2020 Federal Standard of Excellence


Repurpose for Results

In FY20, did the agency shift funds away from or within any practice, policy, or program that consistently failed to achieve desired outcomes? (Examples: Requiring low-performing grantees to re-compete for funding; removing ineffective interventions from allowable use of grant funds; incentivizing or urging grant applicants to stop using ineffective practices in funding announcements; proposing the elimination of ineffective programs through annual budget requests; incentivizing well-designed trials to fill specific knowledge gaps; supporting low-performing grantees through mentoring, improvement plans, and other forms of assistance; using rigorous evaluation results to shift funds away from a program)

Score
6
Administration for Children and Families (HHS)
10.1 Did the agency have policy(ies) for determining when to shift funds away from grantees, practices, policies, interventions, and/or programs that consistently failed to achieve desired outcomes, and did the agency act on that policy?
  • The Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018 only allows federal matching funds only for evidence-based prevention services offered by states, thereby incentivizing states to shift their spending from non-evidence based approaches.
  • For ACF’s Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) of state child welfare systems, states determined not to have achieved substantial conformity in all the areas assessed must develop and implement a Program Improvement Plan addressing the areas of nonconformity. ACF supports the states with technical assistance and monitors implementation of their plans. States must successfully complete their plans to avoid financial penalties for nonconformance.
  • The ACF Head Start program significantly expanded its accountability provisions with the establishment of five-year Head Start grant service periods and the Head Start Designation Renewal System (DRS). The DRS was designed to determine whether Head Start and Early Head Start programs are providing high quality comprehensive services to the children and families in their communities. Where they are not, grantees are denied automatic renewal of their grant and must apply for funding renewal through an open competition process. Those determinations are based on seven conditions, one of which looks at how Head Start classrooms within programs perform on the Classroom Assessment Scoring System(CLASS), an observation-based measure of the quality of teacher-child interactions. Data from ACF’s Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) and Quality Features, Dosage, Thresholds and Child Outcomes (Q-DOT) study were used to craft the regulations that created the DRS and informed key decisions in its implementation. This included where to set minimum thresholds for average CLASS scores, the number of classrooms within programs to be sampled to ensure stable program-level estimates on CLASS, and the number of cycles of CLASS observations to conduct. At the time the DRS notification letters were sent out to grantees in 2011, there were 1,421 non-tribal active grants, and of these, 453 (32%) were required to re-compete (p. 19).
  • Findings from the evaluation of the first round Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) program influenced the funding opportunity announcement for the second round of HPOG funding. Namely, the scoring criteria used to select HPOG 2.0 grantees incorporated knowledge gained about challenges experienced in the HPOG 1.0 grant program. For example, based on those challenges, applicants were asked to clearly demonstrate—and verify with local employers—an unmet need in their service area for the education and training activities proposed. Applicants were also required to provide projections for the number of individuals expected to begin and complete basic skills education. Grantees must submit semi-annual and annual progress reports to ACF to show their progress in meeting these projections. If they have trouble doing so, grantees are provided with technical assistance to support improvement or are put on a corrective action plan so that ACF can more closely monitor their steps toward improvement.
10.2 Did the agency identify and provide support to agency programs or grantees that failed to achieve desired outcomes?
  • In an effort to create operational efficiencies and increase grantee capacity for mission-related activities,ACF implemented a process in 2019 in which the grants management office completes annual risk modeling of grantee financial administrative datasets, which helps identify organizations that would benefit from targeted technical assistance. The grants management office provides TA to these grantees to improve their financial management and help direct resources toward effective service delivery.
  • As mentioned in 10.1, states reviewed by a Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) and determined not to have achieved substantial conformity in all the areas assessed must develop and implement a Program Improvement Plan addressing the areas of nonconformity. ACF supports the states with technical assistance and monitors implementation of their plans. ACF also provides broad programmatic technical assistance to support grantees in improving their service delivery, including the Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative. The Collaborative is designed to help public child welfare agencies, Tribes, and courts enhance and mobilize the human and organizational assets necessary to meet Federal standards and requirements; improve child welfare practice and administration; and achieve safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes for children, youth, and families. ACF also sponsors the Child Welfare Information Gateway, a platform connecting child welfare, adoption, and related professionals as well as the public to information, resources, and tools covering topics on child welfare, child abuse and neglect, out-of-home care, adoption, and more.
