Social Impact Partnerships To Pay for Results Act Demonstration Projects, 5560-5576 [2019-02852]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5560-5576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02852]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Social Impact Partnerships To Pay for Results Act Demonstration 
Projects

AGENCY: Office of Economic Policy, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of funding availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is issuing this 
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to invite applications from State 
and local governments for awards under the Social Impact Partnerships 
to Pay for Results Act (SIPPRA).\1\ An award recipient will receive 
payment if a specified outcome of the social impact partnership project 
is achieved, as

[[Page 5561]]

determined by the project's independent evaluator. The payment to the 
grantee cannot exceed the value of the outcome to the federal 
government. Awards made under this NOFA will be administered by 
Treasury or by another federal agency with expertise in the area of 
social benefit addressed in the proposed project. Treasury expects to 
award up to $66,290,000 in such competitive project grants under this 
NOFA. In addition, State and local governments receiving project grants 
will be eligible to receive up to 15 percent of the project grant to 
pay for all or a portion of the cost of a statutorily required 
independent evaluator, which will be paid to conduct an independent 
evaluation regardless of whether outcomes have been met. Treasury 
expects up to approximately $9,940,000 to be available to pay for the 
costs of independent evaluators under this NOFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 115-123, Division E, Title VIII, 132 Stat. 269, 
42 U.S.C. 1397n-1397n-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Funding Opportunity Number: UST-SIPPRA-2019-001.
    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 21.017.

DATES: Applications under this NOFA must be submitted no earlier than 
April 22, 2019 and no later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time May 22, 2019 
electronically via www.Grants.gov. Treasury will not download and 
receive such applications until after the application deadline. As 
discussed in Section D.2.a, Notice of Intent to Apply, Treasury 
encourages all potential applicants to submit a notice of intent to 
apply on or prior to April 8, 2019.
    For More Information: Questions about this announcement may be 
directed to William Girardo, SIPPRA Coordinator, at (202) 622-0262 or 
SIPPRA@Treasury.gov. For complete application and submission 
information, including online application instructions, please refer to 
Section D of this NOFA.

A. Funding Opportunity Description

1. Program Purpose

    In 2018 Congress appropriated $100 million to Treasury to implement 
SIPPRA, which established a new grant demonstration program to 
encourage funding social programs that achieve results. Under this 
NOFA, Treasury announces the availability of up to $66,290,000 for 
payments for successful outcomes of social impact partnership projects 
through grants to State and local governments, and, for project 
evaluations, the availability of up to approximately $9,940,000. All 
awards provided through this NOFA are subject to funding availability.
    As stated in SIPPRA, the purposes of SIPPRA are
    (1) To improve the lives of families and individuals in need;
    (2) To redirect funds away from programs that, based on objective 
data, are ineffective, and into programs that achieve demonstrable, 
measurable results;
    (3) To ensure federal funds are used effectively on social services 
to produce positive outcomes for both service recipients and taxpayers;
    (4) To establish the use of social impact partnerships to address 
some of the Nation's most pressing problems;
    (5) To facilitate the creation of public-private partnerships that 
bundle philanthropic or other private resources with existing public 
spending to scale up effective social interventions already being 
implemented;
    (6) To bring pay for performance to the social sector, allowing the 
United States to improve the impact and effectiveness of vital social 
services programs while redirecting inefficient or duplicative 
spending; and
    (7) To incorporate outcomes measurement and randomized controlled 
trials or other rigorous methodologies for assessing program impact.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Types of Funding and Funding Availability

    SIPPRA provides funds for two types of awards: (1) Social impact 
partnership project grants, including grants to pay for independent 
evaluators for such projects and (2) feasibility study grants. This 
NOFA only relates to funds for social impact partnership project grants 
and funds for the cost of a grantee's independent evaluator. Treasury 
will issue a separate NOFA for feasibility study grants, likely later 
in 2019.
    A grantee under this NOFA will receive a disbursement only if the 
grantee achieves one or more outcomes specified in the award agreement 
and such outcomes are validated by an independent evaluator. The 
federal payment to the grantee for each specified outcome will be not 
more than the value of the outcome to the federal government. Payment 
for the cost of the independent evaluator will be made regardless of 
whether outcomes have been met.
    Treasury may make awards to all, some, or none of the applicants 
under this NOFA and may make awards for amounts less than the amounts 
requested by applicants.
    SIPPRA provides that not less than 50 percent of all federal 
payments made to carry out social impact partnership project agreements 
shall be used for initiatives that directly benefit children.\3\ 
Treasury is implementing this provision by allocating 50 percent of the 
$66,290,000 available under this NOFA for projects that directly 
benefit children. Treasury will accordingly grant awards for projects 
that do not directly benefit children only to the extent that potential 
federal award payments for such projects in the aggregate do not exceed 
$33,145,000. As long as the potential payments for award agreements for 
projects that do not directly benefit children do not exceed 
$33,145,000, the amount of potential payments for projects that do not 
directly benefit children may exceed the amount of potential payments 
for projects that do benefit children. For purposes of this 
determination, Treasury is defining ``children'' as individuals under 
the age of 18. For purposes of determining whether a project directly 
benefits children, the children in question must meet this definition 
at the time their participation in the project begins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

