Notice2026-04685
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Social Impact Partnerships To Pay for Results Act (SIPPRA) Program Review
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 10, 2026
Issuing agencies
Treasury Department
Abstract
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the proposed information collections listed below, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Treasury has completed two rounds of funding for the SIPPRA program through two releases of a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). Treasury invites comments on the revisions to the FY26 NOFO to improve the efficacy and efficiency of the application review process.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 46 (Tuesday, March 10, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 10, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11599-11615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-04685]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Social Impact Partnerships To Pay for Results Act
(SIPPRA) Program Review
AGENCY: Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general
public and other federal agencies to comment on the proposed
information collections listed below, in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. Treasury has completed two rounds of funding for
the SIPPRA program through two releases of a Notice of Funding
Opportunity (NOFO). Treasury invites comments on the revisions to the
FY26 NOFO to improve the efficacy and efficiency of the application
review process.
DATES: Written comments must be received on May 11, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Matthew Cook, SIPPRA Program
Director, Office of Economic Policy, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d1e041d1d1f0c0d393f282c3e383f34632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c1f051c1c1e0d0c383e292d3f393e35622b233a">[email protected]</span></a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submissions may be
obtained from Matthew Cook by emailing <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#77243e2727253637030512160402050e59101801"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f0a3b9a0a0a2b1b08482959183858289de979f86">[email protected]</span></a>, calling
(202) 927-5331, or viewing the entire information collection request at
<a href="http://www.reginfo.gov">www.reginfo.gov</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for
Results Act (SIPPRA) Program Review.
OMB Control Number: 1505-0260.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Description: SIPPRA, enacted February 9, 2018, amends Title XX of
the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1397 et seq., to provide $100
million in funding to implement social impact partnership projects
(projects) and feasibility studies for such projects. SIPPRA authorizes
the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into award agreements with state
or local governments for projects or feasibility studies. Treasury, in
consultation with other federal agencies, administers the SIPPRA
program. SIPPRA authorizes Treasury to conduct a request for proposals
for projects, make award determinations, and enter into project award
agreements.
Although Treasury asked applicants to use the SF-424 and SF-425
families of common forms for their applications and reports, Treasury
also solicited additional detailed information from applicants to
effectively and efficiently assess and evaluate whether applications
for projects comply with statutory requirements. This request includes
only the burden for this additional information. The burden for the SF-
424 forms is covered under OMB Control Numbers 4040-0004, 4040-0006,
4040-0007, 4040-0008, 4040-
[[Page 11600]]
0009, 4040-0010, and 4040-0013. The burden for the SF-425 form is
covered under OMB Control Number 4040-0014. The additional information
includes the following components:
<bullet> <a href="http://SAM.gov">SAM.gov</a> registration;
<bullet> Project Narrative, to include an Executive Summary;
<bullet> Project Narrative Attachments, to include project budget,
narrative statement addressing partnership agreements, an estimate of
the value to the federal government of the interventions being proposed
in the project, partner qualifications, independent evaluator
qualifications, evaluation design plan, independent evaluator contract,
outcome valuation, legal compliance, and (optional) additional
supporting documentation such as a preexisting feasibility study;
<bullet> Treasury Office of Civil Rights and Equal Employment
Opportunity Assurances and Certifications, Terms and Conditions, and
Compliance Data;
<bullet> Additional documentation related to Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act;
<bullet> Copy of application proposing privileged or confidential
information to be redacted;
<bullet> Administrative Reporting, including an Annual Performance
Report, Evaluation Progress Reports, and Final Evaluation Report; and
<bullet> Records Retention requirements.
Treasury has released two Notice of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs)
since 2018. The first in January 2019 and the second in November 2023.
Treasury is now planning to release a third round of funding in FY26.
The potential FY26 NOFO is available in full for the public's review.
Use of the Data
The information collected under this NOFO: (1) Identifies eligible
recipients and activities; (2) helps identify which applications
sufficiently address all statutory requirements and which proposed
projects are the most competitive; (3) determines the appropriate
amount of funding; (4) allows evaluation of compliance with SIPPRA and
Federal laws and policies on grants (e.g., Office of Management and
Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards 2 CFR part 200 (herein OMB
Uniform Guidance); Title VI of the Civil Rights Act); (5) tracks
recipients' progress; and (6) collects statutorily mandated reports
prepared by recipients' contracted independent evaluators. Other
required sections in the NOFO are the following:
<bullet> The application Executive Summary will assist Treasury and
the Interagency Council in streamlining the processing of applications
and optimizing the eligibility phase of application review. The
application standard forms, Project Narrative, and Project Narrative
attachment components of the grant application are intended to provide
Treasury with the information necessary to properly evaluate and assess
whether applications include statutorily mandated information.
Additionally, certain components of the application, in particular the
evaluation design plan and outcome valuation, will enable the
Interagency Council to determine whether to make statutorily mandated
certifications regarding the proposed projects.
<bullet> <a href="http://SAM.gov">SAM.gov</a> registration is required under the OMB Uniform
Guidance.
<bullet> To comply with the OMB Uniform Guidance performance and
financial monitoring and reporting requirements, 2 CFR 200.328-200.330,
Treasury intends to require biannual performance and annual financial
report from grant recipients. SIPPRA also requires that recipients
submit progress reports prepared by an independent evaluator on a
periodic basis and before the scheduled time of outcome payments. 42
U.S.C. 1397n-4(d). SIPPRA also requires that recipients submit a final
report prepared by an independent evaluator within six months of a
project's completion. 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(e). Per the statute, Treasury
will use these reports to determine if outcome payments are warranted.
<bullet> Treasury intends to require recipients under this NOFO to
comply with the OMB Uniform Guidance's record retention requirement, 2
CFR 200.334, which requires them to maintain records for three years
after grant close-out.
<bullet> SIPPRA established a Commission on Social Impact
Partnerships (Commission) whose principal obligation is to make
recommendations to Treasury regarding the funding of SIPPRA projects
and feasibility studies. 42 U.S.C. 1397n-6. 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. 5 U.S.C. app. section
10(b). Treasury may provide to the Commission all complete applications
received under this NOFA from eligible applicants and would make all
such applications available for public inspection and copying. However,
FACA also provides that trade secrets and commercial or financial
information that is privileged or confidential (confidential business
information) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) need not be
made publicly available. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). To assist Treasury in
complying with FACA's public disclosure requirements while protecting
confidential business information in accordance with FOIA, Treasury
requests applicants to propose redactions of confidential business
information. An applicant may omit pages for which it does not propose
any redactions. Treasury expects to review the redactions proposed by
each applicant.
<bullet> Applicants must provide qualifications of key project
personnel and partners. Applicants may voluntarily provide curriculum
vitae for key project personnel and partners, but the application will
not require that personally identifiable information (PII) is
collected.
Planned Revisions to the Data Collection
For several reasons, Treasury revised the third SIPPRA NOFO
relative to the first two. Treasury believes that the revisions will
increase the number of applications it receives, reduce the burden on
applicants and stakeholders, improve the quality of applications,
reduce application review time, and enhance the success of projects.