Score
4
Administration for Community Living
10.1 Did the agency have a policy for determining when to shift funds away from grantees, practices, policies, interventions, and/or programs that consistently failed to achieve desired outcomes, and did the agency act on that policy?
  • Because much of ACL’s funding is based on formula grants that cannot be reallocated to other programs or grantees, there is not an ACL-wide policy for this purpose. For several programs, such as most under the Older American Act, “entities such as states, U.S. territories, and tribal organizations are allotted funding based on a population-based formula factor (e.g., aged 55 and over, aged 60 and over, or aged 70 and over). Some statutory requirements for program funding allocations include a “hold harmless” provision, which guarantees that state or other entities’ allotment will remain at a certain fiscal year level or amount, provided sufficient funding in a given year. ACL is working with GSA’s Office of Evaluation Sciences (OES) to test methods for improving outcomes for its congregate meals programs. Under the Older Americans Act, congregate meal sites are required to accept donations from meal recipients. But, there has been a concern regarding how to balance the collection of funds that can be used towards meal service and making meal recipients that cannot afford to donate uncomfortable, thus suppressing attendance. This study, expected to be completed in FY 2020, will offer concrete evidence to improve program operations.
10.2 Did the agency identify and provide support to agency programs or grantees that failed to achieve desired outcomes?
  • While much of ACL’s funding is based on formula grants, and therefore cannot be reallocated to other programs, evaluation staff work closely with program staff to identify ways to translate evaluation findings into technical assistance and other types of program support. For example, based on early results from an evaluation of the Tribal Grant program, ACL has developed new program support materials to improve the delivery of Tribal Caregiver programs.
  • ACL typically proactively provides technical assistance in order to help programs to be successful, rather than redirecting funding. For example, the State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) is funding a national Technical Assistance center for this purpose.
Score
6
U.S. Agency for International Development
10.1 Did the agency have policy(ies) for determining when to shift funds away from grantees, practices, policies, interventions, and/or programs that consistently failed to achieve desired outcomes, and did the agency act on that policy?
  • USAID shifts funds away from ineffective grantees. For example, the Securing Water for Food Grand Challenge is designed with a Technical Assistance Facility to consult and work with grantees to identify specific growth barriers, and then connect them with vetted service providers that bring expertise and capabilities to help these grantees overcome their strategic barriers. The Technical Assistance Facility provides tailored financial and acceleration support to help these grantees improve their market-driven business development, commercial growth, and scaling.
  • If a grantee is unable to meet specific performance targets, such as number of customers or product sales, further funding is not granted, and the grantee is re-categorized into the program’s group of unsuccessful alumni. The Securing Water for Food Grand Challenge used milestone-based grants to terminate 15 awards that were not meeting their annual milestones and shifted that money to both grants and technical assistance for the remaining 25 awards in the program.
  • Also, USAID’s INVEST program is designed for constant feedback loops around the partner performance. Not only are under-performing partners dropped, but new partners can be added dynamically, based on demand. This greatly increases USAID’s new partner base and increases the performance standard across the board.
  • USAID’s Business Ecosystem Project (BEP), implemented by Palladium Group, is designed to increase private sector investment in strengthening domestic supply chains and workforce development in North Macedonia. BEP’s initial strategy was to mobilize corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds from investors and large international corporations toward the project’s goal, but it quickly became evident that such investments would be neither strategic nor sustainable. To achieve a lasting impact on North Macedonia’s business ecosystem, BEP partnered with companies that were better positioned to recognize the link between local economic development and their own business interest. BEP learned from its local partners and adapted its private sector engagement (PSE) strategy to target small, medium, and large enterprises that were more dependent on domestic supply chains and workers. BEP no longer focuses only on foreign direct investment (FDI) companies with CSR budgets, but approaches all companies that have a real economic incentive to invest in local supply chains and workforce development. This approach was more effective and allowed BEP to co-invest in a diverse range of supply chain and workforce development initiatives, first as a proof of concept and later at scale.