3. Qualifying Outcomes

    Applicants must propose to carry out a ``social impact partnership 
project.'' \4\ To qualify as a social impact partnership project under 
this NOFA, SIPPRA requires the project to be designed to produce one or 
more measurable, clearly defined outcomes that result in social benefit 
and federal, State, or local government savings through one or more of 
the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c), 1397n-12(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Increasing work and earnings by individuals in the United 
States who are unemployed for more than 6 consecutive months;
    (2) Increasing employment and earnings of individuals who have 
attained 16 years of age but not 25 years of age;
    (3) Increasing employment among individuals receiving federal 
disability benefits;
    (4) Reducing the dependence of low-income families on federal 
means-tested benefits;
    (5) Improving rates of high school graduation;
    (6) Reducing teen and unplanned pregnancies;
    (7) Improving birth outcomes and early childhood health and 
development among low-income families and individuals;
    (8) Reducing rates of asthma, diabetes, or other preventable 
diseases among low-income families and individuals to reduce the 
utilization of emergency and other high-cost care;

[[Page 5562]]

    (9) Increasing the proportion of children living in two-parent 
families;
    (10) Reducing incidences and adverse consequences of child abuse 
and neglect;
    (11) Reducing the number of youth in foster care by increasing 
adoptions, permanent guardianship arrangements, reunifications, or 
placements with a fit and willing relative, or by avoiding placing 
children in foster care by ensuring they can be cared for safely in 
their own homes;
    (12) Reducing the number of children and youth in foster care 
residing in group homes, child care institutions, agency-operated 
foster homes, or other non-family foster homes, unless it is determined 
that it is in the interest of the child's long-term health, safety, or 
psychological well-being to not be placed in a family foster home;
    (13) Reducing the number of children returning to foster care;
    (14) Reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders, individuals 
released from prison, or other high-risk populations;
    (15) Reducing the rate of homelessness among our most vulnerable 
populations;
    (16) Improving the health and well-being of those with mental, 
emotional, and behavioral health needs;
    (17) Improving the educational outcomes of children with special 
needs or from low-income families;
    (18) Improving the employment and well-being of returning United 
States military members; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This may include improving the employment and well-being of 
United States military members as they transition to civilian status 
either as non-activated members of the National Guard or Reserves or 
as they become Veterans of the Armed Forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (19) Increasing the financial stability of low-income families;
    (20) Increasing the independence and employability of individuals 
who are physically or mentally disabled; or
    (21) Other measurable outcomes defined by the State or local 
government that result in positive social outcomes and federal 
savings.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Demonstration projects may propose enhancements or alternative 
models that would add to or otherwise complement existing federal 
programs.

4. Framework for Social Impact Partnership Projects

a. The Pay for Results Model
    The pay for results model mandated by SIPPRA differs from that of 
more traditional federal grant programs, in which the federal 
government generally agrees to pay in advance for the cost of programs 
and services regardless of their outcomes. Under the pay for results 
model (also referred to as the ``pay for success'' model), instead of 
paying for specific processes and services, the federal government 
agrees to make payments only if specific, predetermined, measurable 
outcomes are achieved within a given timeframe. SIPPRA provides that 
the federal government's payment for an outcome cannot exceed the value 
of the outcome to the federal government.
b. Outcome Payments
    Under this NOFA, an applicant may propose one or multiple project 
outcomes and receive separate payments at separate points in time for 
each outcome achieved, subject to the independent evaluator validating 
both the outcome and the value of the outcome to the federal government 
in the independent evaluator's periodic progress reports and the 
relevant federal agency's approval of the payment. See Section F.5.b 
and F.5.c on evaluation progress reports and final reports, 
respectively.
    For each outcome, an applicant may elect to receive an outcome 
payment if a specific outcome has been met, or, alternatively, may 
propose a tiered outcome payment scheme based on levels of success in 
achieving the outcome. In either case, however, only a single outcome 
payment will be made for each outcome; progress payments will not be 
made. To the extent that the proposed intervention affects multiple 
outcomes that are not separable, applicants may only receive payment 
for achieving the set of non-separable outcomes following the 
independent evaluator validating that the project achieved the outcomes 
related to the non-separable outcomes.
    If an applicant proposes a tiered outcome scheme, it must (1) 
specify a floor and the range of each outcome for which it proposes a 
tiered payment and (2) propose a federal payment for each of those 
outcomes. An applicant may propose a spread of outcomes, but no further 
payments will be made if the outcome exceeds the proposed maximum 
outcome. Applicants must propose a floor that represents a 
significantly improved outcome over current conditions. Payments will 
be made only to the extent that the value of the outcome to the federal 
government is at least equal to the amount of the payment.
c. Partnership Structure
    In designing and implementing a project producing one or more of 
the statutory outcomes listed above, the State or local government as 
the eligible applicant may work with other entities, referred to as 
``partners.'' In addition to the applicant itself, the partnership may 
include investors, a service provider, which is the entity that 
delivers the intervention, and an intermediary. An applicant also may 
fulfill one or more of these roles--for example--it may be the service 
provider or the intermediary. See Appendix I.2, Other Key Parties, for 
definitions of each of these terms.
d. Partnership Agreement
    The partnership agreement between the applicant and the partners, 
which must be attached to the grant application, must address each of 
the following:
     Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of each 
partner;
     A service delivery plan that is flexible and adaptive to 
the problem and the target population;
     An evaluation design plan;
     A plan for sharing data among the partners, including but 
not limited to a Memorandum of Understanding or Memorandum of 
Agreement, which may be conditioned on award of a grant, that 
appropriately safeguards the privacy of individuals in the targeted 
population in accordance with applicable laws;
     A representation that all project partners have reviewed 
an independent evaluation plan for the project and an agreement by all 
the partners to cooperate in the implementation of the evaluation plan 
as necessary; and
     A payment arrangement between the applicant and project 
partners (including the intermediary and/or investors, as applicable), 
demonstrating that all partners understand that payment by the federal 
government is conditioned upon the independent evaluator's verification 
that the project's predetermined outcome(s) and value generated have 
been met within the grant period.
    This payment arrangement must include a plan and timeline 
describing each payment point that the project partners have agreed on, 
and the corresponding outcome targets that will be evaluated in the 
impact evaluation. Although the federal government generally will make 
payments to the grantee if the independent evaluator determines that 
the project achieved the specified outcome as a result of the 
intervention and the payment is less than or equal to the value of the 
outcome to the federal government,\7\ it