Treasury is interested in receiving comments on applicants' experiences
with the application process under the FY24 NOFO or the FY19 NOFO and
suggestions on revisions Treasury should consider in the next NOFO to
make the application and application review process more user-friendly
and efficient. Treasury has a draft of the next NOFO available for the
public's review. The most significant revisions Treasury made in the
next NOFO are addressed below.
<bullet> Treasury returned the outcome valuation methodology to
budget impact analysis (BIA) instead of benefit-cost analysis. Treasury
made this change because after testing both approaches, Treasury
determined that BIA is a better methodology to allow Treasury to
observe value to the federal government, as required by statute, and is
more efficient to implement for social impact partnerships. Treasury is
interested in the public's view regarding whether there are alternative
approaches to savings and value that would be preferable in place of
this approach, and why those approaches are consistent with SIPPRA
statute.
<bullet> Treasury continues to ascertain how to make the
application and the application review process more efficient for all
parties. Treasury invites suggestions and specific strategies that
[[Page 11601]]
Treasury may incorporate into the next NOFO that will increase
administrative efficiencies to the extent permitted under the statute
and other federal laws and regulations. In the current draft, language
has been simplified and clarified to attempt to ease applicant burden.
In particular, Treasury has introduced language to allow applicants to
apply with processes instead of particular partners due to procurement
constraints.
<bullet> Under the FY24 NOFO, Treasury provided applicants five
months from the date of NOFA publication to submit their applications.
Treasury is interested in learning whether prospective applicants favor
a shorter window of time to submit their applications, which would
leave more time for project implementation, or conversely, if they
favor a longer application timeframe (e.g., six--nine months), which
would give applicants more time to submit their applications, but less
time for project implementation. The statute does not permit Treasury
to obligate funds beyond February 2028. The deadline to submit
applications is expected to occur in early 2027.
<bullet> The evaluation design section has been heavily edited to
make it easier to understand and develop. Treasury is interested in
learning whether these changes have sufficiently addressed questions,
and it would welcome comments on how long it will take to complete
these evaluation design plans.
<bullet> Treasury is planning to prioritize projects that affect
specific outcomes instead of weighing all outcomes equally. Treasury is
interested in feedback on how this will affect whether potential
applicants will apply. Treasury is also interested in whether the
language of the NOFO is consistent with the goals of programs that
would achieve these outcomes, and if not, what changes would it make it
more likely to appeal to these programs.
Form: None.
Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 25.
Frequency of Response: Once, on occasion.
Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 25.
Estimated Time per Response: 240 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,000 hours.
Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice
will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management
and Budget approval. All comments will become a matter of public
record. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
through the use of technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up
costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services
required to provide information.
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Rachel Miller,
Executive Secretary.
1. Basic Information
A. Federal Agency. Office of Economic Policy, United States
Department of the Treasury.
B. Funding Opportunity Title. FY26 Social Impact Partnerships to
Pay for Results Act Notice of Funding Opportunity.
C. Announcement Type. Initial announcement.
D. Funding Opportunity Number. UST-SIPPRA-XXX-XXX.
E. Assistance List Number. 21.017.
F. Funding Details. Treasury has made up to $11.8 million available
for projects under this NOFO.
G. Key Dates. Applicants have five months to submit an application.
Treasury intends to make an award decision no later than six months
after applications are received.
H. Executive Summary. The Department of the Treasury (``Treasury'')
is issuing this Notice of Funding Opportunity (``NOFO'') to invite
applications from State and local governments for awards under the
Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act (``the SIPPRA
statute''). An award recipient (``Awardee'') 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
start of the project. Awards made under this NOFO 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 $10.2 million in competitive project grants under
this NOFO. State and local governments receiving project grants will be
eligible to receive a separate 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 $1.6 million to be available to pay for the costs of
independent evaluations under this NOFO.
I. Agency contact information. Please contact Matthew Cook, SIPPRA
Director, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="46352f3636342706323423273533343f68212930">[email protected]</a> or 202-821-5700.
2. Eligibility
The SIPPRA statute provides that only States, including the
District of Columbia, each commonwealth, territory, or possession of
the United States; federally recognized Indian tribes; and local
governments are eligible applicants (``Applicant''); applications from
any other entity will not be reviewed.\1\ See 2 CFR part 200 for
definitions of State, local government, or federally recognized Indian
tribe.\2\ 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. Each agency must have its own UEI number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1, 1397n-12(6).
\2\ <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/subpart-A/subject-group-ECFR2a6a0087862fd2c/section-200.1">https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/subpart-A/subject-group-ECFR2a6a0087862fd2c/section-200.1</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no cost sharing required.
3. Program Description
In 2018, Congress appropriated $100 million to Treasury to
implement the SIPPRA program. The program funds social impact projects
based on achieving results.\3\ Treasury has offered two previous
funding opportunities for pay for results projects.\4\ Under this NOFO,
Treasury announces the availability of $10.2 million for awards to
implement a pay for results project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For more information, see the program web page at <a href="https://home.treasury.gov/services/social-impact-partnerships/sippra-pay-for-results">https://home.treasury.gov/services/social-impact-partnerships/sippra-pay-for-results</a>.
\4\ SIPPRA--Pay for Results [verbar] U.S. Department of the
Treasury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SIPPRA statute requires that each project achieve one or more
specific, measurable outcomes that benefit society and reduce
governmental outlays (i.e., provide ``savings''). Identifying suitable
outcomes that meet SIPPRA requirements is a critical first step for any
potential Applicant considering the SIPPRA program.
Under the pay for results model, the government makes a payment
only if an
[[Page 11602]]
evaluation (explained in Section 3.C, Evaluation Methodology)
demonstrates that the project caused the agreed-upon outcomes.
Applicants must use non-federal funds to cover the initial costs of the
project.
The outcome payment will not be more than the value of the outcome
to the government over a maximum period of ten years from the start of
the project. Applicants can propose one or more outcomes and may
receive separate payments at different times for each one achieved,
depending on the project design and payment requests.
The Applicant must procure an independent evaluator to confirm the
project achieved the agreed-upon outcomes. Treasury will have a
separate agreement with the Awardee to pay for evaluation activities.
This separate agreement cannot exceed 15 percent of the total funding
awarded to the Awardee. Treasury will fund this award even if the
project does not meet its goals. This separate award can only be used
for evaluation activities and not for other project costs. The
evaluator must be objective and must not have any financial or other
connections to the project that could create a potential conflict of
interest.
The independent evaluator must determine whether the project
achieved the expected outcome(s) following the evaluation design plan
(see Section 3.C, Evaluation Methodology). If Treasury determines that
the evaluation shows the applicant was successful, the federal
government will make a payment or payments to the Awardee based on the
agreed-upon payment schedule. Treasury will not make a payment to the
Awardee if the independent evaluator has violated the terms of the
award.
Eligible outcomes for an approved project are set out in Section
2052(b) of the SIPPRA statute. The SIPPRA statute provides a
nonexclusive list of types of eligible projects. One-fifth of the
projects in this list are types of workforce development projects, yet
only one workforce development project has thus far been funded. Under
this NOFO, Applicants proposing workforce development projects will be
given particular consideration to help ensure that an appropriate range
of subject matters are covered by SIPPRA projects and that the
statutorily highlighted outcomes related to workforce development are
appropriately funded. Examples of workforce development outcomes listed
in the SIPPRA statute include:
<bullet> Increasing work and earnings by individuals in the United
States who are unemployed for more than 6 consecutive months.
