Methodology

    Applications for social impact partnership projects must describe 
one or more outcome goals for the project, and then determine the value 
of each outcome to the federal government using outcome valuation. 
Outcome valuation is the process, at the application stage, for 
rigorously laying out the evidence and data used to determine the value 
to the federal government, and thus the appropriate payment from the 
federal government, for the improved outcomes resulting from project 
interventions. For projects under this NOFA, value to the federal 
government is defined as the net benefits derived from a benefit-cost 
analysis (BCA) over a period not exceeding ten years from the date 
implementation commences.
    As explained in detail below, the Applicant must first show that, 
as a result of the anticipated outcome of the project intervention, 
there will be savings to the federal, State, or local government. 
Savings is defined as reductions in governmental outlays that are 
directly the result of the project intervention net of the project's 
cost. Increased revenues as a result of the intervention are not 
considered savings. There must be savings for a project to

[[Page 83624]]

be funded through the SIPPRA program.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(b); 42 U.S.C. 1397n-5(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants must then perform a BCA that will be used to determine 
the value to the federal government. The Applicant may use savings to 
the federal, State, or local governments, calculated in the previous 
step, as one of the benefits used in the calculation.
    Using the BCA process, the Applicant will then determine the net 
benefits of a project outcome, which is the monetized value of the 
benefits minus the costs. If this number is greater than zero (i.e., 
benefits exceed costs), then there is a positive value to the federal 
government. If the net benefit is not greater than zero, there is not a 
positive value to the federal government, and therefore the project is 
not eligible for payment. The federal payment to an Awardee must be 
less than or equal to the value of the outcome to the federal 
government over a period not exceeding ten years from the date 
implementation commences. Treasury is placing an upper limit of $10 
million on the amount of each project award (not including amounts for 
the associated independent evaluation).
a. Federal Value for the SIPPRA Program
    Applicants must use benefit-cost analysis (BCA) to determine the 
value to the federal government, which is the maximum amount that the 
Applicant can receive as an outcome payment. BCA is a systematic 
process for identifying, quantifying, and comparing expected benefits 
and costs of a potential project, policy, or action to society. In 
executing the BCA, Applicants must account for both social benefits 
(including savings to a State or local government or to the federal 
government) that provide positive value to the federal government, and 
costs, which result in negative value, to determine the net value to 
the federal government.
    The rest of this section provides a recommended guide for 
calculating benefits and costs through BCA to determine the value to 
the federal government for the purposes of the SIPPRA program.\11\ 
Applicants may consult OMB Circulars A-4 and A-94 for additional 
guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This guide is not intended to be a general guide for BCA 
and is for the purposes of the SIPPRA program only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step 1. Demonstrate Savings to the Federal, State, or Local Government
    Over the course of the period of performance of a project, 
interventions must provide savings to the State or local government or 
to the federal government, in the form of reduced outlays as described 
below. This step is a threshold requirement and must be presented as a 
separate calculation in the application, prior to those savings being 
incorporated into the BCA as a social benefit of the project outcome.
    The federal, State, and local savings calculation analysis requires 
estimating the savings--reductions in outlays \12\--that accrue to the 
federal, State, and local governments that are the result of the 
intervention, over the period of performance of the project. The 
savings calculation must incorporate increases in costs due to intended 
or unintended impacts of the intervention. In some cases (particularly 
where there are complex program interactions), it may be necessary to 
estimate baseline outlays and compare outlays under the intervention to 
arrive at an appropriate estimate of savings. The application must 
provide sufficient information (e.g., all data sources, related 
literature, assumptions, and justifications) to show how the Applicant 
estimated savings that occur as a direct result of the proposed 
intervention. Applicants must document and submit their estimates of 
changes to outlays as a direct result of each proposed intervention 
such that these analyses can be replicated. Only Applicants with 
federal, State, or local savings will be considered for the SIPPRA 
program.\13\ Savings to each level of government should be presented 
separately to show how outlays are changing at each level of government 
as a result of the intervention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Applicants proposing to generate value to the federal 
government only through reductions in federal administrative 
expenses will not be considered eligible.
    \13\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(b); 42 U.S.C. 1397n-5(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Applicant must carefully consider how the project intervention 
may cause the substitution of benefits delivered through one social 
program for another. Specifically, the Applicant must consider how the 
intervention will affect eligibility for other federal programs and how 
this will affect the change in outlays. For example, an intervention 
that increases employment could decrease participation in government 
assistance programs while increasing eligibility for reimbursable 
employment-based tax credits. Both the decrease in assistance outlays 
and the increase in refundable tax credit expenditures are changes in 
government outlays resulting from the project intervention and must be 
taken into account in the savings calculation.
    In estimating the project intervention's effect on the outlays of a 
government program, the Applicant must 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 that 
individual.
    For applicants who plan to use savings from Medicaid or CHIP, see 
Section J. Appendix II: Integration of Managed Care Information/Data 
for the integration of managed care information/data. This information 
is required to certify such savings.
Step 2. Assess Costs and Benefits From the Intervention's Effect to the 
``Target'' Population for Each Time Period
    The next step of the outcome valuation process is to use BCA to 
assess the costs and benefits of the intervention on its target 
population. BCA is a systematic process for identifying, quantifying, 
and comparing expected benefits and costs to society of a potential 
project, policy, or action.
    Estimated benefits are based on the projected social impacts of the 
project, valued in monetary terms. There are a wide range of benefits 
that can be included in a BCA, and which ones to include will be 
heavily dependent on the type of intervention that is designed. For 
example, if the program seeks to increase economic opportunity through 
a job training program, it might be expected to result in increased 
wages, increased revenues to the federal, State, and local government, 
and decreased outlays on programs like SNAP or Medicaid.
    The savings calculated in Step 1 must be included in the BCA. Such 
benefits must be adjusted by the Marginal Cost of Public Funds, a cost 
adjustment which accounts for the distortion effect of taxes on the 
cost-benefit tradeoff of actions (this effect is referred to as Dead 
Weight Loss). Because of Dead Weight Loss, the cost of every dollar of 
public funds (the Marginal Cost of Public Funds) is greater than $1. 
For the purposes of consistency within the SIPPRA program, all benefits 
from government savings must be multiplied by the Marginal Cost of 
Public Funds of $1.25.\14\ Similarly, any increases in revenues to any 
level of government must be adjusted by the Marginal Cost of Public 
Funds. See Appendix I for an

[[Page 83625]]