[[Page 5563]]

is not responsible for making payments to the grantee's partners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(c)(1)(B) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Independent Evaluator
    The applicant also must contract with an independent evaluator, 
whose responsibilities include assessing whether the project has 
achieved the outcomes on which payment by the federal government are 
conditioned. As part of the evaluation, the independent evaluator must 
also provide an analysis of the observed federal budgetary impact, 
which the federal government will use to determine whether outcome 
payment(s) will be made, and, if so, the amount of the payment(s). See 
Section A.5, Independent Evaluations. The applicant must avoid the 
selection of an independent evaluator whose objectivity might be 
impaired. Payment for the evaluation must not be tied in any way to the 
achievement of the outcomes, and the independent evaluator must not 
have a financial or other stake in the project that would undermine its 
objectivity.

5. Outcomes

    An outcome is a positive impact on a target population that an 
applicant expects to achieve as a result of an intervention over the 
duration of a project. An outcome is measured by one or more indicators 
that are specific, unambiguous, and observable during the intervention 
period. Well-defined, achievable, and measurable outcomes form the 
foundation of the pay for results concept. Whether suitable outcome 
targets (also referred to as outcome goals) can be identified and 
agreed upon by the partnership is a key determinant of whether pay for 
results is the appropriate instrument for addressing the identified 
social issue.
    To qualify for an outcome payment, a project must meet one or more 
positive outcomes that will result in value to the federal 
government.\8\ Applicants must describe how specific outcomes will be 
measured and provide rigorous evidence demonstrating that the 
intervention can be expected to produce these outcomes.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(c).
    \9\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(3), (20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Outcome Target
    An outcome target is a change in an outcome measure or a percentage 
improvement of the outcome measure over the duration of a project and 
must be defined relative to the comparison or control group (the 
baseline). Each outcome measure applicants propose should (1) be 
observable, (2) able to be defined, as a function of the data 
applicants intend to use so units of measurement are clearly defined, 
and, (3) using historical data, show that the proposed outcome target 
is an improvement over the current status of the target population. 
Applicants must outline the data and metrics that will be used in 
measuring outcomes and must also explain how the independent evaluator 
will gain access to or collect the necessary data. The improvement over 
the current status must be the result of the intervention and not 
produced due to random chance, general economic conditions, other pre-
existing conditions or trends, or other causes.
b. Outcome Valuation
    The outcome valuation is the public benefit resulting from 
achieving the outcome target(s), including public sector savings 
(defined as reduction in outlay costs) and changes in federal tax 
receipts. The federal payment to the State or local government for each 
specified outcome achieved as a result of the intervention must be less 
than or equal to the value of the outcome to the federal government 
over a period not exceeding the intervention period.\10\ For the 
purposes of determining the value to the federal government, applicants 
must use a budget impact analysis methodology to estimate the annual 
and cumulative net effect of each intervention on federal revenues and 
outlays overall, per dollar of intervention, and per participant over 
the intervention period. This analysis involves estimating baseline 
federal revenues and outlays for the target population and then 
estimating the changes in federal revenues and outlays as a result of 
each intervention. Estimated changes in federal revenue and outlays 
must be the direct result of the SIPPRA intervention, i.e., the SIPPRA 
intervention must have caused the change in outcome that affected 
federal revenue and outlays. The outcome valuation should include 
increases in costs due to intended or unintended impacts of the 
intervention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(c)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In preparing the estimates, as part of the overall evaluation 
strategy, applicants must document and submit their estimates of 
baseline federal revenues and outlays and estimated changes to federal 
revenues and outlays as a direct result of each proposed intervention 
such that these estimates are easily replicable. The application must 
provide sufficient information, e.g., all data sources, such as related 
literature, assumptions, and justifications, to show how the applicant 
arrived at the estimate of the baseline federal revenues and outlays, 
and changes in federal revenues and outlays as a direct result of the 
proposed intervention.
    Using this methodology, applicants will need to estimate the value 
to the federal government of the proposed intervention(s) before the 
intervention(s) take place. The estimate must be submitted as part of 
the application and will be the applicant's baseline for the 
intervention. Using the same methodology, independent evaluators will 
assess the value of the intervention(s) to the federal government after 
the intervention has taken place.
    The following shows the steps involved in calculating the outcome 
value:
    Step 1: Estimate target population baseline over the intervention 
period under current law (before intervention performed)
    A. Estimate total amount of federal revenue paid by target 
population in dollars, if applicable.
    B. Estimate total amount of federal outlays expended on target 
population, in dollars (includes cost of all federal programs used by 
target population).
    Step 2: Estimate outcomes and federal outlays and revenues over the 
intervention period under current law (as of the date this NOFA is 
published in the Federal Register) assuming intervention takes place
    The estimate of value will be limited to the intervention period 
only and may not be extrapolated beyond the intervention period (which 
is not to exceed seven years).
    C. Estimate total federal taxes paid by target population after its 
outcomes have changed as a direct result of the SIPPRA intervention.
    D. Estimate total amount of federal outlays expended on the target 
population after its outcomes have changed as a direct result of the 
SIPPRA intervention. Applicants should carefully consider how the 
intervention may cause the substitution of federal benefits delivered 
through one social program for another. Specifically, applicants should 
carefully consider how the intervention will affect eligibility for 
other federal programs and how this will affect the change in federal 
outlays.
    Any changes in federal revenue or spending must flow through the 
changes in outcomes caused by the SIPPRA intervention; these changes 
must be attributed only to the SIPPRA intervention and not to other 
causes. As explained below, randomized controlled trials (RCT) or 
quasi-experimental