<bullet> Increasing employment and earnings of individuals who have
attained 16 years of age but not 25 years of age.
<bullet> Increasing employment among individuals receiving Federal
disability benefits.
<bullet> Improving the employment and well-being of returning
United States military members.
Additional possible outcomes outside of those listed in statute
include:
<bullet> Increasing work and earnings by individuals in the United
States who are not participating in the labor force for more than 6
consecutive months.
<bullet> Increasing the persistence in paid, self-sufficient
employment for individuals who have exited a federally funded public
workforce program in the last six months.
<bullet> Increasing the number of individuals in the United States
who participate in a registered apprenticeship while co-enrolled in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
Treasury does not expect to provide further funding opportunities
under the current SIPPRA appropriation.
A. Limitations
a. Directly Benefit Children
The SIPPRA statute 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.'' \5\
Treasury has met this requirement through the first two rounds of
funding but must still collect information to show the overall percent
of funding that directly benefits children, as defined further under
Section 4.A.f.(9), Whether the project will directly benefit children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Outcome Valuation Methodology
To determine the value to the federal government, Applicants must
provide a budget impact analysis (BIA) as the outcome valuation
methodology.\6\ BIA is a financial evaluation technique that estimates
the anticipated changes in spending (savings) and revenue resulting
from the proposed project. Reliance on BIA as the outcome valuation
methodology is a change from the FY24 NOFA, which used Benefit Cost
Analysis (BCA) as the outcome valuation methodology. Having used both
BCA and BIA in past funding rounds, Treasury has determined that BIA is
simpler to implement and better captures the value to the federal
government of the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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), <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49978">https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49978</a>; Possible Higher Spending Paths for Veterans' Benefits (2018),
<a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995">https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995</a>. An additional reference to
calculate federal outlays and revenues is available from the
National Bureau of Economic Research TAXSIM at http://
users.nber.org/~taxsim/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statute requires the federal payment for each specified outcome
to be less than or equal to the value of the outcome to the federal
government over a specified period we refer to as the ``valuation
period.'' The valuation period is selected by the Applicant but may
extend for no more than ten years after the start of the
intervention.\7\ See Section 4.A.f.(3), the project timeline, for a
definition of valuation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(c)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The applicant must also select a period during which it will
conduct outcome tracking for the project. We refer to the period
beginning with the start of the intervention through the last day of
outcome tracking as the ``period of performance.'' In some cases, the
outcome tracking may continue beyond the intervention period; in other
cases, the intervention period and period of performance may be the
same. The period of performance must end by September 2032. After the
period of performance, if an outcome has been met, Treasury will
provide payment based on the demonstrated value of the outcome to the
federal government over the entire valuation period, which may extend
beyond the period of performance in order to show the projected value
of an outcome for up to 10 years. For that reason, payment may be made
before the end of the valuation period. The valuation period is simply
a time limiting function of the BIA calculation process.
For each specified outcome, the Applicant must provide the
estimated savings and value over the valuation period and the period of
performance.
Over the course of the period of performance, the project must
provide savings to the State or local government or to the federal
government, in the form of reduced outlays.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of payment, the Applicant must only include
estimates of federal savings and revenue. If the project is expected to
affect state and local savings or revenue, those estimates must be
presented, but will not be included in the outcome payment cap.
For applicants who plan to use savings from Medicaid or CHIP, see
Appendix II: Integration of Managed
[[Page 11603]]
Care Information/Data for the integration of managed care information/
data. This information is required to certify such changes in spending.
The following shows the steps of the calculation of BIA. Applicants
must document the underlying literature, assumptions, and
justifications for how the intervention will achieve the estimated
savings and value in each step of the BIA calculation. The estimates
must be derived from the existing research or data on the topic with
clear citations for reviewers. The Applicant must detail how the
existing research can be reasonably applied to their approach (e.g. why
effect sizes from a project in Denver is relevant for the target
population in Boise).
Step 1: Estimate Target Population Baseline
A. Estimate Total Amount of Federal Outlays Expended on Target
Population During the Valuation Period in Dollars (Includes Cost of All
Federal Programs Used by Target Population)
The Applicant must document existing federal outlays that support
the target population during the valuation period. This includes, but
is not limited to, programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit
(EITC), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and
other relevant federal anti-poverty initiatives. This section will
establish a baseline by estimating the total federal resources
currently allocated to the target population in the absence of the
proposed intervention. The Applicant must document the existing federal
outlays over the period of performance and the valuation period.
B. Estimate Total Amount of Federal Revenue Generated by Target
Population During the Valuation Period, in Dollars, if Applicable
The Applicant must estimate the total amount of federal revenue
generated by the target population during the valuation period. The
Applicant must estimate the existing federal revenues over the period
of performance and the valuation period.
Step 2: Estimate Project Intervention Impact
C. Estimate How Much the Total Amount of Federal Outlays Expended on
the Target Population Will Change as a Direct Result of the SIPPRA
Intervention
The Applicant must document how federal outlays will change due to
achieving the outcome targets as a result of the intervention. The
outcome valuation must include increases in costs due to intended or
unintended impacts of the intervention. 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 considered.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ If the intervention's results would make the Awardee
eligible for other federal payments during the intervention period,
the estimated cost of those payments must be included in the BIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 spillover effects. For instance, if 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, then it is
unlikely that there is a reduction in outlays. There may also be
spillover effects of providing this training to the target population
to participants outside of the target population. For example, a job
training program may cause the displacement of workers currently
employed resulting in lower wages and higher benefit uptake for those
individuals.
The Applicant must clearly show the intervention effect over the
period of performance and the valuation period.
For applicants who plan to use savings from Medicaid or CHIP, see
Appendix II: Integration of Managed Care Information/Data for the
integration of managed care information/data. This information is
required to certify such changes in spending.
D. Estimate How Much Total Federal Taxes Paid by Target Population Will
Change as a Result of the Intervention
The Applicant must document how the federal taxes will change if
the project reaches the assumed outcome target. Applicants must take
into account tax credits and deductions when estimating changes to
federal taxes paid by the target population. The changes in federal tax
revenues should be shown over the period of performance and the
valuation period. Changes in federal tax revenues are not required for
a project to be funded.
Step 3: Estimate Value of the Intervention to the Federal Government
The Applicant must measure the difference between the baseline and
impact estimates. The Applicant must detail the savings (post-
intervention federal outlays (C) minus baseline federal outlays (A))
and the change in revenues (post-intervention federal revenues (D)
minus baseline federal revenues (B)). The ``value to the federal
government'' is calculated as the sum of the savings plus the change in
revenues. Treasury will pay no more than the value estimated in this
step. As a formula, this is:
Value = Change in Spending + Change in Revenue = (C-A) + (D-B)
Applicants must include 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 and the valuation period.