example of how to apply the Marginal Cost of Public Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For further explanation of these principles, see OMB 
Circular A-94, pg. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs include the resources required to develop the project and the 
costs to facilitate the project over time. Costs associated with 
impacted federal, State, and local programs must be included in the 
estimated cost of the program, and these should also be multiplied by 
the Marginal Cost of Public Funds.
    Applicants are encouraged to use existing research, incorporating 
analytical tools grounded in microeconomic theory, to quantify the 
costs and benefits of their expected outcomes. For a greater discussion 
of analytical tools for BCA see Section K. Appendix III: Benefit-Cost 
Analysis Tools. When possible, stated preference (for example, surveys 
of how much an individual values a particular good or service) should 
be avoided in arriving at any of the core assumptions of the BCA.
Step 3. Assess External Costs and Benefits
    Applicants' BCA must also consider the effects of interventions 
that extend beyond the target population. In particular, some 
interventions may generate positive or negative unpriced external 
effects, known as externalities. For example, when a person consumes a 
gallon of gasoline, they pay a price, and receive a benefit. However, 
that gallon of gasoline also produces air pollutants, both in its 
production and final consumption. Therefore, when the consumer uses the 
gallon of gasoline, air pollution is a negative externality of that 
purchase. Similar externalities, whether positive or negative, must be 
considered in the Applicant's BCA.
    Additionally, when considering external costs and benefits, 
applicants must guard against double-counting, since some benefits or 
costs are embedded in other broader measures. To balance this goal with 
concerns about under-counting meaningful effects by excluding 
potentially overlapping benefits or costs, it may be helpful to include 
a range--with the lower-bound estimate prioritizing the avoidance of 
double-counting and the upper-bound estimate prioritizing avoidance of 
omitted categories of impacts. See OMB Circular A-4 for additional 
guidance.
Step 4. Sum Costs and Benefits by Time Period
    As illustrated in the example provided in Appendix I: Example of 
Outcome Valuation Process, for each time period in the analysis, sum 
the costs and benefits calculated in Steps 1-3. Calculate the net 
benefits for each time period by subtracting the costs from the 
benefits.
Step 5. Appropriately Account for Inflation and Sum Across Time Periods
    In order to ensure a meaningful comparison between benefits and 
costs, it is important that all monetized values used in a BCA be 
expressed in common terms. Data obtained for use in BCAs is sometimes 
expressed in nominal dollars from several different years. Nominal 
dollars reflect the effects of inflation over time and are sometimes 
also called current or year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Such values 
must be converted to real dollars (also referred to as constant 
dollars), using a common base year, to net out the effects of 
inflation. Applicants must use the Consumer Price Index (All Urban) 
from the FY 2024 President's Budget Mid-Session Review for all 
inflation adjustments.\15\ Projects that have benefits and costs beyond 
2033 should assume an inflation rate of 2.3%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/msr_fy2024.pdf, p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In some benefit-cost calculations, after netting out the effects of 
inflation, a second distinct adjustment, called discounting, is made to 
account for the time value of money. However, the SIPPRA program 
operates over a relatively short period of time, lowering the impact of 
discounting on value calculations. Therefore, do not discount costs and 
benefits.
    For the BCA used in SIPPRA, a 10-year time period is allowed in 
which to accrue benefits.\16\ Once each time period is adjusted for 
inflation, sum across the time periods--up to 10 years.\17\ Also, 
calculate the benefit-cost ratio by dividing the benefits by the costs. 
Only projects with a benefit-cost ratio greater than one will be 
considered for SIPPRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(c)(1)(B).
    \17\ As described above, for purposes of meeting the SIPPRA 
statutory requirement that a project provide savings to the State or 
local government, or to the federal government, savings must be 
achieved by the time of project completion. See 42 U.S.C 1397n-
5(a)(9). However, for purposes of counting savings as benefits 
towards the BCA calculation, savings may be calculated up to a 10-
year time period like other benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For an example of how to apply these steps, see Section I. Appendix 
I: Example of Outcome Valuation Process.
b. ``Tips'' for Conducting BCA for SIPPRA Program Projects
    The following recommendations may be helpful to applicants in 
conducting BCA for SIPPRA projects.
Tip #1. Avoid any Effects of Your Program to the General Economy
    Some changes have big enough impacts to change the prices of goods 
or services in a market. For example, a national change to the 
replacement rates for unemployment insurance will have large enough 
effects to adjust wages for everyone, not just individuals in a program 
(known as general equilibrium effects). However, programs and policy 
changes of the size that are eligible under SIPPRA are not large enough 
to affect prices. For example, a small job training program for 
unskilled workers is unlikely to move the market price for unskilled 
labor. Therefore, when assessing the benefits of the program, the BCA 
analyst must only consider the additional wages the worker receives and 
not consider any benefit to employers.
Tip #2. Do Not Give Different Weights to Different Groups or 
Populations of People
    Some BCAs use distributional weights, an approach in which 
different weights are applied to costs and benefits for different 
groups. For the purposes of SIPPRA, Treasury is not considering 
distributional weights.
Tip #3. Do Not Use Discounting for Time Preference
    When performing forward-looking BCA, future costs and benefits are 
sometimes discounted. However, given that the SIPPRA program operates 
over a relatively short period of time, costs and benefits will not be 
discounted for time preference. As explained above, however, adjusting 
for inflation is required.

6. Independent Evaluation

    This section addresses post-award independent evaluations, 
including evaluation design, research methodologies, and expected 
coordination of activities.
a. Overview
    By statute, SIPPRA program projects must have evaluations conducted 
by independent evaluators.\18\ Awardees can expect to commit 
significant time and resources to the formal evaluations of their 
project. All applicants are eligible to receive evaluation funding to 
support post-award evaluation costs, regardless of whether outcomes are 
met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(22); 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The federal government will fund up to 15 percent of the amount of 
the estimated project award (not including the cost of the evaluation) 
for an independent evaluation of the project.\19\ The federal 
government will base its maximum award of funds for the grantee's cost 
of an independent

[[Page 83626]]

evaluator on the amount of the top tier outcome payment. The federal 
government will fund only completed post-award evaluation work. The 
federal government will not pay for pre-award costs or the portion of 
an evaluator's contract contemplating evaluation work that is not 
completed in the event a project terminates earlier than expected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(a) and (f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Evaluation Requirements
    The Act requires projects to establish that the outcomes ``have 
been achieved as a result of the intervention.'' \20\ The evaluation 
used to determine whether a State or local government will receive 
outcome payments under SIPPRA shall use experimental designs with 
random assignment or other reliable evidence-based research 
methodologies that, as certified by the Interagency Council, allow for 
the strongest possible causal inferences when random assignment is not 
feasible.\21\ The project's independent evaluation must be designed to 
assess the strength of the causal evidence, i.e., the degree to which 
the evaluation establishes the causal impact of the intervention on the 
outcomes of interest not due to other factors.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(7).
    \21\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(c).
    \22\ More information on evidence standards in the context of 
Federal program evaluations can be found at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Compliance-and-Reporting-Guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are generally considered to be 
the most rigorous type of experimental design. In RCTs, a sample is 
randomly split into two groups--treatment and control. One will receive 
the intervention and the other will continue as normal. These studies 
are designed to minimize the chance that the observed difference in 
outcomes is due to an alternative explanation.
    Treasury will also accept other reliable, evidence-based research 
methodologies commonly known as quasi-experimental design studies. 
These are studies with 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. Applicants that cannot implement an RCT study will not be 
deemed less competitive or penalized for implementing a quasi-
experimental design. Applicants using a quasi-experimental design must 
address other possible causes of the outcomes, such as selection, other 
policies, economic conditions, and other confounding factors. This 
should include a description of the contrast in services that the 
comparison and treatment group will receive during the project period.
    A part of this evaluation will be a statistical significance 
requirement where the coefficient on the treatment variable is 
statistically significant (supporting rejection of the null hypothesis 
of no impact). For purposes of the SIPPRA program, the coefficient will 
be considered statistically significant if the null hypothesis falls 
outside of the 80 percent confidence interval. The choice of how to 
best calculate standard errors and confidence intervals is left to the 
independent evaluator, who must follow best practices based on the 
identification strategy. The power calculation (see guideline #12 on 
pg. 20) required in the evaluation design plan will be a critical input 
for Treasury to consider when evaluating the application.
    Applicants may use classical statistical analysis or Bayesian 
statistical analysis. For applicants using Bayesian statistical 
analysis, the appropriate Bayesian tests must be used to show the 
equivalent of classical statistical significance at the 80 percent 
level. Additionally, applicants using Bayesian statistical analysis 
must conduct prior sensitivity analysis to ensure any causal result is 
not due only to a dominant prior. Applicants using this approach must 
use high-quality experimental or quasi-experimental evidence to justify 
the prior distribution.
c. Evaluation Design Plan
    The Applicant must provide an evaluation design plan that includes 
a range of information related to design, implementation, statistics, 
and data. The full list of requirements is available in Section 
D.2.a.(g)5 Evaluation design plan.
    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 goals may not change 
without prior approval from Treasury or the administering federal 
agency. Grantees must submit the design plan to Treasury or the 
administering federal agency once it is finalized. Elements of the 
evaluation design plan may be posted on the Federal Interagency Council 
on Social Impact Partnerships (Interagency Council) website.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-10(3)(J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Evidence Standard
    The Act 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.\24\ The evidence base should consist of well-designed and 
well-implemented experimental studies or quasi-experimental studies 
that support the effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program; 
and/or large, well-designed, and well-implemented randomized 
controlled, multi-site trials that support the effectiveness of the 
practice, strategy, or program. The magnitude of the impact assumed for 
the SIPPRA project must be derived from this evidence base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each project application, the Subject Matter Expert Panel (see 
Section E.2.b) will determine the strength of the evidence provided, as 
described further below. Projects with strong or moderate evidence are 
most likely the best candidates for the SIPPRA program, but all 
projects will be considered.
     Strong evidence means that the evidence base can support 
causal conclusions for the specific program proposed by the applicant 
with the highest level of confidence. The evidence must support causal 
conclusions (i.e., studies with high internal validity) and 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). The following are examples of strong evidence: (1) 
More than one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study or 
well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study that 
supports the effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program; or 
(2) one large, well-designed and well-implemented randomized 
controlled, multi-site trial that supports the effectiveness of the 
practice, strategy, or program.
     Moderate evidence means that there is a reasonably 
developed evidence base that can support causal conclusions. Evidence 
from previous studies on the program, the designs of which can support 
causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high internal validity) but have 
limited generalizability (i.e., moderate external validity). This also 
can include studies for which the reverse is true-- studies that only 
support moderate