[[Page 5564]]

designs are to be used to determine causation.
    Step 3: Estimate total value of intervention to the federal 
government in dollars

Value = change in revenue-change in spending = (c-a)-(d-b)

    In accordance with SIPPRA, the federal government will pay no more 
than the value estimated in Step 3.
    The estimates of baseline federal outlays and revenues and the 
estimated federal outlays and revenues after the intervention should be 
rounded to the nearest hundred, rounding up any number that ends in a 
number greater than $50 to the nearest $100.
    Applicants proposing or generating value to the federal government 
only through reductions in federal administrative expenses will not be 
considered eligible to receive outcome payments.
    As part of the overall evaluation strategy, applicants must 
document and submit their estimates of baseline federal revenues and 
outlays and estimated changes to federal revenues and outlays as a 
direct result of each proposed intervention such that these analyses 
can be replicated.\11\ Specifically, the application must describe all 
data sources, such as related literature, assumptions, and 
justifications, used to arrive at the estimates of the changes in 
federal revenues and outlays as a direct result of the proposed 
intervention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A tool to assist grantees in their calculations will be 
available on Treasury's SIPPRA website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In estimating the effect on federal revenues and outlays, 
applicants should carefully consider the funding structure of the 
program and whether or not the program is oversubscribed, i.e., the 
program has more eligible individuals than funding available for 
services, such that when one individual is removed from the program 
another eligible individual replaces him or her.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Examples of budget impact analysis may be found in 
appendices of Congressional Budget Office publications. See, e.g., 
The Effects of Potential Cuts in SNAP Spending on Households With 
Different Amounts of Income (2015), https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49978; Possible Higher Spending Paths for Veterans' Benefits (2018), 
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995). An additional reference to 
calculate federal outlays and revenues are available from the 
National Bureau of Economic Research TAXSIM at https://
users.nber.org/~taxsim/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Independent Evaluations

    This section gives an overview of the following: The role of post-
award independent evaluation, independent evaluator qualifications, 
outcomes definitions and measurement, impact evaluation designs and 
methodology, and outcome valuation.
a. Overview
    Pay for Results evaluations must be conducted by independent 
evaluators. Grantees can expect to commit significant time and 
resources to the formal evaluations of their project. All grantees are 
eligible to receive evaluation funding to help support post-award 
evaluation costs, regardless of whether outcomes are met. In each case, 
the federal government will fund only up to 15 percent of the amount of 
the project award for an independent evaluation of the project. The 
federal government will base its maximum award of funds for the 
grantee's cost of an independent evaluator on the amount of the top 
tier outcome payment. The federal government will fund only completed 
post-award evaluation work; it will not pay for the portion of an 
evaluator's contract contemplating evaluation work that is not 
completed in the event a project terminates earlier than expected.
b. Evaluation Design Plan
    Evaluations must meet evidence standards for high quality 
experimental or non-experimental research to receive agreed-upon 
outcome payments. (See the definitions of ``randomized controlled 
trial'' and ``quasi-experimental design'' in Appendix I.3, Key Concepts 
and Other Terms.) Evaluations must use the most appropriate and 
rigorous research method suitable for the project to estimate impacts. 
RCTs are preferred to the extent their use is consistent with federal, 
state and local laws; quasi-experimental designs will be accepted if 
experimental designs are infeasible. An applicant not using a RCT 
should explain why a RCT is not appropriate for the particular project. 
Program models that have a moderate or strong existing base of evidence 
for their effectiveness are strong candidates for pay for results 
projects. See Section A.6.e, Evidence Standards, for more information 
on bases of evidence.
    The evaluation design plan must:
    1. Describe the existing base of evidence and cite available 
research literature;
    2. Explain how the project is suitable for the proposed evaluation;
    3. Describe an approach for coordinating all partners and required 
evaluation activities, including assisting the independent evaluator in 
collecting and accessing the necessary data, and include a timeline;
    4. Document the project evaluation's research question(s), the data 
to be collected and analyzed, how data quality and integrity will be 
maintained, e.g., how attrition will be minimized, and specify overall 
and subgroup samples;
    5. Describe how the project will be implemented with fidelity, 
e.g., how random assignment to treatment and control groups will be 
ensured;
    6. Describe the metrics that will be used in the evaluation to 
determine whether the outcomes have been achieved as a result of the 
intervention, i.e., key outcomes and outcome targets; an explanation of 
how the metrics will be measured; and an explanation of how the metrics 
are independent, objective indicators of impact and are not subject to 
manipulation by the service provider, the intermediary, or investors, 
if any;
    7. Explain how the independent evaluator will collect or gain 
access to the metrics that will be used;
    8. Explain how the method used to measure the anticipated outcomes 
will produce rigorous evidence that the outcomes were not produced due 
to random chance, general economic conditions, or participant selection 
(see Section A.6.e, Evidence Standards, for more information);
    9. Propose all important covariates that will be used in evaluation 
analysis, including how these measures will be operationalized, and the 
data used for them;
    10. Explain how the methodology will measure relevant unanticipated 
outcomes and/or negative impacts;
    11. Include a proposed logic model (theory of change) (see Section 
A.5.c, Evaluation Method);
    12. Provide and justify the selected evaluation strategy, i.e., RCT 
or quasi-experimental design;
    13. Describe anticipated statistical and analytical methods, such 
as regression equations to be used, power calculations, and minimal 
detectable impacts for each proposed outcome;
    14. Include the anticipated customized randomization plan if 
applicable;
    15. State whether the design is likely to generate evidence that 
can support causal conclusions, as described in Section A.6.e, Evidence 
Standards;
    16. Describe anticipated challenges, e.g., attrition, failed 
randomization, oversubscription and plans to mitigate them; and
    17. Show how the evaluation will be independent of the intervention 
and financing structure.
    The design plan may evolve during a project's early implementation 
period (approximately the first 6-12 months) to ensure proper 
measurement of project outcomes. However, outcome targets may not 
change without prior approval from Treasury or the administering