The Applicant must also include the estimated value, estimated
value per project participant, and estimated value per dollar spent on
the intervention over the valuation period. Applicants must provide the
estimated total value over the period of performance and the valuation
period.
a. Outcome Valuation Spreadsheet
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 in a
spreadsheet so that the analyses can be replicated.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A tool to assist grantees in their calculations will be
available on Treasury's SIPPRA website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The spreadsheet must include all formulas used and 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.
The estimates in the spreadsheet must include the annual and
cumulative net effect of each intervention on federal revenues and
outlays overall, per dollar of intervention, and per participant over
the period of performance and the valuation period.
[[Page 11604]]
The estimates of baseline federal outlays and revenues and the
estimated federal outlays and revenues after the intervention must be
rounded to the nearest hundred, rounding up any number that ends in a
number greater than $50 to the nearest $100.
b. State and Local Outlays and Revenues
As required by SIPPRA statute, if the project's outcome target will
result in changes to the state or local outlays and revenues, the
Applicant is required to submit these estimates. They should be
presented in a similar manner to the federal savings and value
calculation explained above. However, these estimates will not be
incorporated into the value to the federal government calculation.
Treasury will use these estimates as a part of the scoring rubric (see
Section 6.B, Review Criteria), and they will be presented alongside the
federal estimates when selecting the final awardees.
If the investor (see Section 4.A.g.(3), Partner Qualifications for
a description of investor) is a state or local government, the program
costs must be included in the assessment of state and local outlays and
revenues.
C. Evaluation Methodology
This section addresses the evaluation design and research
methodologies.
a. 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
4.A.g(4), Evaluation design plan.
The evaluation design plan may evolve during a project's early
implementation period (approximately the first 12-18 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 evaluation design plan to
Treasury or the administering federal agency once it is finalized.
Elements of the evaluation design plan will be posted on the Federal
Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships (Interagency Council)
website.
b. Evaluation Requirements
The SIPPRA statute requires the Awardee demonstrate that outcomes
``have been achieved as a result of the intervention.'' The evaluation
must use rigorous methods that can reliably show this direct link.
These methods are either experimental designs with random assignment or
other strong, evidence-based research methods approved by the
Interagency Council when random assignment is not feasible.\11\ These
other approaches are commonly called quasi-experimental designs. The
main goal of the project's independent evaluation is to determine how
strongly the project can say that it caused the observed outcomes and
not something else.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 group will
receive the intervention and the other will continue as normal. Because
people are randomly assigned to these groups, RCTs help minimize the
chance that any differences in outcomes we see are due to other
factors, rather than the project itself.
If randomization is not feasible, Treasury will also accept other
reliable, evidence-based research methodologies often called quasi-
experimental designs. These methods compare the outcomes of the group
receiving the project to a similar group that did not. While they do
not use random assignment, these designs use careful planning and
analysis to create a comparison group that is as similar as possible to
the project group. Applicants that cannot implement an RCT study will
not be deemed less competitive or penalized for implementing a quasi-
experimental design. These methods include regression discontinuity
design, difference-in-differences, and propensity score matching, among
others.
However, the application must clearly explain why randomization is
not feasible and show how the Applicant plans to control for other
factors without using random assignment. This could include who was
selected for the project, other policies that were in place, changes in
the economy, or other factors that might have influenced the results.
The Applicant shall also describe how the services received by the
project group will be different from what the comparison group
receives.
A key part of both types of evaluations will be showing that the
results are likely due to a causal effect and not chance. This is often
done using a concept called statistical significance. The evaluation
needs to show that the difference in outcomes between the project group
and the comparison group is unlikely to have happened randomly. For
purposes of the SIPPRA program, the result 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 submitted in 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 an overly strong assumption (a dominant prior) in the
prior distribution. Applicants using this approach must use high-
quality experimental or quasi-experimental evidence to justify the
prior distribution.
c. Evidence Standard
The SIPPRA statute requires Treasury to consider the likelihood,
based on evidence provided in the application and other evidence, that
the partnership will achieve the specified outcomes. This proof must
come from well-designed studies that use experiments or other reliable
methods to show that the approach causes the desired results and well-
conducted studies with many participants in different settings that
also show the approach works.
The level of improvement the project estimates it will achieve must
be based on existing research.
For each project application, a Subject Matter Expert Panel
(``Panel'') will determine the strength of the evidence provided.
Projects with strong or moderate evidence are generally the best fit
for the SIPPRA program, but all applications will be considered.
<bullet> 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). Examples include:
(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,
[[Page 11605]]
multi-site trial that supports the effectiveness of the practice,
strategy, or program.
<bullet> Moderate evidence means that there is a reasonably
developed evidence base that can support causal conclusions. There must
be 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 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; or
(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.
<bullet> Preliminary evidence means that the evidence base can
support conclusions about the program's contribution to observed
outcomes. The evidence base must consist 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;
(2) pre- and post-test research that determines whether
beneficiaries have improved on an intended outcome; or
(3) rigorous implementation studies.
d. Independent Evaluation Activities
By statute, SIPPRA projects must have evaluations conducted by
independent evaluators.
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 independent evaluation activities of the project, regardless of
whether outcomes are met. 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.
Any activities reasonably related and necessary to the evaluation
are eligible to be funded through this award. This includes paying for
staff time, purchasing data access, or travel related to the project.
The expected evaluation activities will need to be listed when
finalizing the award.
e. Independent Evaluator
Treasury will assess the independence and experience of the
evaluator. The Applicant is required to show the evaluator's experience
in conducting rigorous evaluations of program effectiveness including
RCTs or quasi-experimental methods on the intervention or similar
interventions. Treasury may determine there is not sufficient
independence or experience and request a change in the independent
evaluator before making an award.
f. Agreement With Independent Evaluator
The agreement between the Awardee and the independent evaluator
must address the following:
<bullet> An evaluation design and methodology that will return the
causal effect of the program.
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval or a plan to get
IRB approval to ensure the protection of human subjects, to the extent
applicable; and
<bullet> 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 8.B.b, Evaluation
Progress Reports and Section 8.B.c, Final Evaluation Report.
If the Applicant is unable to execute an agreement prior to the
application deadline, Treasury will require the Applicant to detail how
it will procure the evaluator in the application. This shall include a
potential list of suitable evaluators, the steps for procuring the
evaluator's contract (e.g., approval by city council), and a reasonable
timeframe for procuring the evaluator's contract. The process to
procure the evaluator must detail how the Applicant will ensure it will
meet statutory guidelines. If the Applicant is selected, it will be
expected to finalize this agreement before the award will be finalized.
4. Application Contents and Format
A. Application Contents
Applications submitted in response to this NOFO 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) <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a> Lobbying Form;
(f) Project Narrative
The project narrative (page limit is 20 pages) must include the
following:
(1) A one-page executive summary that follows the format as laid
out in Appendix I.
(2) The outcome goals of the project.
This section shall cite available research to explain how the
project will achieve the specified outcome goals. This description must
include the unmet need in the target population that the intervention
is trying to fulfill. The Applicant must provide the highest outcome
level that it reasonably expects to achieve. The Applicant may provide
a reasonable estimated range that it expects to achieve, and the
outcome payment cap will be set at the highest end of that range. This
section must also include a theory of change and logic model for how
the intervention will lead to these outcome goals building from the
available research.