10.2 Did the agency identify and provide support to agency programs or grantees that failed to achieve desired outcomes?
  • USAID/Food for Peace’s Sustainable Action for Resilience and Food Security (Sabal) is a five-year program in Nepal, implemented by Save the Children and a consortium of partners. Sabal’s goal is to improve food security and resilience in targeted districts in Nepal by improving livelihoods, health and nutrition, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. Sabal utilized collaborating, learning and adapting (CLA) approaches such as pause and reflect, M&E for learning, and adaptive management to be able to adapt to the changing context. In 2015, there were devastating earthquakes, which necessitated geographic program expansion and then, two years later, there were budget cuts, which meant ending implementation in those expansion areas. At that time, CLA approaches were utilized to identify sustainability strategies, assess the level of self-reliance among community groups, tailor interventions based on the data, and gain consensus and buy-in among internal staff, consortium partners, and the local government. As a result, Sabal registered high-performing community groups with the government and linked these groups with local resources and leaders. At the same time, Sabal identified poor performing groups and built their capacity and self-reliance through targeted trainings and community capacity building
  • USAID’s Regional Health Integration to Enhance Services in Eastern Uganda (RHITES-E) Activity (2016-2021), implemented by IntraHealth International and its partners, supports the Government of Uganda’s health “surge” strategy to find new HIV positive patients and enroll them in care and treatment. The data and results from RHITES-E’s first quarter performance review showed the Activity was way behind its target. The Activity leadership and USAID decided to shift from a “business as usual” attitude to applying collaborating, learning and adapting (CLA) approaches to draw on and analyze existing data, from a USAID dashboard, to reflect on findings with key stakeholders and fill identified needs and gaps to improve surge efforts. By the end of the fiscal year 2017, the Activity had improved its surge performance resulting in better results and outcomes and shifted in its culture to be a learning organization. Together with stakeholders, staff identified ineffective approaches such as mass HIV testing and developed and implemented new strategies to include screening of clients before testing for efficient and effective identification and linkage of new HIV positive clients into care and treatment.
  • USAID’s Empleando Futuros (Employing Futures) program, an at-risk youth program was launched in Honduras in 2016. During its first year, a pause and reflect event found a significant number of drop-outs and the need to strengthen the program’s response to better meet the needs of youth and the labor market. USAID and its implementing partner, Banyon Global, applied USAID’s Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) Framework and tools to establish a framework for strategic pause and reflect events throughout the year, strengthen the program’s performance monitoring system and develop an online platform for tracking program participants’ progress. These changes helped the implementer to revisit the program’s underlying assumptions and theory of change, learn continuously and inform evidence-based decisions. Preliminary findings suggest that the program has fewer dropouts, capacity of local systems and partners has been strengthened, and private sector engagement has improved.
Score
6
AmeriCorps
10.1 Did the agency have policy(ies) for determining when to shift funds away from grantees, practices, policies,  interventions, and/or programs that consistently failed to achieve desired outcomes, and did the agency act on that policy?
  • AmeriCorps’s AmeriCorps State and National denied funding to six FY20 applicants that requested $1,722,851 for new or recompete funding because they did not demonstrate evidence for the proposed program. These funds were invested in applications with a demonstrated evidence base. This investment decision is consistent with the agency’s prioritization of evidence-based interventions (see agency TSP Goal #3).
10.2 Did the agency identify and provide support to agency programs or grantees that failed to achieve desired outcomes?
  • AmeriCorps launched a grant management tool (the “Portfolio Navigator”) that allows Portfolio Managers to access data about grantee organizations in real time to facilitate improved oversight and support.
  • AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation continued to invest $500,000 in evaluation technical assistance support for grantees which is available to all competitive AmeriCorps State and National grantees seeking to improve their ability to demonstrate empirically their effectiveness. FY19 investments targeted to grantees struggling to achieve outcomes continued in FY20. More specifically, in FY20, the following ongoing support was provided to lower-performing grantees using reallocated FY19 program dollars:
    • Two grantees required intensive evaluation technical assistance (TA) and are being closely monitored by AmeriCorps State and National. To ensure that two grantees are on track with implementing their evaluation plans, the grantees identified several milestones for their evaluation and with support have made progress in FY20.
    • Tribal grantees have faced a variety of challenges in developing and implementing their evaluation plans. Through evaluation TA support, AmeriCorps hopes that the tribal grantees will receive the additional assistance needed to improve their plans. During FY20 11 tribal grantees received TA to improve the quality of data collection and evaluation plans.
