2021 Federal Standard of Excellence

Resources*

Did the agency invest at least 1% of program funds in evaluations in FY21? (Examples: Impact studies; implementation studies; rapid cycle evaluations; evaluation technical assistance, and capacity-building)

Score
9
Millennium Challenge Corporation
3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY21 budget.
  • MCC invested $17.6 million on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 2.2% of the agency’s $800 million FY21 budget (minus staff/salary expenses).
3.2 Did the agency have a budget for evaluation and how much was it? (Were there any changes in this budget from the previous fiscal year?)
  • MCC budgeted $17.6 million on monitoring and evaluation in FY21, an increase of $1.5 million compared to FY20 ($16.1 million total).
3.3 Did the agency provide financial and other resources to help city, county, and state governments or other grantees build their evaluation capacity (including technical assistance funds for data and evidence capacity building)?
  • In support of MCC’s emphasis on country ownership, MCC also provides substantial, intensive, and ongoing capacity building to partner country Monitoring and Evaluation staff in every country in which it invests. As a part of this, MCC provides training and ongoing mentorship in the local language. This includes publishing select independent evaluations, Evaluation Briefs, and other documentation in the country’s local language. The dissemination of local language publications helps further MCC’s reach to its partner country’s government and members of civil society, enabling them to fully reference and utilize evidence and learning beyond the program. MCC also includes data strengthening and national statistical capacity as a part of its evidence-building investments. This agency-wide commitment to building and expanding an evidence-based approach with every partner country is a key component of MCC’s investments.
  • As a prime example of this work, MCC continues to implement a first-of-its-kind evaluation partnership in its Morocco investment. MCA-Morocco, the local implementing entity, signed MCC’s first Cooperation Agreement, a funded partnership within a country program, under the new Partnership Navigator Program Partnership Solicitation process. This first MCA-driven partnership agreement is bringing Nobel prize-winning economic analysis approaches from MIT and Harvard to partner with a Moroccan think tank to create an Employment Lab to conduct rigorous research into Moroccan labor market programs and policies. This research is coupled with training and capacity building to key Moroccan policymakers to promote evidence-based decision-making.
Score
5
U.S. Department of Education
3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY21 budget.
  • ED invested $228 million in high-quality evaluations of federal programs, evaluations as part of field-initiated research and development, technical assistance related to evaluation and evidence-building, and capacity-building in FY21. This includes work awarded by the Regional Educational Laboratories ($55.6 million), NCEE’s Evaluation Division ($48.5 million), NCER Efficacy and Effectiveness Trials ($65.9 million), SBIR Phase II Projects ($10.1 million), NCSER Efficacy Trials ($30.4 million), and NCSER Replication Trials ($17 million). 

3.2 Did the agency have a budget for evaluation and how much was it? (Were there any changes in this budget from the previous fiscal year?)
  • ED does not have a specific budget solely for federal program evaluation. Evaluations are supported either by required or allowable program funds or by ESEA Section 8601, which permits the Secretary to reserve up to 0.5% of selected ESEA program funds for rigorous evaluation. The decrease in funds dedicated to federal program evaluations represents a combination of natural variation in resource needs across the lifecycle of individual evaluations and the need to slow some activities in response to school closures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. 

3.3 Did the agency provide financial and other resources to help city, county, and state governments or other grantees build their evaluation capacity (including technical assistance funds for data and evidence capacity building)?
  • In June 2021, IES announced its most recent state-focused grant program, ALN 84.305S: Using Longitudinal Data to Support State Education Recovery Policymaking. As part of this program, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) supports state agencies’ use of their state’s education longitudinal data systems as they and local education agencies reengage their students after the disruptions caused by COVID-19. State agencies can apply for these grants, on their own or in collaboration with other organizations, to support research to inform their decisions regarding issues, programs, and policies related to learning acceleration and recovery. The maximum award is $1 million over three years. To date, SLDS has awarded more than $721 million to 51 states and territories.