<bullet> Theory of Change: This explains the logical steps and the
evidence-based reasoning behind why you believe the program's actions
will lead to the intended outcomes.
<bullet> Logic Model: This visually maps out the project, showing
the resources the Applicant will use, the activities, the immediate
outputs, the short-term outcomes, and the long-term impacts. It
[[Page 11606]]
helps connect the project design to how the Applicant will measure and
track progress.
The Applicant must also provide a summary of the value of the
anticipated outcomes that is laid out in detail in section #7 of the
project narrative attachments.
(3) The project timeline.
The project timeline must include an estimated duration for each
phase of the project. Be sure to include the following periods:
1. Procurement and Ramp-Up Periods
<bullet> Procurement Period: The time needed to hire or contract
with external partners, such as service providers, intermediaries, or
evaluators.
<bullet> Ramp-up Period: The time required to prepare the project
for implementation, which may include finalizing documents, hiring
staff, creating data sharing agreements, and other administrative
tasks. The ramp-up period concludes when the target population starts
the intervention.
2. Key Project Timeframes
<bullet> Intervention Period: The period during which participants
are actively involved in the project, from the first day they receive
services to the last day they participate.
<bullet> Period of Performance: The timeframe from the start of the
intervention period through the last day of outcome tracking. (In some
cases, the outcome tracking may continue beyond the intervention
period; in other cases, the intervention period and period of
performance may be the same.)
<bullet> Valuation Period: The specific timeframe used to calculate
the total financial value of a project's outcome to the federal
government. This calculated value sets the cap on the maximum payment
the federal government can make for that outcome.
(4) A description of each intervention in the project and a service
delivery plan for delivering the intervention through a social impact
partnership model.
The Applicant must provide details for how each of the chosen
interventions will affect the target population. The outcome goals
described above must be referenced for each of the interventions.
The service delivery plan must detail how the project will
implement each intervention and include a discussion of how the project
will incorporate feedback from the evaluation into its ongoing
operations.
If procuring services is required, the Applicant must detail what
the procurement process will look like and how long that process
typically takes.
If the Applicant does not have all funding secured at the time of
application submission, the Applicant must provide a detailed
fundraising plan to meet all funding requirements.
(5) The proposed payment terms.
This section must include the payment schedule, the methodology
used to calculate outcome payments, and performance thresholds for
defining success. These must be reasonably derived from the outcome
valuation completed in Project Narrative Attachment #7. This section
may include details as to how the Applicant plans to incorporate
assumptions about value that is produced outside of the period of
performance. The proposed payment terms must include the following:
<bullet> Payment Schedule: Propose a schedule for how and when
payments will be made. An Applicant may propose a single payment at the
end of the project or multiple payments throughout the project
duration.
<bullet> Payment Methodology: Provide a clear formula for
calculating payments, which may include potential tiers, bonuses, or
penalties. This methodology must reference the evaluation design plan,
including specific metrics used to measure outcomes, how the level of
the outcome will be translated into value, and the independent
verification process that will confirm outcomes.
<bullet> Performance Thresholds: Define measurable performance
thresholds that will trigger payments, ranging from the minimum payment
required to the maximum cap. The Panel will consider the extent to
which robust payment structures incentivize desired outcomes through a
well-defined methodology, schedule, and performance thresholds.
(6) The target population that will be served by the project.
This section must include a description of the target population
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) Social benefits.
The Applicant must also detail 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.
This section must include a description of whether and how the
Applicant and service providers plan to sustain the intervention beyond
the period of performance. The Applicant must detail the strategies for
leveraging data and evidence generated from the project's activities to
inform adaptation, continuation, or scaling of the project.
(9) Whether the project will directly benefit children.
This section must include a description of whether the project will
directly benefit children. If so, the Applicant must specify how the
project will benefit children and provide an estimate of the percentage
of project participants who are expected to be children. 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 or
non-parental primary caregivers if the application presents strong
evidence demonstrating a close logical, causal, and consequential
relationship between the project's effect on parents or caregivers and
the resulting positive effect on the parents' or caregivers' children.
For projects where the target population is parents or primary
caregivers, being a parent or primary caregiver must be part of the
intervention's eligibility criteria in order to qualify as directly
benefiting children. Portions of projects can directly benefit children
without having the entire project directly benefit children. If a
project directly benefits children, the Applicant must detail what
percent of its value directly benefits children.
(g) Project Narrative Attachments
(1) Project budget: The Applicant must use SF-425A or SF-424C (for
construction-related projects) to draft the programmatic budget,
including amounts expected to be expended by partners. This is a
complete estimate of how much will be spent over the course of the
project. The Applicant must also provide a brief narrative for the
budget, including descriptions of each line item. Please limit this
narrative to 5 pages or fewer.
(2) Partnership agreements: The Applicant may provide an executed
or draft partnership agreement between the Applicant and all project
partners. If the Applicant must use a procurement process to select
project partners, the Applicant may submit the process they will use to
select the partners and verify that process meets the requirements
listed below. This will include a timeline for how long this process
will
[[Page 11607]]
take. The partnership agreement must address each of the following:
i. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of each partner;
ii. A plan for sharing data among the partners, including a
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;
iii. 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
iv. 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, the federal government is not
responsible for making payments to the Awardee's partners other than
the independent evaluator.
(3) Partner qualifications. Please limit this to 5 pages or fewer.
The Applicant must provide a description of the expertise of the
project partners. If the Applicant must use a procurement process to
select project partners, the Applicant may submit the process they will
use to select the partners and how that process will ensure the partner
has the necessary expertise.
i. 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 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.
ii. Intermediary. Describe 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.
iii. Investor. 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) 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 including an explanation for why randomization is not feasible
(if applicable);
(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;
(7) Describing anticipated challenges, such as attrition, failed
randomization, and oversubscription and plans to mitigate them; and
(8) Showing that the evaluation will be independent of the
intervention.
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;
(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)
(5) Independent evaluator qualifications: Provide a summary
[[Page 11608]]
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.
i. Experience working with the datasets the project expects to use;
ii. 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 size, scope
and complexity;
iii. 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;
iv. Experience in managing similar evaluation protocols (e.g., type
of sampling, data collection, analysis); and
v. Experience dealing with unforeseen data or implementation issues
in other program evaluations. Provide specific examples and experiences
dealing with unforeseen data or implementation issues.
(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.
i. 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;
ii. Design and coding of a management information system, as
needed, that is tailored for research or evaluation, to track
participants and/or to obtain individual level data;
iii. 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;
iv. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval or a plan to get IRB
approval to ensure the protection of human subjects, to the extent
applicable; and
v. 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 8.B.b, Evaluation Progress
Reports and Section 8.B.c, Evaluation Final Report.
vi. A payment plan that details the annual payment schedule that
aligns with the other requirements of the independent evaluator.
