[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