  • The Regional Education Laboratories (RELs) provide extensive technical assistance on evaluation and support research partnerships that conduct implementation and impact studies on education policies and programs in ten geographic regions of the U.S., covering all states, territories, and the District of Columbia. 
  • Comprehensive Centers provide support to states in planning and implementing interventions through coaching, peer-to-peer learning opportunities, and ongoing direct support. The State Implementation and Scaling Up of Evidence-Based Practices Center provides tools, training modules, and resources on implementation planning and monitoring.
Score
7
U.S. Agency for International Development
3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY21 budget.
  • USAID invested at least $192.2 million in FY20 and prior year money on a combination of evaluations completed in FY20, evaluations that are ongoing during FY20, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 1.02% of the agency’s $18.8 billion FY20 budget.
  • Source for FY21 Agency budget: FY 2021 Congressional Budget Justification (p. 2). Bilateral Economic Assistance total ($24,500,700,000) minus State’s Global Health Programs ($5,720,000,000) is $18,780,700,000.
3.2 Did the agency have a budget for evaluation and how much was it? (Were there any changes in this budget from the previous fiscal year?)
  • In FY20, USAID operating units invested approximately $57.8 million in FY20 and prior year money on 152 evaluations that were completed in that fiscal year. Another 180 evaluations were ongoing in FY20 (many spanning more than one year in duration) with total ongoing evaluation budgets estimated at $127.8 million. LER’s budget for evaluation technical assistance and evaluation capacity-building in FY20 was $6.6 million, coming to a total of $192.2 million. This represents 1.02% of the Agency’s $18.8 billion FY19 budget. This total does not include evaluation capacity building done by other Agency offices or field Missions or other research, studies, analysis or other data collection that is often used for evaluation, such as USAID’s investment in the Demographic Health Survey or some of the assessments done by third-parties across USAID’s innovation portfolio. It also does not include funding by agency sub-components for evaluation technical assistance.
3.3 Did the agency provide financial and other resources to help city, county, and state governments or other grantees build their evaluation capacity (including technical assistance funds for data and evidence capacity building)?
  • While specific data on this is limited, USAID estimates that investment in contracts or grants that provide support to build local organizational or governmental capacity in data collection, analysis, and use could be as high as $250 million. 
  • For example, USAID’s Data for Impact (D4I) activity helps low- and middle-income countries–primarily in sub-Saharan Africa–to increase their capacity to use available data and generate new data to build evidence for improving health programs, health policies, and for decision-making. D4I’s goal is to help low-resource countries gather and use information to strengthen their health policies and programs and improve the health of their citizens.
  • In another example, the MEASURE Evaluation project, funded by USAID, has a mandate to strengthen health information systems (HIS) in low-resource settings. The Project enables countries to improve lives by strengthening their capacity to generate and use high-quality health information to make evidence-informed, strategic decisions at local, subregional, and national levels.
Score
7
Administration for Children and Families (HHS)
3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY21 budget.
3.2 Did the agency have a budget for evaluation and how much was it? (Were there any changes in this budget from the previous fiscal year?)
  • In FY21, the Administration for Children and Families has an evaluation budget of approximately $209 million, a $1 million increase from FY20.
3.3 Did the agency provide financial and other resources to help city, county, and state governments or other grantees build their evaluation capacity (including technical assistance funds for data and evidence capacity building)?
Score
10
AmeriCorps
3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY21 budget.
  • AmeriCorps invested $8,500,000.00 on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 1.0% of the agency’s $843,115,000 million FY21 operating budget.
3.2 Did the agency have a budget for evaluation and how much was it? (Were there any changes in this budget from the previous fiscal year?)
  • Congress allocated $4,000,000 to AmeriCorps for its evaluation budget. This is the same amount allocated in FY21.
3.3 Did the agency provide financial and other resources to help city, county, and state governments or other grantees build their evaluation capacity (including technical assistance funds for data and evidence capacity building)?