The selection of an independent evaluator is subject to the
procurement requirements of the Uniform Guidance, including those
related to competitive procurement.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ There are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive
procurement can be used. See 2 CFR 200.320(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An independent evaluator's experience and independence are
considered in the review process. If you are unable to submit the name
and qualifications of the independent evaluator when you submit the
application to Treasury, you may submit in the SIPPRA application a
description of the process you will use to choose an independent
evaluator. That process must include the requirements noted above that
will be incorporated into the independent evaluator agreement.
(7) Outcome valuation: Provide an attachment detailing the outcome
valuation of the anticipated outcomes, as described in Section 3.B,
Outcome Valuation Methodology. 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. Applicants must cite evidence that the
reviewers can assess when deriving the savings and value. Treasury
requires that the Applicant provide an unprotected spreadsheet that
allows a reviewer to view and manipulate all underlying data. Please
limit this to 10 pages or fewer.
(8) Legal compliance for projects that include construction (if
applicable): Applicants proposing a project including a construction
component must identify applicable State and federal environmental
laws, regulations, policies, and required environmental documents.
Applicants proposing a project including a transportation component
must identify applicable federal, State, and local laws relating to
that component, and required permitting and licensing documents. The
applicant must identify laws applying to the population being served
and verify that the project will be in compliance with those laws. The
applicant must comply with applicable federal, State, and local privacy
laws. The applicant must identify any approved waivers, 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 and
when approval is expected. 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. Application Format
The project application must be prepared using the following
formatting and organizational guidelines:
1. Number all pages.
2. Be double-spaced, with text in a single column.
3. Be a standard 12-point font, such as Times New Roman.
4. Use 1-inch margins.
5. Not exceed 20 pages in length, excluding the table of contents,
appendices, or attachments. See each individual attachment for page
limits.
6. As appropriate, include graphics, charts, or lists to make the
information easier to review.
7. 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. Non-working links may negatively affect the review of the
application.
8. If supporting documents are submitted, applicants must clearly
identify within the application the relevant portion of the application
that each supporting document supports.
9. Use appropriately descriptive file names (e.g., ``Application,''
``Budget Workbook,'' ``Letter of Support'') for all attachments.
10. All file names must be prefaced with the applicant's name or
initials.
5. Submission Requirements and Deadlines
A. Submission Requirements
a. Request Application Package
Applicants must apply using <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a>. Applicants can find this
opportunity and all application materials and instructions in the
announcement at <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a> under number 21.017.
[[Page 11609]]
General information for registering and submitting applications
through <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a> can be found at <a href="https://www.grants.gov/register">https://www.grants.gov/register</a>.
Once you have located the funding opportunity in <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a>, you can
find the full application under the ``Package'' tab. It will include a
series of required forms. Information on how to apply for grants can be
found at <a href="https://www.grants.gov/applicants/applicant-registration">https://www.grants.gov/applicants/applicant-registration</a>.
Registration is a multi-step process that may take several weeks to
complete before an application may be submitted. <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a> scheduled
maintenance and outage times are announced on <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a>. 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 <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a>. Only applications submitted through <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a>
will be reviewed. Applications submitted through email or other methods
will not be reviewed.
Applications may withdraw from consideration by providing written
notice to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8fdcc6dfdfddcecfdbfdeaeefcfafdf6a1e8e0f9">[email protected]</a> at any time before an award is made.
b. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (<a href="http://SAM.gov">SAM.gov</a>)
The Applicant, if they do not have an exemption under Sec. 25.110,
must
(1) Be registered in <a href="http://SAM.gov">SAM.gov</a> before submitting an application;
(2) Maintain a current and active registration in <a href="http://SAM.gov">SAM.gov</a> at all
times during which it has an active Federal award as a recipient or an
application under consideration by a Federal agency. The applicant or
recipient must review and update its information in <a href="http://SAM.gov">SAM.gov</a> annually
from the date of initial registration or subsequent updates to ensure
it is current, accurate, and complete. If applicable, this includes
identifying the applicant's or recipient's immediate and highest-level
owner and subsidiaries, as well as providing information on all
predecessors that have received a Federal award or contract within the
last three years; and
(3) Include its UEI in each application it submits to the Federal
agency.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 2 CFR 25.200(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <a href="http://SAM.gov">SAM.gov</a>-registered legal name and address on all grant
applications to Treasury. Treasury will not make an award if the
Applicant has not complied with all applicable <a href="http://SAM.gov">SAM.gov</a>
requirements.\14\ If the entity is currently registered in <a href="http://SAM.gov">SAM.gov</a>, the
UEI has already been assigned and is viewable in <a href="http://SAM.gov">SAM.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For more information about SAM, see the information
provided by the General Services Administration at <a href="https://sam.gov/content/about/this-site">https://sam.gov/content/about/this-site</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Submission Instructions
Submission instructions may be found here: <a href="https://www.grants.gov/applicants/grant-applications/how-to-apply-for-grants">https://www.grants.gov/applicants/grant-applications/how-to-apply-for-grants</a>.
Please contact Matthew Cook, SIPPRA Program Director, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5f0c160f0f0d1e1f0b2d3a3e2c2a2d2671383029">[email protected]</a> if you have any issues.
d. Submission Dates and Times
Applications must be submitted between 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time on
(one month after publication) and 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time on (five
months after application). Applications must be submitted
electronically through <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a>. Mail, email, or facsimile (FAX)
submissions will not be accepted.
All applications will be reviewed after the deadline has passed. If
an applicant submits multiple versions of the same application,
Treasury will review the most recent submission.
e. 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 <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SPOC-4-13-20.pdf">https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SPOC-4-13-20.pdf</a>. Applications from federally recognized Indian
tribes are not subject to intergovernmental review.
6. Application Review Information
A. Threshold Criteria
Treasury will review all applications to determine if the applicant
is a State or local government and submitted all required information
in the requested format. An application received from an ineligible
entity or for an ineligible project will be rejected. 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.
B. Review Criteria
Subject Matter Review Scoring Rubric
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Subcategory Points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Outcome Valuation.............. Savings to the 15
federal, State, and
local government.
Value to the federal 10
government.
Payment terms....... 5
Subtotal...................... .................... 30
II. Likelihood of Achieving Evidence 15
Outcomes. demonstrating
intervention can be
expected to achieve
desired outcome.
Project plan and 10
service delivery
plan.
Project budget...... 5
Partnerships........ 10
Subtotal...................... .................... 40
III. Quality of Evaluation........ Evaluation design 10
and metrics.
Evaluator 10
independence and
experience.
Access to data...... 5
Subtotal...................... .................... 25
IV. Capacity and Commitment to .................... 5
Sustain the Intervention.
-------------------------------------
TOTAL......................... .................... 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11610]]
i. Outcome Valuation
This section has three components: value to the federal government,
estimates of state and local outlays and revenues, and the proposed
payment terms. 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 Government
SIPPRA statute requires Treasury to take into consideration the
savings to the federal, State and local governments.\15\ The term
``savings'' refers to reduced outlays, whether by the federal or State
or local government, as applicable, as a result of the project.\16\
There must be savings to the federal, State or local government, for a
project to be funded through the SIPPRA program.\17\ Increased revenues
as a result of the intervention are not considered savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b)(4)-(5).
\16\ Id.