[[Page 5565]]

federal agency. Grantees must submit the design plan to Treasury or the 
administering federal agency once it is finalized. The evaluation 
design plan will be posted on the Federal Interagency Council on Social 
Impact Partnerships (Interagency Council) \13\ website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-10(3)(J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Evaluation Method
    The design plan must also incorporate an appropriate evaluation 
method. It must outline a narrative theory of change (or logic model). 
A compelling theory of change (1) identifies key assumptions upon which 
an intervention is based; (2) provides a set of testable hypotheses 
that measure the effect of the proposed strategy; (3) identifies 
expected outcomes; and (4) where available, describes interim outputs 
and outcomes that show the project's progress toward the same or 
similar interventions, or components of the intervention, in the same 
or similar context.
    To the extent feasible and appropriate, applicants should employ 
experimental design methodologies that use random assignment to create 
treatment and control groups to measure outcomes. If such an approach 
is infeasible, a quasi-experimental design in which outcomes for the 
treatment group, or a broader target population that includes both the 
treatment group and those outside the treatment group, are measured 
relative to a comparison group may be used. Applicants that cannot 
implement a RCT study will not be penalized for implementing a quasi-
experimental design. This quasi-experimental design must address other 
possible causes of the outcomes, such as selection, other policies, 
economic conditions, and other confounding factors. (See the definition 
of ``quasi-experimental design'' in Appendix I.C, Key Concepts and 
Other Terms.) If selecting this approach, the applicant must explain 
why an experimental design was infeasible, inappropriate, or unethical, 
why the proposed evaluation method is a reasonable alternative, and why 
the proposed approach will yield findings that support causal 
inference.
d. Evaluation Facilitation
    Grantees are expected to participate in and manage several 
activities to ensure the successful independent evaluation of 
demonstration projects. These activities include:
     Working with the independent evaluator to facilitate the 
execution of the overall evaluation strategy and to ensure the 
intervention is performed according to the evaluation design plan 
described above;
     Reporting progress and final evaluation results to 
Treasury and/or the relevant federal agency are delivered on schedule;
     Over the course of the performance period, working with 
the independent evaluator to ensure that project randomization 
procedures and other evaluation processes are adhered to;
     Working with the independent evaluator to modify 
evaluation plans, as appropriate; and
     Participating in technical assistance initiatives that 
Treasury, federal agencies, or experts may provide to ensure evaluation 
quality and consistency across projects.
e. Evidence Standards
    Independent Evaluation: The evaluation used to determine whether a 
State or local government will receive outcome payments under SIPPRA 
shall use experimental designs using random assignment or other 
reliable evidence-based research methodologies, as certified by the 
Interagency Council, that allow for the strongest possible causal 
inferences when random assignment is not feasible.\14\ The project's 
independent evaluation must be designed to assess the strength of the 
causal evidence, i.e., the degree to which the research establishes the 
causal impact of the intervention on the outcomes of interest not due 
to other factors.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(c).
    \15\ More information on evidence standards in the context of 
Federal program evaluations can be found at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oss/technicalassistance/edgarrevisionsfactsheet101617.pdf. General explanation of Federal 
guidelines regarding evaluation and evidence can be found in OMB 
Circular No. A-11 (2018), Part 6, Section 200.22, ``Evaluation'' and 
``Evidence'' entries: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/a11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Evidence Base for Selecting a Project Model: Pay for results 
projects must be informed by designs that support causal conclusions 
(i.e., studies with high internal validity) and that, in total, include 
enough of the range of participants and settings to support scaling up 
to the state, regional, or national level (i.e., studies with high 
external validity). These include well-designed and well-implemented 
experimental studies or well-designed and well-implemented quasi-
experimental studies that support the effectiveness of the practice, 
strategy, or program; and large, well-designed and well-implemented 
randomized controlled, multi-site trials that support the effectiveness 
of the practice, strategy, or program.
f. Contract With Independent Evaluator
    Because the evaluation findings provide the basis for pay for 
results payments to the grantee, the contract each applicant enters 
into with an independent evaluator should require an agreed-upon 
evaluation design and methodology, observed outcome measure(s), and 
findings regarding outcome targets.
    The contract with the independent evaluator should address the 
following:
     Plan to obtain relevant datasets from various sources, for 
example, local agencies, state agencies, or other federal agencies, 
including the responsibilities of the grantee and evaluator in 
accomplishing this task;
     Design and coding of a management information system, as 
needed, that is tailored for research or evaluation, to track 
participants and obtain individual-level data;
     Collection or assessment of individual-level data. The 
independent evaluator must work directly with the applicant and other 
organizations to enter into one or more agreements for the access and 
use of the data. These agreements should include assuring data quality 
and adherence to all federal and state data privacy statutes and 
policies and data security standards;
     Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to ensure the 
protection of human subjects, to the extent applicable; and
     Submission of progress reports to Treasury, the 
Interagency Council, and the head of the relevant agency in accordance 
with the reporting requirements described in Section F.5b, Evaluation 
Progress Reports, and Section F.5.c, Evaluation Final Reports.