[[Page 83627]]

causal conclusions but have broad general applicability. The following 
would constitute moderate evidence: (1) At least one well-designed and 
well-implemented experimental or quasi-experimental study supporting 
the effectiveness of the practice strategy, or program, with small 
sample sizes or other conditions of implementation or analysis that 
limit generalizability; (2) at least one well-designed and well-
implemented experimental or quasi-experimental study that does not 
demonstrate equivalence between the intervention and comparison groups 
at program entry but that has no other major flaws related to internal 
validity; or (3) correlational research with strong statistical 
controls for selection bias and for discerning the influence of 
internal factors.
     Preliminary evidence means that the evidence base can 
support conclusions about the program's contribution to observed 
outcomes. The evidence base consists of at least one non-experimental 
study. A study that demonstrates improvement in program beneficiaries 
over time on one or more intended outcomes OR an implementation 
(process evaluation) study used to learn about and improve program 
operations would constitute preliminary evidence. Examples of research 
that meet the standards include: (1) outcome studies that track program 
beneficiaries through a service pipeline and measure beneficiaries' 
responses at the end of the program; and (2) pre- and post-test 
research that determines whether beneficiaries have improved on an 
intended outcome.
    The project narrative must include a theory of change and a logic 
model that builds from this evidence base. A theory of change must 
inform the intervention design by reflecting the logical (and evidence-
informed) reasoning that supports the expectation the actions taken 
will lead to the intended outcomes. The logic model builds off this 
theory of change. A logic model provides a bridge between project 
design and the evaluation by clarifying the inputs, activities, 
outputs, outcomes, and impacts that can help to crystalize how each of 
those things can be measured and tracked.
e. Evaluation Facilitation
    The Applicant is 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 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.
     Ensuring that the independent evaluator can collect all 
relevant data and has access to needed datasets.
f. Agreement With Independent Evaluator
    Because the evaluation findings provide the basis for pay for 
results payments to the grantee, the agreement each applicant enters 
into with an independent evaluator must require an agreed-upon 
evaluation design and methodology, observed outcome measure(s), and 
findings regarding outcome targets. The agreement must 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 must 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 or a plan to get 
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.3.b Evaluation 
Progress Reports and Section F.3.c Evaluation Final Reports.
    If the Applicant is unable to execute an agreement prior to the 
application deadline, Treasury will accept a draft agreement containing 
these elements.

B. Federal Award Information

1. Type of Federal Award

    Treasury expects to award up to $40.9 million to fund projects 
under this NOFA, with an additional amount up to $6.1 million available 
to fund the independent evaluations. The total amount awarded under 
this NOFA will be determined based on the number and strength of 
applications for projects received 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 stated above, Treasury is placing an upper limit on the amount of 
each project award--not including the associated independent 
evaluation--of $10 million.
    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 (not including 
the cost of the evaluation) for the cost of an independent evaluation. 
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

    SIPPRA funds must be liquidated by September 2033. Therefore, the 
period of performance for SIPPRA project awards must end by September 
2032, to allow for 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.\25\ 
Applicants should carefully construct their project timeline to allow 
sufficient time for all required activities. Treasury expects the 
period of performance to generally be about 48-60 months, but this will 
be heavily dependent on the nature of the project interventions. 
Applicants must specify the intervention period and explain the basis 
for specifying such period. Requests to extend the period of

[[Page 83628]]

performance after an agreement is awarded will not be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Act 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. The Act 
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 program 10-
year window (e.g., outcome payments) must occur within five years 
after that 10-year window closes. See 31 U.S.C. 1552(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

    Only States or local governments are eligible applicants; 
applications from any other entities will not be reviewed. The Act 
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. 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. Multiple agencies 
within a state or local government are eligible to apply, or 
interjurisdictional groups of state or local governments may apply 
together. In both cases, a lead applicant must be identified. Local 
governments for SIPPRA purposes may include, but are not limited to, 
cities, counties, school districts, or other special districts.
    Eligibility determinations in prior funding rounds have no bearing 
on and do not guarantee eligibility in this round of SIPPRA funding. 
Applicants are also not able to request changes or amendments to 
agreements based on this NOFA's criteria if made under the previous 
NOFA.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    Cost sharing or matching funds, as defined in the Uniform 
Guidance,\26\ are not required, and the financial contributions from 
any investors for project implementation are not characterized as cost 
sharing or matching funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 2 CFR 200.29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Other

    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.4.b. 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 emailing the SIPPRA 
Director Matthew Cook at [email protected]. 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. Application for Project Award
    Applications submitted in response to this NOFA must include the 
following:
    (a) SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance;
    (b) SF-424A, Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs (if 
applicable);
    (c) SF-424C, Budget Information for Construction Programs (if 
applicable);
    (d) SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities;
    (e) Grants.gov Lobbying Form;
    (f) Project Narrative
    The project narrative (page limit is 20 pages) must include the 
following:
    (1) A not more than two-page project overview that will state the 
name of the project, amount of funding requested, project intervention 
period, total project timeline, name of service provider, name of 
intermediary (if any), name of investor(s), name of independent 
evaluator, if the project directly benefits children, a brief summary 
of the project, and brief summary of the expected outcomes to be 
achieved as a result of the intervention.
    (2) The outcome goals of the project, formulated as discussed in 
Section A.4.b Outcomes, and describing the existing base of evidence 
and citing available research literature. This section must include a 
theory of change and logic model for how the intervention will lead to 
these outcome goals building from the available research. See Section 
A.6.d Evidence Standard for a discussion of the theory of change and 
the logic model;
    (3) The project timeline, including the project intervention 
period;
    (4) A description of each intervention in the project and 
anticipated outcomes of the intervention including a summary of the 
value of the anticipated outcomes that is laid out in detail in section 
#7 of the project narrative attachments;
    (5) A service delivery 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 goal or, in 
the case of a tiered payment scheme, a range of outcomes);
    (6) 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 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 and evaluation;
    (7) A succinct summary of the unmet need in the area where the 
intervention will be delivered or among the target population who will 
receive the intervention and the expected social benefits to 
participants who receive the intervention and others who may be 
impacted;
    (8) 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;
    (9) Whether (and if so, how and what percentage of) the project 
will directly benefit children; and
    (10) The Applicant may also consider including information on how 
the intervention would foster innovation in social policy, yield a 
diversity of target populations and grantees, advance racial equity and 
support for underserved communities as described in Executive Order 
13985, or include any other non-monetary benefits that could not be 
included in the BCA. Depending on the number of applications, Treasury 
may take these into consideration when choosing awardees.
    (g) Project Narrative Attachments;
    The following items are required to be submitted as attachments to 
the project narrative:
    1. Project budget: Provide a narrative for the budget, including 
amounts expected to be expended by partners. Please limit this to 5 
pages or fewer.
    2. 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. The partnership agreement between the 
applicant and the partners, which must be attached to the grant 
application, must address each of the following.
    (1) Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of each partner;
    (2) A plan for sharing data among the partners, including but not 
limited to a