  • R&E funds a contractor to provide AmeriCorps grantees with evaluation capacity building support ($500,000 of the $4,000,000 evaluation budget). R&E staff are also available to State Commissions for their evaluation questions and make resources (e.g., research briefs summarizing effective interventions, online evaluation planning and reporting curricula) available to them and the general public. AmeriCorps awards investment fund grants to State Commissions ($8.5 million in FY21), of which approximately one-third will be used for data and evidence capacity building activities based on prior year activities.
Score
5
U.S. Department of Labor
3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY21 budget.
  • The Department of Labor invested $8.04 million on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing .072% of the agency’s $11.1 billion discretionary budget in FY21.
3.2 Did the agency have a budget for evaluation and how much was it? (Were there any changes in this budget from the previous fiscal year?)
  • CEO is directly appropriated $8.04 million and then, may receive up to 0.75% from statutorily specified program accounts, based on the discretion of the Secretary. In FY19, that number was .03% of funds, or $3.3 million, bringing the spending total to $11.34 million. The FY20 number is not known yet, because the Secretary has not determined the set-aside amount. CEO also collaborates with DOL program offices and other federal agencies on additional evaluations being carried out by other offices and/or supported by funds appropriated to other agencies or programs. In FY19, CEO oversaw approximately $9.94 million in evaluation and evidence building activities, and in FY18, CEO oversaw approximately $21 million in evaluation and evidence building activities. While in FY17, DOL’s CEO oversaw an estimated $40 million in evaluation funding.
  • This amount only represents the dollars that are directly appropriated or transferred to the CEO. Additionally, many DOL evaluations and research studies are supported by funds appropriated to DOL programs and/or are carried out by other offices within DOL. In some programs, such as the America’s Promise grant evaluation and the Reentry Grant Evaluation, evaluation set asides exceed 1% (2.9% and 2.8% respectively for these programs).
3.3 Did the agency provide financial and other resources to help city, county, and state governments or other grantees build their evaluation capacity (including technical assistance funds for data and evidence capacity building)?
  • Grantees and programs that participate in DOL evaluations receive technical assistance related to evaluation activities and implementation such as the Evaluation and Research Hub (EvalHub). DOL agencies, like ETA, are also making a concerted effort to help states and local areas build evaluation capacity to meet the program evaluation requirements for the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) through tools such as RESEA program evaluation technical assistance (RESEA EvalTA). A suite of evaluation technical assistance resources are being developed throughout FY20, including webinars and other tools and templates to help states understand, build, and use evidence. DOL’s evaluation technical assistance webinar series for states has been posted online to the RESEA community of practice. This series will ultimately hold 11 webinars. To date, most of the posted webinars have been viewed by the field between 2,000-4,000 times. Additional RESEA EvalTA products are being developed and will be posted on the RESEA community of practice, the DOL Chief Evaluation Office’s website, and in CLEAR, as appropriate.
Score
6
U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development
3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY21 budget.
  • HUD invested $105 million on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 0.17% of the agency’s $60.343 billion FY21 appropriation.
3.2 Did the agency have a budget for evaluation and how much was it? (Were there any changes in this budget from the previous fiscal year?)
  • For FY21, Congress appropriated $105 million for the Office of Policy Development and Research’s Research & Technology account. FY21 funding was up $7 million from FY20, reflecting congressional support for the value of PD&R’s research, evaluations, and demonstrations. This funding includes $59 million for core research activities; $13 million for research, evaluations, and demonstrations; and $33 million for technical assistance. The total represents an FY21 investment in evaluations and evidence amounting to 0.17 percent of HUD’s $60.343 billion gross discretionary budget authority, net of salaries and expenses, for FY21. The funding for core research is used primarily for the American Housing Survey, other surveys, data acquisition, and research dissemination that support evaluation of HUD’s mission activities in domains such as affordable housing and housing finance.
  • PD&R’s FY21 appropriation of $36 million for Salaries and Expenses, up $8 million from FY20, also supports evidence in the form of PD&R’s in-house research and evaluation program; economic analyses; data linkage initiatives; management of housing surveys, contract research, and evaluation; and the work of the Chief Data Officer.