B. Federal Award Information

1. Type of Federal Award

    Treasury expects to award up to $66,290,000 in grants under this 
NOFA. Treasury anticipates making between five and fifteen grants for 
social impact partnership demonstration projects under this NOFA. The 
total amount awarded under this NOFA will be determined based on the 
strength of the applications received, the number of successful 
applications for projects for the direct benefit of children, and other 
programmatic considerations. Treasury reserves the right to make no 
awards or to make awards for amounts less than the amounts requested by 
applicants. As noted above, for projects funded under this NOFA, the 
federal government, under separate agreements with grantees, will also 
make available up to 15 percent of the project award amount for the 
cost of an independent evaluator.

[[Page 5566]]

These agreements to pay for evaluations will provide for payment 
regardless of outcomes, but the agreements will limit payments to 
evaluation work performed.

2. Project Period

    The period of performance for demonstration project awards may not 
exceed seven and a half years, which includes an intervention period of 
up to seven years followed by up to six months for final measurement, 
analysis, evaluation, submission of the independent evaluator's final 
report, and submission of payment requests to the federal 
government.\16\ Applicants should carefully construct their project 
timeline to allow sufficient time for all required activities. 
Applicants must specify the intervention period and explain the basis 
for specifying such period. Requests to extend the period of 
performance beyond seven and a half years will not be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ SIPPRA provides that the period of performance under the 
award agreements may not exceed 10 years. See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-
2(c)(1)(C). Treasury will strive to maximize use of the amounts 
Congress appropriated to make awards and outcome payments. To help 
achieve this goal, Treasury decided on a seven and a half year 
maximum period of performance to provide sufficient flexibility for 
Treasury to issue an additional NOFA for SIPPRA demonstration 
projects with a similar period of performance. In order to make an 
additional round of awards and any outcome payments associated with 
such awards, Treasury determined that the period of performance for 
the first round of awards should not exceed seven and a half years. 
To elaborate, SIPPRA appropriates funds that are available for ten 
years to make awards. See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-9 and 1397n-13. Federal 
law generally provides that disbursements of funds awarded within 
the SIPPRA 10 year window (e.g., outcome payments) must occur within 
five years after that ten year window closes. See 31 U.S.C. 1552(a). 
If grantees receiving awards under this NOFA do not receive outcome 
payments for the full amount of their awards after the seven year 
and a half year performance period, the difference between the award 
amounts and the outcome payments made will be available to make 
awards under the additional SIPPRA demonstration project NOFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

    Only States or local governments are eligible applicants; 
applications from any other entities will not be reviewed. SIPPRA 
defines the term ``State'' to mean each State of the United States, the 
District of Columbia, each commonwealth, territory, or possession of 
the United States, and each federally recognized Indian tribe.\17\ For 
purposes of this NOFA, the term ``State'' shall, consistent with the 
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit 
Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) at 2 CFR part 200, 
include any of a State's agencies or instrumentalities, and the terms 
``local government'' and ``federally recognized Indian tribe'' shall 
have the meanings given in the Uniform Guidance and set forth in 
Appendix I.1, Applicants.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-12(6).
    \18\ See 2 CFR 200.54, 200.64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    Cost sharing or matching funds, as defined in the Uniform 
Guidance,\19\ are not required, and the financial contributions from 
any investors for project implementation are not characterized as cost 
sharing or matching funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 2 CFR 200.29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Other Eligibility Criteria

    The identified social problem(s) or other social benefits to be 
addressed by the intervention must relate to one of the outcomes 
identified in SIPPRA and listed in Section A.3, Qualifying Outcomes.

D. Application and Submission Information

1. How To Obtain an Application Package

    This NOFA, found at www.Grants.gov and www.Treasury.gov/SIPPRA, 
contains all of the information and links to forms needed to apply for 
grant funding. An application package may be obtained from Grants.gov 
by using this NOFA's CFDA number: 21.017 or by calling the SIPPRA 
Coordinator at (202) 622-0262. Information on how to apply for grants 
can be found at https://www.Grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

a. Notice of Intent To Apply
    Treasury strongly encourages State and local governments interested 
in applying to submit to Treasury a Notice of Intent to Apply to the 
SIPPRA Program Office. Obtaining advance information about the 
potential number of applications, as well as the general structure of 
the proposed intervention projects and evaluation plans, prior to the 
application deadline will assist Treasury in developing a more 
efficient application review process. A Notice of Intent to Apply 
should be submitted via email to SIPPRA@treasury.gov on or prior to 
April 8, 2019. Please use ``Intent to Apply'' in the email subject line 
and include the following information:
    1. The applicant's name and address;
    2. A general overview of the intervention, including the target 
population and social problem the project will address, anticipated 
outcome(s) of the project, and a brief summary of the evaluation design 
(including, where applicable, federal data sets to which the project 
partners and/or evaluator anticipate needing to access, and the plan to 
gain access to that data);
    3. Any preliminary information identifying the project partners;
    4. The intervention period (not to exceed seven years); and
    5. Total anticipated funding and total anticipated budget for the 
proposed project.
    An applicant that does not submit a Notice of Intent to Apply may 
still apply for a project grant, and an application may differ from 
what the applicant included in its Notice of Intent to Apply.
b. Application for Project Award
    Applications submitted in response to this NOFA must consist of the 
following:
    1. SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance;
    2. SF-424A, Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs (if 
applicable);
    3. SF-424C, Budget Information for Construction Programs (if 
applicable);
    4. Project Narrative, which must include an executive summary that 
outlines key information and provides a brief description of the 
applicant's proposal. The project narrative must include the following:
    [cir] The outcome goals of the project, formulated as discussed in 
Section A.4.f, and rigorous evidence demonstrating that the 
intervention can be expected to produce the desired outcomes; \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(1), (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] The project timeline, including the project intervention 
period; \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(15), (17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] A description of each intervention in the project and 
anticipated outcomes of the intervention; \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] A work plan for delivering the intervention through a social 
impact partnership model, including the proposed payment terms (e.g., 
the terms of any tiered payment scheme proposed by the applicant) and 
performance thresholds (i.e., the outcome target or, in the case of a 
tiered payment scheme, range of targets); \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(9), (15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] The target population that will be served by the project and 
the criteria used to determine the eligibility of an individual for the 
project, including how the target population will be