[[Page 83629]]

Memorandum of Understanding or Memorandum of Agreement, which may be 
conditioned on the award of a grant, that appropriately safeguards the 
privacy of individuals in the targeted population in accordance with 
applicable laws;
    (3) 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
    (4) 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 pre-determined outcome(s) and value generated have 
been met. 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,\27\ the federal government is not 
responsible for making payments to the Awardee's partners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(c)(1)(B) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Partner qualifications: Please limit this to 3 pages or fewer.
    (1) Service provider. 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. This description must 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.
    (2) Intermediary. With respect to any intermediary specifically, 
the application must 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 non-governmental 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.
    (3) Investor. In addition, to the extent the Applicant intends to 
use investors and has not already identified and received commitments 
from them, the application must 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.
    4. 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 and quasi-experimental analyses on the 
intervention or similar interventions. When discussing experience, 
please note both personnel and organization experience. Applicants must 
address the following qualifications of the evaluator. Please limit 
this to 3 pages or fewer.
    (1) Experience working with the datasets the project expects to 
use;
    (2) Prior work in conducting implementation and causal impact 
evaluation and how their past methodologies and evaluation design 
experience will be used in the proposed project. Please provide 
examples of evaluations that they have completed of similar scope and 
complexity;
    (3) Qualifications of the key personnel designing and overseeing 
the evaluation and ensuring its quality, including their education or 
training and type and years of experience;
    (4) Experience in managing similar evaluation protocols (e.g., this 
type of sampling, data collection, analysis); and
    (5) Experience dealing with unforeseen data or implementation 
issues in other program evaluations. Provide specific examples and 
experiences dealing with unforeseen data or implementation issues.
    5. Evaluation design plan: Provide an evaluation design plan by 
following the following guidelines. Please limit this to 10 pages or 
fewer.
    Demonstrate a high-quality design by:
    (1) Explaining how the proposed evaluation is best suited for the 
project;
    (2) Documenting 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;
    (3) Describing how the project will be implemented with fidelity, 
e.g., how random assignment to treatment and control groups will be 
ensured;
    (4) Providing and justifying the selected evaluation strategy, 
i.e., RCT or quasi-experimental design;
    (5) Explaining how the methodology will measure relevant unintended 
outcomes and/or negative impacts;
    (6) Stating whether the design is likely to generate evidence that 
can support causal conclusions, as described in Section A.6.d Evidence 
Standard;
    (7) Describing anticipated challenges, such as attrition, failed 
randomization, and oversubscription and plans to mitigate them; and
    (8) Showing how the evaluation will be independent of the 
intervention and financing structure.
    Incorporate appropriate evaluation design by
    (9) Describing the metrics that will be used in the evaluation to 
determine whether the outcomes have been achieved as a result of the 
intervention including 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 that are not 
subject to manipulation by the service provider, the intermediary, or 
investors, if any;
    (10) Describing the statistical assumptions required to infer 
causal effects in the research design (e.g., absence of spillovers, 
identifying conditions for non-RCTs, etc.). Provide examples of how 
these assumptions could be violated;
    (11) Proposing all important covariates that will be used in 
evaluation analysis, including how these measures will be 
operationalized, and the data used for them;

[[Page 83630]]

    (12) Describing anticipated statistical and analytical methods 
(such as regression equations to be used), power calculations, and 
minimal detectable impacts for each proposed outcome. Please include 
the actual power and minimal detectable impact estimates for each 
proposed outcome;
    (13) Describing what hypothesis testing procedure will be used 
(e.g., p-values), what hypotheses will be tested, and how the tests 
will be conducted (e.g., robust standard error estimators, etc.)
    (14) Including the anticipated customized randomization plan if 
applicable;
    (15) Describing 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;
    (16) Describing an approach for conducting an evaluation of program 
implementation, potentially using an implementation framework (e.g., 
the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research)
    6. Independent evaluator contract or agreement: Provide a copy of 
the contract or agreement to be entered into between the State or local 
government and the independent evaluator. The contract or agreement 
must address the following information.
    (1) 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;
    (2) 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;
    (3) 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 must include assuring data quality 
and adherence to all federal and state data privacy statutes and 
policies and to all applicable data security standards;
    (4) Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval or a plan to get IRB 
approval to ensure the protection of human subjects, to the extent 
applicable; and
    (5) 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.3.b Evaluation Progress 
Reports and Section F.3.c Evaluation Final Report.
    7. Outcome valuation: Provide an attachment detailing the outcome 
valuation of the anticipated outcomes, as described in Section A.5 
Outcome Valuation Methodology. Start by detailing the projected savings 
to the federal, state, or local government and make clear which level 
of government anticipates receiving savings. Then, provide a completed 
BCA that details the monetized benefits and costs including 
incorporating the federal, State, or local savings as a benefit. 
Applicants must provide the estimated total value and savings, 
estimated value and savings per project participant, estimated value 
and savings per dollar spent on the intervention, as well as the 
methodology used by the Applicant in arriving at such estimates. Also, 
provide the estimated savings over the course of the period of 
performance. Applicants should cite evidence that the reviewers can 
assess when deriving the estimated benefits and costs. Treasury 
strongly recommends that the Applicant provide an unprotected Excel 
spreadsheet that allows a reviewer to view and manipulate all 
underlying data. Please limit this to 10 pages or fewer.
    8. Legal compliance: If the 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.
    9. An application may contain additional supporting documentation 
as attachments, such as an existing feasibility study.
    b. Form for Project Award
    The project application must be prepared using the following 
formatting and organizational guidelines:
    1. Number all pages.
    2. The Project Narrative must:
    i. include a table of contents;
    ii. be double-spaced, with text in a single column;
    iii. be a standard 12-point font, such as Times New Roman;
    iv. use 1-inch margins;
    v. not exceed 20 pages in length, excluding the table of contents 
and appendices. The only substantive portions that may exceed the 20-
page limit are documents supporting assertions or conclusions made in 
the Project Narrative. See each individual attachment for page limits.
    vi. As appropriate, include graphics, charts, or lists to make the 
information easier to review.
    vii. If possible, provide website links to supporting documentation 
rather than copies of these supporting materials. It is important to 
ensure that the website links are currently active, accessible, and 
working.
    viii. If supporting documents are submitted, applicants must 
clearly identify within the Project Narrative the relevant portion of 
the Project Narrative that each supporting document supports.
    ix. Use appropriately descriptive file names (e.g., ``Project 
Narrative,'' ``Chart,'' ``Evaluation Design Plan'') for all 
attachments.
    x. All file names must be prefaced with the applicant's name or 
initials, e.g., ``Land of Ozzie Oz'' or ``LOO.''