3.3 Did the agency provide financial and other resources to help city, county, and state governments or other grantees build their evaluation capacity (including technical assistance funds for data and evidence capacity building)?
  • PD&R’s FY21 appropriation of $36 million for Salaries and Expenses, up $8 million from FY20, also supports evidence in the form of PD&R’s in-house research and evaluation program; economic analyses; data linkage initiatives; management of housing surveys, contract research, and evaluation; and the work of the Chief Data Officer.
  • In FY21, HUD is offering nearly $10 million through its Distressed Cities technical assistance program that helps local units of government in cities and places experiencing persistent poverty and population loss build capacity for processes including financial management, data collection, analysis, and tracking outcomes. In selecting technical assistance providers, HUD will consider the provider’s experience incorporating equity into technical assistance engagement activities and equity outcomes into engagement goals or deliverables (see Rating Factor 1, Prior Experience and Performance).
  • HUD operates a Section 4 Capacity Building grant program that in FY21 provides $46 million for national intermediaries, including $10 million for rural needs, to build capacity for functions including assessing needs, planning programs, and evaluation.
  • HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which provides formula grants to entitlement jurisdictions, increases local evaluation capacity. Specifically, federal regulations (24 CFR570.200) authorize CDBG recipients (including city and state governments) to use up to 20% of their CDBG allocations for administration and planning costs that may include evaluation-capacity building efforts and evaluations of their CDBG-funded interventions (as defined in 570.205 and 570.206).
  • HUD offers grants through its Research Partnerships program to support research that addresses current research priorities. The Department is especially interested in increasing participation of Minority Serving Institutions of higher education and Historically Black Colleges and Universities in this program. The FY21 NOFO   also encourages research on topics related to equity in HUD’s programs and policies.
  • HUD is conducting a Department-wide Equity Assessment in response to the executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities. One of the four areas prioritized as an immediate area for assessment is procurement. As part of this assessment, the team will examine HUD’s efforts to strengthen evaluation capacity for minority and women-owned businesses, community-based evaluators, or nontraditional evaluation contractors. HUD will follow the Equity Assessment with an Equity Transformation Plan that seeks to embed and improve equity across all HUD’s work.
Score
9
Administration for Community Living (HHS)
3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY21 budget.
  • ACL invested $18.7 million on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing .81% of the agency’s $2.3 billion FY21 enacted budget.
3.2 Did the agency have a budget for evaluation and how much was it? (Were there any changes in this budget from the previous fiscal year?)
  • ACL’s Office of Performance and Evaluation (OPE) budget for evaluation was $13.6 million in FY21 and there were no significant changes to the evaluation budget since the previous year. The bulk of OPE’s evaluation funds are based on a set-aside required in Title II, section 206, of the Older Americans Act, “From the total amount appropriated for each fiscal year to carry out title III, the Secretary may use such sums as may be necessary, but not to exceed 1⁄2 of 1 percent of such amount, for purposes of conducting evaluations under this section, either directly or through grants or contracts.” In addition, in 2017 ACL’s Office of Performance and Evaluation established a mechanism that allows ACL programs not covered by the OAA set-aside to transfer funds to OPE to be able to support evaluations of their programs. In 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, OPE added approximately $1.0 million, $1.7 million, $3.2 million, $1.2 million, and $2.3 million from these programs to its evaluation budget respectively.
3.3 Did the agency provide financial and other resources to help city, county, and state governments or other grantees build their evaluation capacity (including technical assistance funds for data and evidence capacity building)?
