Prioritize Evidence: Examples

Results for America strongly encourages congressional staff members, federal agency officials and White House leaders to review these examples of federal agencies currently prioritizing evidence of effectiveness. RFA suggests including similar prioritizations in federal authorization bills/laws, agency-wide regulations and federal grant program Notice of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs).

Sample Evidence-Building Language for NOFOs

The U.S Department of Commerce developed a toolkit with the following language on how Notice of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs) can clarify that support for data capacity is an eligible use of funds:

“Technology, data, delivery, and evaluation costs may include (but are not limited to) the expenditures needed to gather, store, track, manage, analyze, disaggregate, secure, share, publish, or otherwise use data to administer or improve the program, such as systems for performance management, asset management, geospatial data, personnel management, transparency and public engagement, and cybersecurity.

These costs may also include direct or indirect costs associated with building or expanding integrated data systems—data systems that link individual-level data from multiple government agencies for purposes of management, research, and evaluation.”

Evidence Requirement

Forty-three NOFOs for grant programs that currently define and prioritize evidence out of the 98 RFA has identified require evidence-based interventions. Below are examples from many of the federal agencies that have required evidence of effectiveness. The complete list is here.

  • Americorps, State and National ProgramThis program awards grants to institutions proposing to engage AmeriCorps members in evidence-based or evidence-informed interventions/practices through community service. Proposed programs must be evidence-based or evidence-informed.

  • U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration, Activities for Underserved Populations ProgramThis program seeks to improve services provided under the Rehabilitation Act in order to improve educational outcomes. Grantees must incorporate evidence-based practices into their project design.

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

    • Administration for Children and Families, Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program. This program requires grantees to reserve 75% of grant funds for models determined to be evidence-based by the Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness Review.

    • Administration for Community Living, Alzheimer’s Disease PreventionThis program supports and promotes the development and expansions of dementia-capable home and community-based service (HCBS) systems in States and Communities. Applicants must include at least one dementia-specific evidence-based or evidence-informed intervention.

    • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),State Public Health Approaches to Addressing ArthritisThis program supports access to arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions. Grantees must support implementation of at least two evidence-based interventions.

    • Health Resources and Service Administration,Maternal Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting. This program supports the delivery of coordinated and comprehensive high-quality and voluntary early childhood home visiting services to eligible families. Funding recipients must implement home visiting programs primarily through one or more selected evidence-based service delivery models.

    • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, State Opioid ResponseThis program provides resources to increase access to medications for the treatment of opioid use disorder, as well as recovery support services. Program funds are required to be used for evidence-based treatments, practices and interventions for OUD and stimulant use disorders.

  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Choice NeighborhoodsThis program supports development of comprehensive plans to revitalize severely distressed public housing and/or HUD-assisted housing and the surrounding neighborhood; it requires evidence-based strategies.

  • U.S. Department of Justice, Title II Formula GrantsThe program assists state and U.S. territories to improve their juvenile justice systems through a combined effort of direct funding and training, and technical assistance. 75% of funds must be dedicated to evidence-based or promising programs.

  • U.S. Department of Labor, Re-entry Employment Opportunities. This program supports communities in planning and implementing comprehensive reentry programs to help adults and young adults who have been involved in the juvenile or adult justice system make successful transitions to the community. Applicants must propose evidence-based and evidence-informed interventions, promising practices or a combination of both that support increased employment outcomes for target populations.

  • U.S. Agency of International Development, USAID Host and Impacted Community Resilience Activity (HICRA). This program improves the overall well-being and resilience of people residing in the communities hosting Rohingya refugees or impacted by the Rohingya refugee crisis. Applications should present an overall evidence-based and technically sound approach to achieving the proposed goals and outcomes.

Evidence Preference/Bonus Points

About half of the 98 federal economic mobility grant programs that define and prioritize evidence award preference or bonus points for evidence-based interventions. Here are examples from the federal agencies that take this approach.

  • Americorps, State and National Native Nation GrantsThis program provides grants to organizations that engage AmeriCorps members in interventions to strengthen communities. In the process of scoring applications for funding, 12 points are tied to evidence tier and 8 points are linked to evidence quality.

  • U.S. Department of Education

    • The Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) State Grant program. This program provides a competitive preference of up to 3 points (out of 105) for applications presenting evidence at the moderate level based on reviews by the Institute of Education Science’s What Works Clearinghouse.

    • Education Innovation and Research Program Expansion Grants. This program provides funding to create, develop, implement, replicate or scale up entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students and to rigorously evaluate such innovations. The amount of funding an applicant may receive is linked to the quality of the evidence supporting the efficacy of the proposed project. The program awards three types of grants:

      • Early-phase grants fund the development, implementation and feasibility testing of a promising program, with a maximum individual award of $6 million .

      • Mid-phase grants fund implementation and a rigorous evaluation of a program that has been successfully implemented under an early-phase grant, with a maximum individual award of $10 million.

      • Expansion grants fund implementation and a rigorous replication of a program that has produced sizable, important impacts, with a maximum individual award of $15 million.

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

What Works Clearinghouse

Here are five examples of federal What Works Clearinghouses:

Evidence-Building

  • Americorps, State and National Native Nation GrantsThe Notice of Funding Opportunity for this grant states that it “values and funds programs at all points along the evidence continuum,” and that “applicants should not be deterred from applying for funding due to their current evidence level.” In 2023, 43% of funding under the program went to strategies within the “pre-preliminary” evidence tier, underscoring the program’s emphasis on building evidence.