3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)

    Registration for Grants.gov is a critical prerequisite to applying 
for a grant. It 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 may incur 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

[[Page 83631]]

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 Submission.
    Applications may be withdrawn by providing written notice to 
[email protected] at any time before an award is made.
    Applicants must register with SAM, a federal government-wide 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 NOFA 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 SAM requirements.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For more information about SAM, see the information 
provided by the General Services Administration at https://sam.gov/content/about/this-site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 4, 2022, the federal government stopped using the DUNS 
Number to uniquely identify entities. Now, entities doing business with 
the federal government use a Unique Entity ID (UEID) created in 
SAM.gov. The UEID is a unique, multiple-digit sequence recognized as 
the universal standard for identifying and keeping track of over 70 
million entities worldwide. Applicants for federal assistance are no 
longer required to go to a third-party website to obtain their 
identifier. This transition allows the government to streamline the 
entity identification and validation process, making it easier and less 
burdensome for entities to do business with the federal government.
    Applicants must obtain this UEID number immediately to ensure all 
registration steps are complete prior to submitting an application. 
Applications will be identified by the UEID of the State or local 
government lead applicant. Information on how to obtain a UEID may be 
found at SAM.gov, or by calling 866-705-5711.
    If your entity is registered in SAM.gov today, your UEID has 
already been assigned and is viewable in SAM.gov. This includes 
inactive registrations. The UEID is located on your entity registration 
record. You must be signed into your SAM.gov account to view the entity 
record. The UEID must 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 must be exactly as given for the UEID number.

4. Submission Date, Time, and Address

    Applications must be submitted between 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time on 
February 12, 2024 and 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on April 15, 2024. 
Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov. Mail, 
email, telegram, or facsimile (FAX) submissions will not be accepted.

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/2020/04/SPOC-4-13-20.pdf. Applications from federally-recognized Indian 
tribes are not subject to intergovernmental review.

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.3.d Directly Benefit 
Children, the Act 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. According 
to the Act, projects may only be awarded if they produce savings to the 
federal, State, or local government, as defined in Section A.5 Outcome 
Valuation Methodology. For this NOFA, Treasury will only consider 
applications that have a positive Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA), as 
explained in Section A.5 Outcome Valuation Methodology. Treasury is 
placing an upper limit on the amount of each project award--not 
including the associated independent evaluation--of $10 million. The 
federal government will fund up to 15 percent of the amount of the 
estimated project award for an independent evaluation of the 
project.\29\ Federal awards will not allow reimbursement of pre-Federal 
award costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Ethical Conduct of Funded Projects

    Federal award recipients bear primary responsibility for prevention 
and detection of research misconduct. They must foster an atmosphere 
conducive to research integrity and maintain and effectively 
communicate and train their staff regarding policies and procedures. In 
the event an application to Treasury results in a SIPPRA program award, 
the State or local government must designate an Authorized 
Representative (AR) who is a paid employee of the State or local 
government. The AR assures, through acceptance of the award, that the 
recipient will comply with these requirements. An award recipient must, 
upon request, make available to Treasury the policies, procedures, and 
documentation that support the training provided to its staff and 
providers.
    Treasury recognizes that data sharing may be complicated or 
limited, in some cases, by organizational policies, local Institutional 
Review Board (IRB) rules, and local, State, and federal laws, and 
regulations. The rights and privacy of individuals and beneficiaries 
who participate in the implementation of this intervention project must 
be protected at all times. This includes human subjects assurance 
statements that the project has been reviewed and approved by an IRB or 
determined exempt from review. Data intended for broader use must be 
free of identifiers that would permit linkages to other data on project 
research participants and variables that could lead to deductive 
disclosure of the identity of individual participants and 
beneficiaries.

8. Privacy and Confidentiality

    The Act establishes the 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.\30\ 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.\31\ Treasury may provide to the 
Commission all complete applications received under this NOFA from 
eligible applicants and expects to make these applications available 
for public

[[Page 83632]]

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.\32\ In order 
to comply with FACA's public disclosure requirements while protecting 
confidential business information in accordance with FACA, each 
applicant may submit a package of proposed redactions of confidential 
business information. The Applicant may omit pages for which it does 
not propose any redactions in this package. 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. The Applicant should notify Treasury staff at 
[email protected] if they intend to submit any redactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-6.
    \31\ See 5 U.S.C. App. 2 10(b).
    \32\ See id.; 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Application Review Information

1. Criteria

    The panel assigned to an application will score that application in 
accordance with the criteria set forth in the scoring rubric below, 
which reflects the application content requirements under the Act,\33\ 
and the considerations that Treasury, in consultation with the 
Interagency Council and the head of the relevant federal agency, is 
required by the Act to consider when granting awards.\34\ The scores 
will serve as a reference in subsequent phases of review, discussed 
below. Treasury is not required to make awards in rank order. The panel 
scores will not be binding with respect to subsequent 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c), 1397n-1(d).
    \34\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b).

                  Subject Matter Review Scoring Rubric
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Value and Savings................................  30 points.
    I. Savings to federal,       10 points..........
     state, and local
     government.
    II. Value to the federal     20 points..........
     government.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Likelihood of Achieving Outcomes................  40 points.
    I. Evidence demonstrating    15 points..........
     intervention can be
     expected to achieve
     desired outcome.
    II. Project budget and       15 points..........
     service delivery plan.
    III. Project partners......  10 points..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Quality of Evaluation..........................  25 points.
    I. Evaluation design and     15 points..........
     metrics.
    II. Evaluator independence   10 points..........
     and experience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Capacity and Commitment to Sustain the            5 points.
 Intervention.
                                ----------------------------------------
        Total.......................................  100 points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Value and Savings
    This section has two components: savings to the federal, State, and 
local governments and value to the federal government. The magnitude of 
the estimated savings or value will not be a factor in the overall 
score of the application.
I. Savings to Federal, State, and Local Governments
    The Act requires Treasury to take into consideration the savings to 
the federal, State and local governments.\35\ The term ``savings'' 
refers to reduced outlays, whether by the federal or State or local 
government, as applicable, as a result of the project.\36\ There must 
be savings to the State or local government, or to the federal 
government, for a project to be funded through the SIPPRA program.\37\ 
Increased revenues as a result of the intervention are not considered 
savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b)(4), (5).
    \36\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b)(5).
    \37\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(b); 42 U.S.C 1397n-5(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The panels will ensure that the Applicant meets the threshold 
requirement of the presence of federal, State, or local savings. Then, 
they will assess the quality of the methodology used by the Applicant 
to arrive at the estimates, how likely the Applicant is to achieve 
these savings, and comprehensiveness of the estimated savings.
    Applicants must include in the application the estimated total 
savings, estimated savings per project participant, and estimated 
savings per dollar spent on the intervention. Applicants must also 
provide the estimated total savings over the period of performance.
II. Value to the Federal Government
    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 ten years from the date implementation 
commences.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(c)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Value calculated for the purpose of this NOFA is discussed in 
Section A.5.a Federal Value for the SIPPRA Program and includes social 
benefits as well as savings through the BCA. The federal payment to the 
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 net benefit derived from the 
BCA.
    The panel will determine how likely the project is to achieve the 
value determined through the BCA, how accurate the justification is 
that the proposed intervention will produce the value proposed by the 
Applicant, and the comprehensiveness of the Applicant's estimate. The 
panel will also review the data and approach to ensure it can easily be 
replicated, and that the data were sufficient for the analysis. The 
panel will take into account the extent to which the benefits exceed 
costs.
    Applicants must include in the application the estimated total 
value, estimated value per project participant, estimated value per 
dollar spent on the