\17\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(b); 42 U.S.C 1397n-5(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Subject Matter Expert Review Panel (``Panel'') will ensure that
the Applicant meets the threshold requirement of the presence of
federal, State, or local savings. Then, the Panel 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
the comprehensiveness of the estimated savings. Applicants will receive
higher scores for comprehensive and well-justified estimates of
savings.
Applicants must include the estimated total savings, estimated
savings per project participant, and estimated savings per dollar spent
on the intervention over the valuation period. 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.\18\ Value calculated for the purpose of this NOFO is
discussed in Section 3.B, Outcome Valuation Methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(c)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Panel will determine how likely the project is to achieve the
value, 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 would be sufficient for the analysis. Applicants will
receive higher scores for comprehensive and well-justified estimates of
value.
Applicants must include the estimated total value, estimated value
per project participant, and estimated value per dollar spent on the
intervention over the valuation period.
III. Payment Terms
The Panel will evaluate proposed payment terms to ensure a clear
link between the outcome valuation and potential payments. Applications
must detail the payment schedule, the methodology for calculating
outcome payments, and the performance thresholds triggering payment.
Applicants may propose to have one payment at the end of the project or
multiple payments throughout the duration of the project.
The terms shall specify the payment calculation formula (including
potential tiers, bonuses, or penalties), reference the evaluation
design plan (including the metrics used to measure outcomes, the
baseline data, and the independent verification process), and clearly
articulate how outcome achievement translates to payment using the
outcome values over the valuation period. Clearly defined and
measurable performance thresholds for the requested minimum payment to
the outcome payment cap are required. Applicant will receive higher
scores for more detailed and realistic payment terms.
ii. Likelihood of Achieving Outcomes
The SIPPRA statute requires Treasury to consider 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.\19\
Projects showing a greater likelihood of achieving outcomes will
receive more points from the Panel as detailed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Evidence Demonstrating Intervention can be Expected To Achieve
Desired Outcome
The Panel will assess Applicants' compliance with the statutory
requirement to provide evidence demonstrating that the intervention can
be expected to produce the estimated changes in the chosen
outcomes.\20\ The Panel will evaluate the comprehensiveness of the
presented evidence (evidence that leaves no significant gaps or
unanswered questions regarding the intervention's rationale, design,
feasibility, and expected outcomes) and categorize it as strong,
moderate, or preliminary (see Section 3.C.c, Evidence Standard for
definitions of evidence).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c)(3), 1397n-2(c)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panels will also assess the extent to which the theory of change
and the logic model accurately represent the causal steps necessary to
understand how the intervention will cause the change in outcomes in
the participants.
II. Project and Service Delivery Plan
Each intervention must clearly detail the activities the program
will take to improve the lives of its target population. The Panel 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.<SUP>21 22</SUP> The Panel will
assess the thoroughness and comprehensiveness of the Applicant's
service delivery plan for delivering the intervention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-1(c).
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Panel 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.\23\ The Panel 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Project Budget
The Panel will assess the Applicant's project budget.\24\ The Panel
will closely review the project's total budget as well as the budget
categories listed in each respective section. The Panel will ensure the
project costs are reasonable and consistent with program objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs (SF-424A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Project Partners
The Panel 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
[[Page 11611]]
provider, investor, or other stakeholder.\25\ The Panel will 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.\26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id.
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. While securing complete funding is not
required at the time of application submission or when the period of
performance begins, the Applicant must be able to provide a detailed
overview of how and when it anticipates obtaining the investments
needed to operate the program.
iii. Quality of Evaluation
I. Evaluation Design and Metrics
The SIPPRA statute requires Treasury to consider the expected
quality of the evaluation of the proposed intervention that the
independent evaluator will conduct. The Panel will assess the project's
evaluation design, including the rigor and strength of the design, its
capacity to determine that the outcomes were achieved as a result of
the intervention, the 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. The Panel will also determine whether
randomization is feasible, and if not, the Panel will assess whether
the reason provided by the Applicant is sufficient to allow an
alternative evaluation. This assessment will be provided to the
Interagency Council, which will make the final determination as to
whether an evaluation method other than randomization is allowable.
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 project effectiveness. Types of
experience that will be reviewed include experience with the chosen
evaluation design method as applied to the intervention or similar
interventions and the datasets the project expects to use, as well as
experience 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 considered.
If the Applicant does not provide a letter of intent from an
evaluator at the time of submission, the Applicant can detail the
criteria to be used to select the evaluator through a procurement
process. The criteria used to select the evaluator must be aligned with
the information requested of the evaluator noted above.
III. Access to Data
Panels will assess whether the Applicant has sufficiently
demonstrated that it has access to the correct data to assess the
causal result of the intervention. The SIPPRA statute requires that the
Interagency Council certify that the independent evaluator has access
to federal administrative data to conduct the independent
evaluation.\27\ If the Applicant requires federal administrative data,
the Panel will assess whether it has access to all relevant data or
whether there are gaps in their assumptions. This assessment will be
provided to the Council, which will make the certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 42 U.S.C. 1397n-5(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Capacity and Commitment to Sustain the Intervention
The SIPPRA statute requires Treasury to consider ``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.'' \28\
The Panel will consider the Applicant's submissions with respect to
State or local government and service providers' plans to sustain the
intervention. Although the primary focus will be on the period of
performance, the Panel will provide additional points to applications
that demonstrate a commitment from the State or local government and
service providers and the availability of sufficient funding to extend
the project, if appropriate, beyond the project period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 42 U.S.C. 1397n-2(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Review and Selection Process
The following is the review process for determining the award
recipients. During the review process and risk assessment evaluation,
Treasury may ask the Applicant to provide confirming or clarifying
information. A request for confirmation or clarification does not
guarantee an award. If the 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.
<bullet> Phase 1: Eligibility and Completeness Review
<bullet> Phase 2: Subject Matter Expert Panel Review
<bullet> Phase 3: Consistency Review
<bullet> Phase 4: Commission Recommendations
<bullet> Phase 5: Interagency Council Certification
<bullet> Phase 6: Treasury Determination
(1) Phase 1: Eligibility and Completeness 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; whether the proposed project qualifies as an eligible
project as set forth in Section 2, Eligibility; and whether each of the
application content requirements set forth in Section 5, Submission
Requirements and Deadlines 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.\29\ An application received from an
ineligible entity or for an ineligible project will be rejected.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Department of Treasury, SIPPRA--Pay for Results, <a href="https://home.treasury.gov/services/social-impact-partnerships/sippra-pay-for-results">https://home.treasury.gov/services/social-impact-partnerships/sippra-pay-for-results</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) 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 benefits or
[[Page 11612]]
problems, technical expertise in the type of intervention, experience
working with the target population that is the subject of the
application, or other considerations. 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 in Section 6, Application Review Information.
(3) Phase 3: Consistency Review
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. After this review, the reviewer
scores will be averaged to create a ranking that will be provided to
the Commission on Social Impact Partnerships.