[[Page 5567]]

identified, how individuals will be referred to the project, how they 
will be enrolled in it, and the extent to which affected stakeholders 
will be engaged in the development and implementation of the project; 
\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(4), (c)(18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] A summary of the unmet need in the area where the 
intervention will be delivered or among the target population who will 
receive the intervention \25\ and the expected social benefits to 
participants who receive the intervention and others who may be 
impacted; \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(14).
    \26\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] The detailed roles and responsibilities of each entity 
involved in the project, including any State or local government 
entity, intermediary, service provider, independent evaluator, 
investor, or other stakeholder; \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] A description of whether and how the applicant and service 
providers plan to sustain the intervention, if it is timely and 
appropriate to do so, to ensure that successful interventions continue 
to operate after the period of the social impact partnership; \28\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(24). An applicant may discuss its 
commitment to scalability and building capacity or plans to maintain 
project benefits and/or continue the intervention beyond the period 
of performance in the event the intervention successfully addresses 
the needs of the target population. An applicant may include plans 
to make adaptations within its environment to strengthen or expand 
its proposed intervention beyond the period of performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] Whether and how the project is for the direct benefit of 
children.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Project Narrative Attachments;
    6. SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities;
    7. Grant.gov Lobbying Form;
    8. SF-424B, Assurance for Non-Construction Programs (if 
applicable);
    9. SF-424D, Assurance for Construction Programs (if applicable);
    The following items are required to be submitted as attachments to 
the project narrative:
     Project budget: Provide a narrative for the budget, 
including amounts expected to be expended by partners.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(16). The budget must include any 
projected federal, State, and local government costs and other costs 
to conduct the project. See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Partnership agreements: Provide a partnership agreement 
between the applicant and all project partners. The partnership 
agreement must either be signed or, if submitted in draft form, must be 
accompanied by signed letters of intent to enter into such an agreement 
should the application be successful. Refer to Section A.4.d, 
Partnership Agreements for what must be included in partnership 
agreements.
     Partner qualifications: Describe the expertise of each 
service provider that will administer the intervention, including a 
summary of the experience of the service provider in delivering the 
proposed intervention or a similar intervention, or demonstrating that 
the service provider has the expertise necessary to deliver the 
proposed intervention.\31\ This description should include a discussion 
of the capacity of the service provider to deliver the intervention to 
the number of participants the State or local government proposes to 
serve in the project.\32\ In addition, to the extent the applicant 
intends to use investors and has not already identified and received 
commitments from them, the application should discuss the experience of 
the State or local government, intermediary, if any, or service 
provider in raising private and philanthropic capital to fund social 
service investments.\33\ With respect to any intermediary specifically, 
the application should discuss the intermediary's mission and goals; 
its experience and capacity for providing or facilitating the provision 
of the type of intervention proposed; information on whether the 
intermediary is already working with service providers that provide 
this intervention or an explanation of the capacity of the intermediary 
to begin working with service providers to provide the intervention; 
its experience working in a collaborative environment across government 
and nongovernmental entities to implement evidence-based programs; its 
previous experience collaborating with public or private entities to 
implement evidence-based programs; its ability to raise or provide 
funding to cover operating costs, as applicable; its capacity and 
infrastructure to track outcomes and measure results, including its 
capacity to track and analyze program performance and assess program 
impact; its experience with performance-based awards or performance-
based contracting and achieving milestones and targets; and an 
explanation of how the intermediary would monitor program success, 
including a description of the interim benchmarks and outcome 
measures.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(10), (13).
    \32\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(23).
    \33\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(11).
    \34\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Independent evaluator qualifications: Provide a summary 
explaining the independence of the evaluator from the other entities 
involved in the project and the evaluator's experience in conducting 
rigorous evaluations of program effectiveness including, where 
available, well-implemented RCTs on the intervention or similar 
interventions.\35\ Applicants should address the following 
qualifications of the evaluator:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Experience working with the datasets the project expects 
to use;
     Prior work in conducting implementation and causal impact 
analyses and how their past methodologies and evaluation design 
experience will be used in the proposed project;
     Qualifications of the individuals designing and overseeing 
the evaluation and ensuring its quality, including their education or 
training and type and years of experience;
     Experience in managing similar evaluation protocols (e.g., 
this type of sampling, data collection, analysis); and
     Experience dealing with unforeseen data or implementation 
issues in other program evaluations. Provide specific examples and 
experiences dealing with unforeseen data or implementation issues.
     Evaluation design plan: Provide an evaluation design \36\ 
plan as described in Section A.5.b, Evaluation Design Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(19)-(21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Independent evaluator contract. Provide a copy of the 
contract to be entered into between the State or local government and 
the independent evaluator as described in Section A.6.f, Contract with 
Independent Evaluator.
     Outcome valuation: Provide an attachment supporting the 
outcome valuation, as described in Section A.5.b, Outcome Valuation, 
and a discussion of project savings not otherwise incorporated into the 
outcome valuation, including projected federal, State, and local 
government savings and other savings, including an estimate of the 
savings to the federal government, on a program-by-program basis and in 
the aggregate, if the project is implemented and the outcomes are 
achieved as a result of the intervention and, if savings resulting from 
the successful completion of the project are estimated to accrue to the 
State or local government, the likelihood of the State or local 
government to realize those savings.\37\ Applicants must provide the 
estimated total value and savings, estimated value and savings per 
project participant, and estimated value and