[[Page 83633]]

intervention, and the ratio of benefits to costs.
ii. 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.\39\ 
Projects showing a greater likelihood of achieving outcomes will 
receive more points from the panels, as detailed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Evidence
    The panels will review the applicant's identified target 
population, outcome goals, 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.40 41 In connection with this consideration, 
panels will assess Applicants' compliance with the statutory 
requirement to provide evidence demonstrating that the intervention can 
be expected to produce the proposed outcomes.\42\ More points will be 
given for applications providing strong evidence in support of the 
likelihood of achieving the 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. See Section A.6.d Evidence for greater detail 
on evidence standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(1), (2), (4), (14).
    \41\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(8).
    \42\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(3), 1397n-2(c)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Service Delivery Plan, Project Budget, and Partnership Agreement
    The likelihood of success of a SIPPRA program project is in part 
determined by whether the 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 
service delivery plan for delivering the intervention. Panels will 
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.\43\ 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 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.b, 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 and 
evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The panels will also assess the Applicant's project budget, 
including projected costs, and the project timeline.\44\ 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 the thoroughness of the 
budget, timeline, and partnership agreement and the extent to which the 
intervention is achievable under the budget, service delivery plan, 
timeline, and 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.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(6), (16), (17).
    \45\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Project Partners
    Because 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.\46\ 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.\47\ 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.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(12), (d)(8).
    \47\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(10), (13), (23).
    \48\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Quality of Evaluation
I. Evaluation Design and Metrics
    The Act requires Treasury to consider the expected quality of the 
evaluation of the proposed intervention that the independent evaluator 
will conduct. The panels will assess the project's evaluation design 
including the rigor and strength of the design, its capacity to 
determine that the outcomes were as a result of the intervention, 
feasibility of implementing the evaluation, the quality and 
availability of the required data, and the Applicant's explanation of 
how the metrics used in the evaluation are independent, objective 
indicators of impact.
II. Evaluator Independence and Experience
    Panels will review 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. Types of 
experience that will be reviewed include experience with the chosen 
evaluation design method on the intervention or similar interventions, 
the datasets the project expects to use, conducting implementation and 
causal impact analyses, managing similar evaluation protocols, and 
dealing with unforeseen data or implementation issues in other program 
evaluations. The qualifications of the individuals designing and 
overseeing the evaluation and ensuring its quality, including their 
education or training and type and years of experience, will also be 
taken into account.
iv. Capacity and Commitment To Sustain the Intervention
    Finally, the Act 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.\49\ 
Panels will consider applicants' submissions with respect to State or 
local government and service providers' plans to sustain the 
intervention.\50\ Although the primary focus will be on the project 
period, panels will provide additional points to applications that 
demonstrate a commitment from the State or local government and service 
providers and

[[Page 83634]]

the availability of sufficient funding to extend the project, if 
appropriate, beyond the project period.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b)(7).
    \50\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(24).
    \51\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Review and Selection Process

    The following is the review process for determining the award 
recipients. Each step is explained in greater detail below.

 Phase 1: Completeness and Eligibility Review
 Phase 2: Subject Matter Expert Panel Review
 Phase 3: Consistency Review and Commission Recommendations
 Phase 4: Interagency Council Certification and Treasury 
Determination
 Phase 5: Review of Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity 
Information System Information Data and Risk Evaluation
a. 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 
technical review to determine whether the applicant is a State or local 
government; whether the proposed project can qualify as a pay for 
results project as set forth in Section A.4.a The Pay for Results 
Model; whether the proposed project qualifies as an eligible project as 
set forth in Section A.4.b Outcomes; and whether each of the 
application content requirements set forth in Section D.2 Content and 
Form of Application Submission, has been satisfied. Prospective 
applicants are encouraged to consult the SIPPRA FAQs on Treasury's 
SIPPRA website page to help them determine if their proposed project is 
suitable under the pay for results model.\52\ 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 fix any such issues, 
as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Department of Treasury, SIPPRA- Pay for Results, https://home.treasury.gov/services/social-impact-partnerships/sippra-pay-for-results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Phase 2: Subject Matter Expert Panel Review
    Treasury will assign complete applications submitted by eligible 
applicants to a panel 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 will be selected from relevant 
federal agencies. Reviewers will be screened for conflicts of interest.
    The panel will review the applications based on the criteria laid 
out above.
c. Phase 3: Consistency Review and Commission Recommendations
    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 Act establishes the Commission on 
Social Impact Partnerships (``the Commission'') whose principal 
obligation is to make recommendations to Treasury regarding the funding 
of SIPPRA program projects and feasibility studies. The nine-member 
advisory commission established by the Act consists of a non-federal 
Chair appointed by the President and eight non-federal members chosen 
by congressional leaders.\53\ The members of the Commission are 
required to (1) be experienced in finance, economics, pay for 
performance, or program evaluation; (2) have relevant professional or 
personal experience in a field related to one or more of the outcomes 
listed in this division; or (3) be qualified to review applications for 
social impact partnership projects to determine whether the proposed 
metrics and evaluation methodologies are appropriately rigorous and 
reliant upon independent data and evidence-based research. The 
Commission will review the applications and make recommendations to 
Treasury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Phase 4: Interagency Council Certification and Treasury 
Determination
    The Act establishes the Federal Interagency Council on Social 
Impact Partnerships (``the Interagency Council''). This eleven-member 
body is chaired by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
and its other members are 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 and 
Community Service. The Interagency Council has 10 enumerated 
responsibilities including certifying Federal savings, providing 
subject-matter expertise, and advising the Secretary of the 
Treasury.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Interagency Council is required to certify that applications 
contain rigorous, independent data and reliable, evidence-based 
research methodologies to support the conclusion that the project will 
yield savings to the State or local government or the federal 
government if the project outcomes are achieved before Treasury makes 
its award decision,\55\ and accordingly, will determine which 
applications warrant certification based on these criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-5(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Treasury, in consultation with the Interagency Council and the head 
of any federal agency (or their designee) 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 Commission and the Interagency Council 
certification (or absence thereof). Depending on the number of 
meritorious applications, Treasury may consider how the intervention 
would foster innovation in social policy, yield a diversity of target 
populations and grantees, advance racial equity and support for 
underserved communities as described in Executive Order 13985, or any 
other non-monetary benefits that could not be included in the BCA.
e. 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.

[[Page 83635]]

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.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 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.\57\ 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 achieves a high score under the 100-
point scoring rubric discussed in Section E.1 Criteria, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See 2 CFR part 200, appendix XII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. 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.

4. Anticipated Announcement and Federal Award Dates

    The deadline for submitting projects under this NOFA is April 15, 
2024. Treasury will begin its review following this deadline. Review 
will not be conducted on a rolling basis. Treasury anticipates 
notifying the Applicant of the award decision six months after the 
application deadline.

F. Federal Award Administration Information

1. Federal Award Notices

    Before a 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 Q1 
FY 2025. 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 SIPPRA program. 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 
electronic mail to the applicant listed on the SF-424. Unsuccessful 
applicants may apply under subsequent NOFAs, if any.