Score
5
U.S. Department of Education
10.1 Did the agency have policy(ies) for determining when to shift funds away from grantees, practices, policies, interventions, and/or programs that consistently failed to achieve desired outcomes, and did the agency act on that policy?
  • The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) explains that ED considers whether grantees make “substantial progress” when deciding whether to continue grant awards. In deciding whether a grantee has made substantial progress, ED may consider grantee performance data, among other information. If a continuation award is reduced, more funding may be made available for other applicants, grantees, or activities.
10.2 Did the agency identify and provide support to agency programs or grantees that failed to achieve desired outcomes?
  • The Department conducts a variety of technical assistance to support grantees to improve outcomes. Department staff work with grantees to assess their progress and, when needed, provide technical assistance to support program improvement. On a national scale, the Comprehensive Centers program, Regional Educational Laboratories, and technical assistance centers managed by the Office of Special Education Programs develop resources and provide technical assistance. The Department uses a tiered approach in these efforts, providing universal general technical assistance through a more general dissemination strategy; targeted technical assistance that addresses needs common issues among a number of grantees, and intensive technical assistance that is more focused on specific issues faced by specific recipients. The Department also supports program-specific technical assistance for a variety of individual grant programs.
Score
5
U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development
10.1 Did the agency have policy(ies) for determining when to shift funds away from grantees, practices, policies, interventions, and/or programs that consistently failed to achieve desired outcomes, and did the agency act on that policy?
  • The Evaluation of the Housing First model of rehousing chronically homeless individuals with serious mental illness supported a policy shift toward first achieving housing stability to provide a platform for social services. Based on such evidence, HUD continues to encourage the use of more cost-effective rapid rehousing approaches combined with increased permanent supportive housing that is integrated with mainstream services provided by HHS, VA, and others. Additionally, a precondition for Continuum of Care applicants to be awarded FY19 expansion bonus funding was that they rank homeless assistance projects on the basis of how they improve system performance.
  • CDBG-DR (Disaster Recovery) is a large and growing program funded by emergency appropriations outside of HUD’s regular budgeting process. In FY18, HUD started promoting mitigation activities for disaster-prone communities, allocating $16 billion of the $28 billion in emergency disaster recovery funds for disaster mitigation in previously disaster-stricken communities. This policy shift was informed by evidence that vulnerability of communities to disasters is increasing even as frequency and severity of severe weather events might also be increasing, such that the National Institute of Building Sciences estimated that society saves $4 in future losses for every dollar spent on mitigation. HUD also drew on the evidence of mitigation pilots through the Hurricane Sandy Rebuild by Design competition and the National Disaster Resilience Competition. By investing in mitigation activities, rather than paying to rebuild existing infrastructure in its previous form, HUD shifted funds in order to help break the cycle of publicly-funded rebuilding and repeated loss.
  • HUD grant programs typically provide for recapture of funds that are not committed in a timely fashion, or that remain unexpended after the limits. Effective management by grantees can be especially crucial for timely completion of complex housing development projects, such as with the Capital Fund for public housing and Housing Trust Fund for states. Such funds are reallocated to more effective grantees.
  • Preference points used by competitive programs favor grantees that provide evidence of successful outcomes and strategies. The Continuum of Care program awards points that shift funds toward grant applications that have demonstrated better outcomes, that rank and fund better-performing projects, and that take over programs from small and struggling recipients. As noted in the notice of funding: “To encourage CoC mergers and mitigate the potential adverse scoring implications that may occur when a high performing CoC merges with one or more lower performing CoC(s), HUD will award up to 25 bonus points to CoCs that completed a merger…”
10.2 Did the agency identify and provide support to agency programs or grantees that failed to achieve desired outcomes?
  • Through the Community Compass technical assistance program, HUD offers numerous prepared training opportunities as well as in-depth program assistance for grantees or program recipients needing intensive, tailored assistance or long-term capacity-building support to remediate challenges and achieve their potential as HUD program partners.
  • HUD has proposed to use Public Housing operating funds set aside for receivership of troubled housing authorities more proactively to address the needs of high-risk PHAs before they go into receivership, including through competitive grants for PHAs that are troubled, substandard, at-risk, or insolvent to help preserve affordable housing for the future. The Real Estate Assessment Center collects extensive data on physical condition, finances, and management to determine PHA status, and field staff have expertise to identify risk factors and useful corrective actions.