[[Page 5568]]

savings per dollar spent on the intervention, as well as the 
methodology used by the applicant in arriving at such estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(7), (8). A tool for these 
calculations will be made available on Treasury's SIPPRA website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Legal compliance: If an applicant proposes a project 
including a construction component, the applicant must identify the 
State and federal environmental laws, regulations, and policies that 
will apply to the project, and the environmental documents required 
under State and federal laws. If an applicant proposes a project 
including a transportation component, the applicant must identify 
applicable federal, State, and local laws relating to that component, 
and any transportation-related permitting and licensing documents 
required under federal, State and local laws. The applicant must 
identify laws applying to the population being served and demonstrate 
that the project will be in compliance with those laws. The applicant 
must also comply with applicable federal, State, and local privacy 
laws. The applicant must also identify any approved waivers of any 
existing laws or regulations, including but not limited to 
environmental or transportation laws or regulations, required by the 
intervention design; if waivers are pending, the applicant must include 
documentation that it has sought the waiver, that it is under 
consideration, and when approval is expected to be received. Failure to 
obtain a necessary waiver may be grounds for termination of a grant.
    An application may contain additional supporting documentation as 
attachments such as an existing feasibility study.

3. Other

a. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number and 
System of Award Management (SAM)
    Applications will be identified by the DUNS number of the State or 
local government lead applicant. A DUNS number is a unique, nine-digit 
sequence recognized as the universal standard for identifying and 
keeping track of over 70 million entities worldwide. Sub-awards may be 
made only to entities that have DUNS numbers. Information on how to 
obtain a DUNS number may be obtained from Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. at 
https://fedgov.dnb.com/webform or by calling 866-705-5711. Applicants 
should obtain this DUNS number immediately to ensure all registration 
steps are complete prior to submitting an application. The DUNS number 
should be entered in the block with the applicant's name and address on 
the cover page of the application, block 8c on the Form SF 424, 
Application for Federal Assistance. The name and address in the 
application should be exactly as given for the DUNS number. After 
obtaining a DUNS number, applicants must also register with the SAM, a 
federal governmentwide portal used for acquisition and federal 
assistance processes, and maintain an active SAM registration until the 
application process is complete and, if a grant is awarded, throughout 
the life of the award. SAM registration must be renewed annually. 
Treasury suggests finalizing a new registration or renewing an existing 
one at least one month before the application deadline to allow time to 
resolve any issues that may arise. Applicants must use their SAM-
registered legal name and address on all grant applications to 
Treasury. Treasury will not make an award to an applicant if the 
applicant has not complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM 
requirements.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ For more information about SAM, see the information 
provided by the General Services Administration at https://www.sam.gov/SAM/pages/public/generalInfo/aboutSAM.jsf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Privileged or Confidential Information
    SIPPRA establishes a Commission on Social Impact Partnerships 
(Commission) whose principal obligation is to make recommendations to 
Treasury regarding the funding of SIPPRA demonstration project and 
feasibility studies.\39\ The Commission is subject to the provisions of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which generally requires 
that documents made available to the Commission be made available for 
public inspection and copying.\40\ Treasury expects to provide to the 
Commission all complete applications received under this NOFA from 
eligible applicants and expects to make these applications available 
for public inspection and copying. However, FACA also provides that 
trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is 
privileged or confidential under the Freedom of Information Act 
(confidential business information) need not be made publicly 
available.\41\ In order to comply with FACA's public disclosure 
requirements while protecting confidential business information in 
accordance with FACA, each applicant must propose redactions of 
confidential business information. An applicant may omit pages for 
which it does not propose any redactions. Proposed redactions must be 
highlighted in a way that leaves the material proposed to be redacted 
visible to Treasury staff. Treasury will review the redactions proposed 
by each applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-6.
    \40\ See 5 U.S.C. App. 2 10(b).
    \41\ See id.; 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Submission Date, Times, Process and Addresses

    Applications must be submitted between 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time on 
April 22, 2019, March 28, 2019 and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 22, 
2019. Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov. 
Mail, email, telegram, or facsimile (FAX) submissions will not be 
accepted. Registration for Grants.gov is a multi-step process that may 
take several weeks to complete before an application may be submitted. 
Grants.gov scheduled maintenance and outage times are announced on the 
Grants.gov website, https://www.Grants.gov. The deadline will not be 
extended due to scheduled maintenance or outages. Applicants take a 
significant risk by waiting to the last day to submit by Grants.gov.
    General information for registering and submitting applications 
through Grants.gov can be found at https://www.Grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html along with specific instructions for the forms and 
attachments required for submission. Applicants encountering a problem 
with Grants.gov may call the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-
4726 or 606-545-5035 to speak to a Customer Support Representative, or 
email Grants.gov">support@Grants.gov. The Contact Center is open 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, other than on federal holidays, when it is closed. 
All requi