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 (OMB's) 
regulatory requirements for grants codified in the Uniform Guidance. 
Grantees must agree, as part of their award agreement, to comply with 
all requirements under 2 CFR part 200, as applicable. Subpart E of 2 
CFR part 200 is not applicable to the project award, but federal 
funding for the independent evaluator is subject to subpart E of 2 CFR 
part 200.
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:

i. Lobbying Restrictions at 31 CFR part 21.
ii. Government-wide Debarment and Suspension Requirements at 31 CFR 
part 19.
iii. Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace at 31 CFR 
part 20.
iv. Award Term for Trafficking in Persons at 2 CFR part 175.
v. Environmental Requirements

    Treasury approval of financial assistance is subject to compliance 
with applicable federal and State environmental requirements. As 
discussed under Section D.2.a(g)8 (pg. 22) Legal Compliance, 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. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 
amended (NEPA), 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.
b. 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, and Treasury's 
implementing regulation 31 CFR part 28; (c) Section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), which prohibits 
discrimination on the basis of disability; (d) the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education 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 (P.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 (P.L. 91-616),

[[Page 83636]]

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.
c. 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 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 Unique Entity Identifier.
d. Access to Records/Oversight
    By accepting a project award under this NOFA, the Awardee 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 Awardee's possession or available to 
the grantee. Awardees 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 Awardees keep this 
information up to date and accurate for performance measurement, 
evaluation, and auditing purposes. Awardees 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 Awardee also 
agrees to participate in a national cross-site evaluation in the event 
that the federal government conducts one.
e. Intellectual Property Rights
    Intellectual property rights relating to the activities of the 
Awardee and all partners in the project, including the evaluator, 
intermediary, and service provider(s) are subject to 2 CFR 200.315.
f. Record Retention
    Applicants must follow federal guidelines on record retention, 
which require Awardees 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.
g. Requirements Applicable to Construction and Real Property 
Acquisition
    Additional requirements may apply to projects involving 
construction or the acquisition of real property. Applicants should 
discuss such projects with Treasury staff prior to submitting an 
application.
h. Other Requirements
    Awardees 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.
i. Special Program Requirements
i. 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. Under 
the Act, 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, well-
implemented RCTs and quasi-experimental analyses on the intervention or 
similar interventions.
ii. Federal Register Publication of Notice of Award
    The Act 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.
     The outcome goals of the project.
     The target population that will be served by the project.
     A description of each intervention in the project.
     The expected social benefits to participants who receive 
the intervention and others who may be impacted.
     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.
     The payment terms, the methodology used to calculate 
outcome payments, the payment schedule, and performance thresholds.
     The project budget.
     The project timeline.
     The project eligibility criteria.
     The evaluation design.
     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.
     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.
    Additionally, the Act 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.
iii. Changes to the Statement of Work
    Upon grant of an award, the proposal will become the grant's 
statement of work. Treasury discourages any post-award 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, the Awardee must timely notify Matthew Cook, SIPPRA 
Director, at [email protected] of

[[Page 83637]]

these changes as they occur and provide appropriate documentation to 
update the statement of work.

3. Reporting

    Awardees must agree to meet the reporting requirements as listed 
below or as otherwise 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
    An 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 Awardee, intermediary, investors, if any, 
and evaluator; and related results of the project. It must thoroughly 
document the partnership activities and decision-making structure used 
to implement the pay for results model. These reports may 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 collected and reported on either a 
regular basis or special request basis.
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. 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.
    When an Awardee'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 must 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. This must include, but is not limited to, 
any major change in policy or law that may have affected the project 
intervention and the challenges faced in attempting to achieve the 
outcome. The report may also include information on what was learned 
during the evaluation including how to improve future service delivery 
or implementation.
    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 must include information related to the 
intervention model, including whether it has evolved and whether the 
intervention was delivered with fidelity to the plan. The report should 
detail how staffing, recruitment/identification and screening of 
participants, selection, and enrollment were different from what was 
expected at the outset.
    The progress report must include an assessment by the independent 
evaluator of the value to the federal government as discussed and 
defined in Section A.5.a Federal Value for the SIPPRA Program. In 
calculating the value to the federal government of the completed 
outcome(s), the independent evaluator may only take into consideration 
the benefits from the BCA achieved as a result of the 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.
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. The report must 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.
    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 in Section A.5.a Federal Value for the SIPPRA Program. In 
calculating the value to the federal government of the completed 
outcome(s), the independent evaluator may only take into consideration 
the benefits from the BCA.
    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. This report will be made publicly 
available.

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact

    For further information about this NOFA, please contact Matthew 
Cook, SIPPRA Director, at [email protected]. Applicants should email 
all technical questions to [email protected] and must specifically 
reference NOFA/CFDA 21.017, and include a contact name 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 Project Narrative, Administrative 
Reporting, and Records Retention provisions contained in this NOFA has 
been approved under OMB control number 1505-0260. Other information

[[Page 83638]]

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.

I. Appendix I: Example of Outcome Valuation Process

    This example is meant to be a guide to the process of outcome 
valuation, not a specific recommendation of how to account for the 
costs and benefits of particular types of interventions.
    A city is setting up a program with the hopes of reducing property 
and violent crimes by building in time in the work schedules of police 
officers to build relationships with members of the community. This 
city is divided into 100 police precincts, half of which are randomly 
assigned to participate in the program. The program will run for 10 
years. For each of the 50 participating precincts, the per year cost of 
the program is $50,000 in 2023 dollars. The expectation is that 
participation in the program will result in five fewer violent crimes 
and 40 fewer property crimes each year. For the sake of simplicity, it 
is assumed that the program's effects are constant over time, and end 
immediately after ten years. Applying these estimates to average crime 
rates over the previous 10 years yields the estimates presented in the 
table below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Year 1     Year 2     Year 3     Year 4     Year 5     Year 6     Year 7     Year 8     Year 9    Year 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property Crime Reduction..................         40         40         40         40         40         40         40         40         40         40
Violent Crime Reduction...................          5          5          5          5          5          5          5          5          5          5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step 1--Demonstrate Savings to the Federal, State, or Local Government
    The program will incur additional outlays in the form of program 
costs but will lower outlays on criminal justice costs. The net result 
is a reduction in outlays. The program will cost $50,000 each year. 
Reduced criminal activity results in lower costs to the city from 
criminal justice activity from reduced arrests and police costs, court 
costs, and the costs of incarceration. Drawing from Autor et al. 
(2017), the cost of criminal justice activity of each property crime is 
assumed to be $2,781 and the cost of each violent crime is assumed to 
be $19,519.\58\ It is assumed that there will be 40 fewer property 
crimes and 5 fewer violent crimes each year. Thus, the total savings 
are 10 * (2,781 * 40 + 19,519 * 5-50,000) = $1,588,350.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Autor, David H., Christopher J. Palmer, and Parag A. 
Pathak. Gentrification and the amenity value of crime reductions: 
Evidence from rent deregulation. No. w23914. National Bureau of 
Economic Research, 2017. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23914/w23914.pdf.

                            Savings Breakdown
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Savings.........................................   $(500,000.00)
State & Local Savings...................................    2,088,350.00
                                                         ---------------
    Total Savings.......................................    1,588,350.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step 2--Assess Costs and Benefits From the Intervention's Effect on the 
Target Population for Each Time Period
    The distribution of property and violent crimes in the hypothetical 
city in this example are assumed to be the same as Cambridge, 
Massachusetts from 1992-2005, making a direct application of estimates 
from Table A2 of Autor et al. (2017) possible.\59\ There are two 
categories of benefits (prevented criminal costs) that accrue to the 
target population. The first is the benefit of reduced ``victimization 
costs,''--i.e., the monetary value of the disutility of being a victim 
of a crime. Based on estimates from Cohen and Piquero (2009), the 
victimization cost of a violent crime is $66,923 (in 2023 dollars) and 
the cost of a property crime is $1,830 (in 2023 dollars).\60\ The 
second benefit is the reduced ``offender productivity costs,'' i.e., 
the opportunity costs resulting from incarceration. These are 
approximated using lost wages. For violent crimes, the reduced offender 
productivity costs are $9,644 per crime and for property crimes, the 
reduced offender productivity costs are $1,149 per crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Autor, David H., Christopher J. Palmer, and Parag A. 
Pathak. Gentrification and the amenity value of crime reductions: 
Evidence from rent deregulation. No. w23914. National Bureau of 
Economic Research, 2017. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23914/w23914.pdf. These estimates are themselves 
based on Cohen, Mark A., and Alex R. Piquero. ``New evidence on the 
monetary value of saving a high risk youth.'' Journal of 
Quantitative Criminology 25 (2009): 25-49. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10940-008-9057-3.
    \60\ All 2008 cost estimates are adjusted using CPI-U for all 
urban consumers. These cost estimates are based on a weighted 
average of the various crimes which constitute the category. The 
distribution of property and violent crimes in the hypothetical city 
in this example are assumed to be the same as Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, making a direct application of estimates from Table 
A2 of Autor et al. (2017) possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are both costs and benefits that accrue to taxpayers as a 
result of the intervention. First, the program will cost $50,000 each 
year. Second, reduced criminal activity results in lower costs to the 
city from criminal justice activity. As stated above, drawing from 
Autor et al. (2017), the cost of criminal justice activity of each 
property crime is assumed to be $2,781 and the cost of each violent 
crime is assumed to be $19,519. These figures are all multiplied by 
1.25, the Marginal Cost of Public Funds used in SIPPRA.
Step 3--Assess External Costs and Benefits
    Crime imposes external costs on the community beyond the costs 
imposed on those directly affected. In other words, even if you are not 
directly the victim of a crime, there is still disutility from living 
in an area where others are victimized. However, there is little 
revealed-preference-based evidence on the willingness to pay to reduce 
criminal activity to prevent the disutility of crimes being committed 
against others. Thus, for this example, it is assumed that the external 
costs and benefits (other than criminal justice costs assessed in Step 
3) are zero.
Step 4--Sum Costs and Benefits by Time Period
    The table below gives the yearly costs ($50,000 to run the program) 
and the benefits (victimization cost reduction, productivity cost 
reduction, and criminal justice cost reduction) of the program.