  • ACL primarily provides information resources to grantees to build their evaluation and evidence building capacity. Staff record trainings on evaluation topics, including an overview of performance measurement. ACL also has several resources and TA centers that focus on evidence building including one contract dedicated to improving performance data provided by Older Americans Act Title III, VI, and VII grantees that offers live and prerecorded webinars and a range of manuals and TA supports. ACL also published toolkits for strategic planning, data quality, performance measures, logic model development, and more. ACL provides technical assistance to grantees related to using evidence-based programs and building evidence. For example, the National Resource Center on Nutrition and Aging (NRC) provides different programs and approaches that deliver nutrition-related home- and community-based services (HCBS) administered through grants to the 56 states and territories. Access to Respite Care and Help (ARCH) provides training and technical assistance to the Lifespan Respite Network with a focus on performance measurement, sustainability, best practices, and research. The National Alzheimer’s and Dementia Resource Center supports grantees as they implement evidence-based interventions and innovative practices designed to empower and assist caregivers of persons with Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders.
  • In an effort to better support Older Americans Act Title VI Native American Programs grantees with their data needs, OPE created several tools for grantee use. One tool is a template for collecting program satisfaction survey data from both nutrition and caregiver clients about the services they are receiving. This template is customizable, has a user guide and an excel spreadsheet for easy data tabulation and visualization as it creates charts from the entered data. OPE also worked to create an infographic for Title VI grantees to use by plugging in their own data (into an excel template with the help of a user guide) from a variety of sources they have ready access to so that they might create a two page visual document to share with stakeholders to showcase the services they are providing to their communities. OPE also created a Title VI Data Tracking Workbook, built with grantee input to help grantees track their data on a daily basis. This workbook provides monthly and quarterly statistics, as well as produces an annual roll up of data. Based on grantee feedback it has some customization built in and has a budget feature to help grantees manage their income and expenditures–data that ACL does not currently collect for this program. OPE has held webinars and trainings and question sessions on all of these tools in an effort to make them more user friendly for grantees and to encourage wide adoption of these tools for grantee use.
Score
10
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (HHS)
3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY21 budget.
  • SAMHSA invested $106 million on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 1.8 % of the agency’s $5.9 billion FY21 budget. Information concerning the efforts to boost the share of spending on minority and women-owned businesses, community-based evaluators, or nontraditional evaluation contractors was not readily available.
3.2 Did the agency have a budget for evaluation and how much was it? (Were there any changes in this budget from the previous fiscal year?)
  • SAMHSA’s FY21 evaluation budget is $135 million and it comes from the Public Health Service (PHS) Evaluations funds issued through annual appropriations. It is the same amount as FY 2020. 
  • Within the PHS Act Sec. 1920 and 1921, SAMHSA is authorized to obligate 5% of the amounts appropriated for data collection and program evaluation under Sec. 1920 and for technical assistance, national database, data collection, and program evaluations under Sec. 1921. The FY21 consolidated appropriation limited the amount to $21 million for funding associated with Sec. 1920 and not more than 2% of SOR funding (2% of $1.5B or $30M) for funding associated Sec. 1921.
3.3 Did the agency provide financial and other resources to help city, county, and state governments or other grantees build their evaluation capacity (including technical assistance funds for data and evidence capacity building)?
  • SAMHSA’s Evidence-Based Practices Resource Center aims to provide communities, clinicians, policymakers, and others in the field with the information and tools they need to incorporate evidence-based practices into their communities or clinical settings. The Center lists nine technical assistance projects, two of which appear to provide financial or other resources to help city, county, and state governments or other grantees build evaluation capacity.
  • All SAMHSA grantees (competitive and non-competitive) may designate set-aside funds for data collection, data report into SAMHSA’s Performance Accountability and Reporting System (SPARS) and individual evaluation activities. SPARS provides access to online data entry, reporting, technical assistance, and training resources to support grantees in reporting timely and accurate data to SAMHSA. There are multiple resources available to state and community grantees including a resource library with general and Center specific information on data collection, performance monitoring, disparities impact statements, and providing trauma informed care (to name just a few). A link to these resources is not available as access to these resources require that grantees enter the password protected website. 
Back to the Standard

Visit Results4America.org

Copyright 2024 Results for America. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy

Site by Wide Eye Creative