(4) Phase 4: Commission Recommendations
SIPPRA statute 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
based on expertise laid out in SIPPRA statute.\30\ The Commission will
review eligible applications and make recommendations to Treasury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 42 U.S.C. 1397n-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Phase 5: Interagency Council Certification
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's responsibilities include
certifying Federal savings, providing subject-matter expertise, and
advising the Secretary of the Treasury.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 42 U.S.C. 1397n-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By statute,\32\ the Interagency Council will determine whether to
certify the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> The evaluation design uses experimental designs using
random assignment or other reliable, evidence-based research
methodologies that allow for the strongest possible causal inferences
when random assignment is not feasible.
<bullet> The State or local government and its evaluator has access
to federal administrative data.
<bullet> The application contains 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.
<bullet> For proposed projects that expect to provide savings to
the federal government, the project will yield a projected savings to
the federal government if the project outcomes are achieved.
(6) Phase 6: Treasury Determination
Treasury, after consultation with the Interagency Council, will
make a final determination regarding which projects to select. Treasury
may also take into account considerations set out in Section 4 of
Executive Order 14332, ``Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking.''
Treasury may also give particular consideration to applications that
propose workforce development projects, consistent with SIPPRA's
emphasis on workforce outcomes.
b. Risk Review
As required by 2 CFR.200.206, Treasury will review the risks posed
by the applicants. Treasury will 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.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Each applicant may review information in the designated
integrity and performance systems accessible through <a href="http://SAM.gov">SAM.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://SAM.gov">SAM.gov</a>.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\34\ 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 6.B, Review Criteria, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 2 CFR part 200, appendix XII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Award Notices
Before a grant is awarded, Treasury or the relevant federal agency
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 or the relevant
federal agency may terminate the negotiations and decline to fund the
award.
Treasury expects to announce the results of this competition by FY
XX (to be determined). Any notice of selection prior to a Notice of
Award (NoA) is not an authorization to begin performance. Treasury will
provide successful applicants with a NoA that will set forth the amount
of the award, the amount for the independent evaluation, and other
pertinent information. The NoA is the official document issued to
obligate funds and notify an applicant that an award has been made. 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.
After Treasury issues a NoA, Treasury or the relevant federal agency
will provide the Awardee a time period to finalize pertinent documents
before starting the project.
Note that any communication between Treasury, the relevant federal
agency, 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 as soon as
practicable. Unsuccessful
[[Page 11613]]
applicants may apply under subsequent NOFOs, if any.
8. Post-Award Requirements and Administration
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, as codified in the Uniform Guidance.
A. Administrative Program Requirements
Awards under this NOFO are subject to federal laws, regulations,
and policies concerning grants. Below is a non-exhaustive list of
requirements with which the applicant will need to comply:
1. Lobbying Restrictions at 31 CFR part 21.
2. Government-wide Debarment and Suspension Requirements at 31 CFR
part 19.
3. Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace at 31 CFR
part 20.
4. Award Term for Trafficking in Persons at 2 CFR part 175.
5. Environmental Requirements.
Treasury approval of financial assistance is subject to compliance
with applicable federal and State environmental requirements. As
discussed under Section 4.A.g(8), 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. Grantees whose projects do not fall within Treasury's
categorical exclusions will be required to assist Treasury in
conducting an Environmental Assessment and an Environmental Impact
Statement for the project, as applicable.
6. 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 (Pub. L. 92-255), as amended, relating to
nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; (g) the Comprehensive
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation
Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination
on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; (h) Section 523 and 527 of
the Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 290dd-3 and 290ee-3),
as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse
patient records; and (i) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the
sale, rental or financing of housing.
In implementing non-discrimination statutes and regulations,
recipients must take into account applicable federal guidance,
including the Department of Justice Memorandum of July 29, 2025,
``Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful
Discrimination.'' This funding opportunity is subject to Executive
Orders regarding anti-discrimination and federal rulemaking, to the
extent applicable to the SIPPRA program, including Executive Order
14151, ``Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and
Preferencing,'' Executive Order 14281, ``Restoring Equality of
Opportunity and Meritocracy,'' and Executive Order 14332 ``Improving
Oversight of Federal Grantmaking.''
7. 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 NOFO
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.
8. Access To Records/Oversight
By accepting a project award under this NOFO, 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 NOFO, the Awardee also
agrees to participate in a national cross-site evaluation in the event
that the federal government conducts one.
9. 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.
10. 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.
[[Page 11614]]
11. 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.
B. 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 Reports
Treasury or the relevant federal agency will require programmatic
progress reports twice a year. A performance report form must be
submitted within 30 days of June 30 and December 31 each year of the
project. 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
annually thereafter, the independent evaluator must submit a written
report to the head of Treasury or 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 a
written report that includes the results of the evaluation conducted to
determine whether an outcome payment must be made.
The report must explain 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 learned during the
evaluation, including how to improve future service delivery or
implementation.
The report must assess the degree to which the project was
delivered as intended, including a discussion of how closely the
project's theory and 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 must
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 3.B, Outcome Valuation Methodology.
Treasury will submit these reports to the Interagency Council 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, and no later than March
2033, the independent evaluator must submit a final report to the head
of the relevant federal agency managing the award. 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.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must also detail how the unique characteristics of the
pay-for-results model assisted or hindered the implementation of the
project. Potential questions include what the evaluators are learning
about the feasibility/viability of the pay-for-results approach;
whether the financing/managerial structure is incentivizing the right
partners in the right ways; and challenges in implementing the pay-for-
results model in areas such as project management, partner
communication, dispute resolution, investor relations, and overseeing
service provision.
The independent evaluator's final report for a project must include
an assessment of the value to the federal government as discussed and
defined in Section 3.B, Outcome Valuation Methodology. In calculating
the value to the federal government of the completed outcome(s), the
independent evaluator may only take into consideration the value from
the outcome valuation.
Treasury will submit this report to the Interagency Council 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.
Appendix I: Executive Summary
[Name of Applicant]
[Name of Project]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Award Requested Amount......... $
Children/Non-Children.................. $/$
Requested Award as Percent of Overall (XX%)
Project Budget.
Award Period........................... XX 20XX-XX 20XX
Period of Performance.................. XX 20XX-XX 20XX
Independent Evaluator.................. XX
IE Award Requested Amount.............. $XX
[[Page 11615]]
Independent Evaluation Date(s)......... XX 20XX, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Description:
Target Population and Eligibility Criteria (including estimated
number of participants):
Partners:
Evaluation Method:
Outcome Target(s):
Summary of Value to the Federal Government:
Proposed Payment Terms:
9. 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:
<bullet> To what degree will participants in the intervention be
covered by comprehensive, risk-based managed care during the period
of the demonstration?
<bullet> For intervention participants covered by a managed care
organization, how would savings accrue to the federal government
rather than the entity taking on risk?
<bullet> What services, if any, will be carved out of managed
care for this population?
<bullet> If multiple capitation rates are used, which rate cells
(by eligibility group or other category) will be used for the SIPPRA
program project participants?
<bullet> 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?
<bullet> How would this intervention lead to reduced capitation
rates?
<bullet> 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?
<bullet> For the population covered by managed care, what
proportion of individuals covered under the relevant rate cell(s)
are participants in the intervention?
<bullet> 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 the 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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 BIA
procedures discussed above are followed.
[FR Doc. 2026-04685 Filed 3-9-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AK-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 10, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.