Score
4
U.S. Department of Labor
10.1 Did the agency have policy(ies) for determining when to shift funds away from grantees, practices, policies, interventions, and/or programs that consistently failed to achieve desired outcomes, and did the agency act on that policy?
  • The Employment & Training Administration’s (ETA) prospective YouthBuild and Job Corps grant applicants are selected, in part, based on their past performance. These programs consider the entity’s past performance of demonstrated effectiveness in achieving critical outcomes for youth. For the Job Corps reform, the Department’s FY21 budget request also proposes new legislative flexibilities that would enable the Department to more expediently close low-performing centers, target the program to groups more likely to benefit, and make the necessary capital investments to ensure successful pilot programs. These reforms would save money and improve results by eliminating ineffective centers and finding better ways to educate and provide skills instruction to youth.
  • Reforming Job Corps provides an example of such efforts to repurpose resources based upon a rigorous analysis of available data. As part of this reform effort, DOL’s FY20 budget request ends the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) involvement in the program, unifying responsibility in DOL. Workforce development is not a core USDA role, and the 25 centers it operates are overrepresented in the lowest performing cohort of centers.
  • A rigorous 2012 evaluation of the Trade Readjustment Assistance (TAA) Program demonstrated that workers who participated in the program had lower earnings than the comparison group at the end of a four-year follow-up period, in part because they were more likely to participate in long-term job training programs rather than immediately reentering the workforce. However, this training was not targeted to in-demand industries and occupations, and, as found in Mathematica’s evaluation of the TAA program, only 37% of participants became employed in the occupations for which they trained. In the FY21 budget request, the Department addresses these issues by continuing to propose reauthorization of the TAA program that focuses on apprenticeship and on-the-job training, earn-as-you-learn strategies that ensure that participants are training for relevant occupations.
  • DOL’s FY20 budget request eliminates funding for the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). SCSEP has a goal of transitioning half of participants into unsubsidized employment within the first quarter after exiting the program, but has struggled to achieve even this modest goal.
10.2 Did the agency identify and provide support to agency programs or grantees that failed to achieve desired outcomes?
  • The Department’s Employment and Training Administration sponsors the WorkforceGPS, which is a community point of access to support workforce development professionals in their use of evaluations to improve state and local workforce systems. Professionals can access a variety of resources and tools, including a learning cohort community to help leaders improve their research and evaluations capacities. The WorkforceGPS includes links to resources on assessment readiness, evaluation design, performance data all focused on improving the public workforce system.
Score
8
Millennium Challenge Corporation
10.1 Did the agency have policy(ies) for determining when to shift funds away from grantees, practices, policies, interventions, and/or programs that consistently failed to achieve desired outcomes, and did the agency act on that policy?
  • MCC has established a Policy on Suspension and Termination that lays out the reasons for which MCC may suspend or terminate assistance to partner countries, including if a country “engages in a pattern of actions inconsistent with the MCC’s eligibility criteria,” by failing to achieve desired outcomes such as:
    • A decline in performance on the indicators used to determine eligibility;
    • A decline in performance not yet reflected in the indicators used to determine eligibility; or
    • Actions by the country which are determined to be contrary to sound performance in the areas assessed for eligibility for assistance, and which together evidence an overall decline in the country’s commitment to the eligibility criteria.
  • Of 61 compact selections by MCC’s Board of Directors, including regional compacts, 14 have had their partnerships or a portion of their funding ended due to concerns about country commitment to MCC’s eligibility criteria or a failure to adhere to their responsibilities under the compact. MCC’s Policy on Suspension and Termination also allows MCC to reinstate eligibility when countries demonstrate a clear policy reversal, a remediation of MCC’s concerns, and an obvious commitment to MCC’s eligibility indicators, including achieving desired results.