[[Page 83639]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30NO23.026

Step 5 Appropriately Account for Inflation and Sum Across Time Periods
    Finally, all dollars are put in constant (year 10) dollars assuming 
inflation grows at the rate set out in the FY 2024 Mid-Session Review 
of the Budget of the U.S. Government. Year 1 is 2024, and this example 
runs through 2033.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30NO23.027

This analysis shows a positive net benefit of $7,776,755.59, which is 
the outcome payment cap for this intervention. The benefit-cost ratio 
is 12.2.

J. Appendix II: Integration of Managed Care Information/Data

For Applicants Who Plan To Use Savings From Medicaid or CHIP: 
Integration of Managed Care Information/Data

    Treasury anticipates that applicants may have projects affecting 
individuals who receive managed care services from Medicaid or CHIP. To 
ensure that the calculations of benefits from reduced health care 
spending in these contexts properly demonstrate that those benefits 
accrue to the federal government or other public payers rather than to 
managed care organizations, applicants proposing projects that include 
a managed health care component must include a section in their 
application entitled ``Managed Health Care Information.'' This section 
must include, at a minimum, answers to the following questions, as 
applicable:
     To what degree will participants in the intervention be 
covered by comprehensive, risk-based managed care during the period of 
the demonstration?
     For intervention participants covered by a managed care 
organization, how would savings accrue to the federal government rather 
than the entity taking on risk?
     What services, if any, will be carved out of managed care 
for this population?
     If multiple capitation rates are used, which rate cells 
(by eligibility group or other category) will be used for the SIPPRA 
program project participants?
     With what frequency will capitation rates for the 
population covered by comprehensive, risk-based managed care be 
redetermined during the period of the SIPPRA program project?
     How would this intervention lead to reduced capitation 
rates?
     While the level of impact cost and utilization data will 
have on a capitation rate will vary, if the anticipated intervention 
effect is small and/or the population impacted by the intervention 
makes up a relatively small proportion of the rate cell (or grouping of 
Medicaid beneficiaries with similar characteristics for the purposes of 
determining a capitation rate), it may be unlikely that the effect will 
be large enough to change the capitation rate, even if the cost and 
utilization reductions occur. Is the impact of the intervention effect 
(or impacted population size) meaningful relative to size of the 
managed care program?
     For the population covered by managed care, what 
proportion of individuals covered under the relevant rate cell(s) are 
participants in the intervention?
     Is the proportion sufficient to trigger changes in the 
capitation rate under current procedures? If not, please be specific 
about how you will work with your State Medicaid Agency to ensure cost 
and utilization changes among this population due to the intervention 
are captured and incorporated into adjustments to the capitation rate.
     Please clarify if you will have access to robust 
historical (e.g., at least 2 years) data to ensure that the comparison 
group is matched as well as possible to the actual cost or claims data 
to accurately assess federal savings through the evaluation.
     Please note that lags in realization of governmental 
savings in managed care contexts, relative to those in Fee for Service 
contexts, will not preclude consideration so long as the savings are 
realized within the ten-year time period and the BCA procedures 
discussed above are followed.

K. Appendix III: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tools

    The value that individuals place on policies, goods, or other 
actions can be difficult to assess as changes in the welfare of 
individuals cannot be directly observed. Therefore, the BCA analyst 
must rely on individuals revealing their preferences through the 
choices they make. For example, if a person chooses to purchase car A 
over (equally priced) car B, it is reasonable to assume they prefer car 
A over car B. If a person chooses to not pursue further education when 
they are able to do so, it is reasonable to assume that they believe 
the costs of the next period of education exceed the benefits.
    BCA should rely on revealed preference, either within the target 
population, or based on careful research in other contexts. When 
possible, stated preference (for example, surveys of how much an 
individual values a particular good or service) should be avoided in 
arriving at any of the core assumptions of the BCA.
    Two examples of tools that high-quality studies employ are: (1) 
``willingness-to-pay,'' a measure of the maximum amount individuals are 
willing to spend to obtain a given benefit; and (2) ``willingness-to-
accept,'' the minimum amount individuals are willing to accept to 
relinquish or forego a given benefit. Market prices provide a valuable 
starting point for measuring willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-
accept, but they can also be estimated through revealed preference or 
other methods.
    Revealed preference methods have the benefit of being based on 
observable behavior often involving market transactions. These methods 
can be particularly useful to establish values of certain benefits and 
costs that are

[[Page 83640]]

reflected in observable tradeoffs that people actually make. For 
example, it is possible to ascertain willingness to pay by observing 
how much an individual purchases at different prices. Cohen et al. 
(2016) use a rich data set on Uber rides (a ride sharing app) to assess 
individuals' willingness to pay for a ride by observing whether they go 
through with the purchase after observing the price. While such 
detailed data are rarely available in other contexts, willingness-to-
pay calculations can often be made even for outcomes that are never 
directly priced, such as the value of a statistical life (VSL).\61\ 
Another example is an intervention may try to reduce teenage overdoses 
through an education program. The primary benefit of such a program 
would be reduced mortality, and thus the applicant would use existing 
estimates of the VSL to multiply by the estimated number of lives 
saved. Existing estimates of the VSL are often calculated by observing 
how much people are willing to spend to reduce their risk of death in 
certain contexts. For example, some studies use the additional amount 
that a firm must pay its employees to induce them to work a relatively 
riskier job (a compensating differential) to estimate the VSL. Other 
studies use willingness to pay for car features that will reduce the 
probability of death in certain types of accidents but cost more than 
equivalent cars without these features. For further guidance on using 
VSL estimates in BCA, consult the March 2021 Department of 
Transportation Guidance, March 2021.\62\ BCA may rely on revealed 
preference, either within the target population, or based on careful 
research in other contexts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Cohen, Peter, Robert Hahn, Jonathan Hall, Steven Levitt, 
and Robert Metcalfe. Using big data to estimate consumer surplus: 
The case of uber. No. w22627. National Bureau of Economic Research, 
2016. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22627/w22627.pdf.
    \62\ Department of Transportation, Treatment of the Value of 
Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in Preparing Economic Analyses, 
2021. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-03/DOT%20VSL%20Guidance%20-%202021%20Update.pdf.

Laura Feiveson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Microeconomics.
[FR Doc. 2023-26174 Filed 11-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AK-P