  • In a number of cases, MCC has repurposed investments based on real-time evidence. In MCC’s first compact with Lesotho, MCC cancelled the Automated Clearing House Sub-Activity within the Private Sector Development Project after monitoring data determined that it would not accomplish the economic growth and poverty reduction outcomes envisioned during compact development. The remaining $600,000 in the sub-activity was transferred to the Debit Smart Card Sub-Activity, which targeted expanding financial services to people living in remote areas of Lesotho. In Tanzania, the $32 million Non-Revenue Water Activity was re-scoped after the final design estimates on two of the activity’s infrastructure investments indicated higher costs that would significantly impact their economic rates of return. As a result, $13.2 million was reallocated to the Lower Ruvu Plant Expansion Activity, $9.6 million to the Morogoro Water Supply Activity, and $400,000 for other environmental and social activities. In all of these country examples, the funding is either reallocated to activities with continued evidence of results or returned to MCC for investment in future programming.
10.2 Did the agency identify and provide support to agency programs or grantees that failed to achieve desired outcomes?
  • For every investment in implementation, MCC undertakes a Quarterly Performance Review with senior leadership to review, among many issues, quarterly results indicator tracking tables. If programs are not meeting evidence-based targets, MCC undertakes mitigation efforts to work with the partner country and program implementers to achieve desired results. These efforts are program- and context-specific but can take the form of increased technical assistance, reallocated funds, and/or new methods of implementation. For example, in FY20 MCC reallocated funds in its compact with Ghana after the country failed to achieve agreed-upon policy reforms to ensure the sustainability of the investments. Upon program completion, if a program does not meet expected results targets, MCC works to understand and memorialize why and how this occurred, beginning with program design, the theory of change, and program implementation. The results and learning from this inquiry are published through the country’s Star Report.
  • MCC also consistently monitors the progress of compact programs and their evaluations across sectors, using the learning from this evidence to make changes to MCC’s operations. For example, as part of MCC’s Principles into Practice initiative, in November 2017 MCC undertook a review of its portfolio investments in roads in an attempt to better design, implement, and evaluate road investments. Through evidence collected across 16 countries with road projects, MCC uncovered seven key lessons including the need to prioritize and select projects based on a road network analysis, to standardize content and quality of road data collection across road projects, and to consider cost and the potential for learning in determining how road projects are evaluated. In FY19, the lessons from this analysis are being applied to road projects in compacts in Côte d’Ivoire and Nepal as MCC roads investments see a shift toward increased maintenance investments. Critically, the evidence also pointed to MCC shifting how it undertakes road evaluations which led to a new request and re-bid for proposals for MCC’s roads evaluations based on new guidelines and principles.
Score
4
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
10.1 Did the agency have policy(ies) for determining when to shift funds away from grantees, practices, policies, interventions, and/or programs that consistently failed to achieve desired outcomes, and did the agency act on that policy?
  • As a matter of policy, SAMHSA uses the term “restricted status” to describe grant recipients that are financially unstable, have inadequate financial management systems, or are poor programmatic performers. Grants placed on restricted status require additional monitoring and have additional award conditions that must be met before funds can be drawn. SAMHSA adheres to HHS Grants Policy Statement, including the policy on suspension or termination, which states: “If a recipient has failed to materially comply with the terms and conditions of award, the OPDIV [Grant-Awarding Operating Division] may suspend the grant, pending corrective action, or may terminate the grant for cause” (p. II-89).
  • The FY18 State Opioid Response Grants program required states and subgrantees to only use evidence-based treatments, practices, and interventions. As such, SAMHSA disallowed the use of medical withdrawal (detoxification) in isolation since it “is not the standard of care for OUD, is associated with a very high relapse rate, and significantly increases an individual’s risk for opioid overdose and death if opioid use is resumed” (p. 6). And SAMHSA clarified: “SAMHSA will monitor use of these funds to assure that they are being used to support evidence-based treatment and recovery supports and will not permit use of these funds for non-evidence-based approaches” (p. 7). Further, under Standard Funding Restrictions, SAMHSA included: “non-evidence-based treatment approaches” (p. 54).
  • In January 2018, SAMHSA announced it would shift resources away from the National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP) toward targeted technical assistance and training for implementing evidence-based practices. The reasoning was that NREPP had flawed and skewed presentation of evidence-based interventions, which “did not address the spectrum of needs of those living with serious mental illness and substance use disorders.”
10. 2 Did the agency identify and provide support to agency programs or grantees that failed to achieve desired outcomes?
  • Results for America was unable to identify any examples.
Back to the Standard

Visit Results4America.org