3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY20 budget.

• The Administration for Children and Families invested approximately $208 million in evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing approximately 0.3% of the agency’s approximately $60.4 billion FY20 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 FY20, the Administration for Children and Families has an evaluation budget of approximately $208 million, an $8 million increase from FY19.

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)?

• ACF provides evaluation technical assistance to grantees to:
  • Support sites participating in federal evaluations (for example projects supporting Health Profession Opportunity Grants 2.0 and Tribal Health Profession Opportunity Grants 2.0 grantees and Regional Partnership Grants grantees);
  • Support grantees who are conducting their own local evaluations (for example projects supporting Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantees, Personal Responsibility Education Program grantees, MIECHV grantees (in collaboration with HRSA), Tribal MIECHV grantees, Child Welfare Community Collaborations grantees, and YARH grantees; and ACF staff directly supporting Section 1115 child support demonstration grantees); and
  • Provide general capacity building support (for example the TANF Data Innovation Project, the Tribal Early Childhood Research Center, and the Center for States).
  • Provide guidance to encourage state MIECHV awardees to develop their own learning agendas.
• ACF also strengthens the data capacity of grantees through:
  • Technical assistance with management information systems, such as the Participant Accomplishment and Grant Evaluation System (PAGES) system for Health Profession Opportunity Grant (HPOG) and Tribal HPOG grantees and the Information, Family Outcomes, Reporting, and Management (nFORM) system for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantees
  • Supporting grantee ability to monitor data quality and performance through projects like Personal Responsibility Education Program Studies of Performance Measures and Adulthood Preparation Subjects (PREP PMAPS) and Sexual Risk Avoidance Education Performance Analysis Study (SRAE PAS)
• ACF also supports evidence capacity across the agency by preparing promising programs and interventions to advance to the next level of evidence. ACF has supported this work through projects like Supporting Evidence Building in Child Welfare; Next Steps for Rigorous Research on Two-Generation Approaches; and Building Evaluation Capacity in TANF: Implementing, Replicating, and Scaling Up Evidence-Informed Interventions to Promote Employment and Self-Sufficiency. The latter project will also document the landscape of current or previous evaluation TA activities in human services program contexts, what can be learned from other fields that have examined this question, and what lessons can be drawn to inform future federal evaluation capacity-building efforts.
• ACF also publishes resources such as 1) The Program Manager’s Guide to Evaluation to provide guidance to programs planning and implementing evaluations, and 2) the Continuous Quality Improvement Toolkit, which helps MIECHV awardees and others work with local agencies to build capacity in CQI. The toolkit features examples from home visiting but may also be helpful for audiences from other early childhood and human service programs. ACF recently began work to adapt existing ACF evaluation TA resources and develop new evaluation TA resources to more effectively build the evaluation capacity of the diverse stakeholders that ACF serves.

3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY20 budget.

• ACL invested $22.2 million on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 1.11% of the agency’s $2.0 billion FY20 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 $10.4 million in FY20 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, and 2020 OPE added approximately $1.0 million, $1.7 million, $3.2 million, and $1.2 million from these programs to its evaluation budget respectively. In addition to these funds, ACL allocated $11.8 million for technical assistance and other activities, such as prize competitions, to support strong evidence building. In total, ACL spent $22.2 million on evaluation related activities in 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)?

• 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, and logic model development. 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. ACL’s Alzheimer’s Disease Supportive Services Program (ADSSP) grant program supports state efforts to expand the availability of community-level supportive services including the translation of evidence-based models into community-level practice in their programs. The 68 University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service (UCEDDs) throughout the United States and its territories serve as liaisons between academia and the community. They fund model demonstrations to build evidence for addressing issues, finding solutions, and advancing research related to the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities and their families.
• 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. ACL has funded 33 states and the District of Columbia to establish or enhance Statewide Lifespan Respite systems and ARCH provides training and technical assistance to them as well. 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. ACL funding is released in five year cycles, with the next five year grant expected to be awarded in 2020.

3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY20 budget.

• USAID invested at least $201.8 million in FY19 and prior year money on a combination of evaluations completed in FY2019, evaluations that are ongoing during FY2019, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 01.07% of the agency’s $18.8 billion FY19 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 FY19, USAID operating units invested approximately $67.4 million in FY19 and prior year money on 190 evaluations that were completed in that fiscal year. Another 180 evaluations were ongoing in FY2019 (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 FY19 was $6.6 million (up from $4.6 million in FY18), coming to a total of $201.8 million. This represents 1.07% of the Agency’s $18.8 billion FY19budget.^[1] This total does not include evaluation capacity building done by other Agency offices 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.

^[1] Source for FY2019 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.

3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY20 budget.

• AmeriCorps invested $8,200,000.00 on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 1.0% of the agency’s $806,529,00 million FY20 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 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)?

• 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 FY20), of which approximately one-third will be used for data and evidence capacity building activities based on prior year activities.

3.1  ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY20 budget.

• ED invested $237.6 million in rigorous evaluations, technical assistance related to evaluation and evidence-building, and capacity-building in FY20. This includes work awarded by the Regional Educational Laboratories ($83.9 million), NCEE’s Evaluation Division ($56.4 million), NCER Efficacy Trials ($42.7 million), SBIR Phase II Projects ($7.1 million), NCSER Efficacy Trials ($32.7 million), and NCSER Replication Trials ($14.8 million).
• This represents 0.48% of the agency’s $49 billion FY20 congressional appropriation, not including: (1) Student Financial Assistance and related accounts; (2) Howard and Gallaudet Universities; (3) capital and liquidating accounts for higher education institutions; (4) agency salaries and expenses; and (5) general and special funds receipts.

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 evaluation. Federal program 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. Other evaluation activities are supported by the IES budget (i.e., the Regional Educational Laboratories account; the Research, Development, and Dissemination account; the Research in Special Education account; and the Special Education Studies and Evaluations account).
• FY20 ($364.8M) and FY19 ($357.6M) estimates are not directly comparable due to a change in ED’s FY20 calculation method. However, the amount invested by NCEE in rigorous evaluations increased in FY20 ($56.4 million vs $53.5 million). Evaluation, research and development, and capacity building in the REL program represents a relatively stable appropriation (FY19 $55.4 million vs. FY20 $56.0 million), though, due to how contracts are funded over their lifecycle, a significantly larger expense in FY20 than in FY21. Slight increases were also observed in the Research, Development, and Dissemination account (+$3.2 million) and in the Research in Special Education account (+$500,000).\

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 March 2020, IES announced its most recent round of SLDS awards. IES anticipates awarding a total of $105 million over four years to 26 states, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Alabama, CNMI, Guam, and Wyoming were first-time SLDS grantees. Five other states, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, South Carolina, and Virginia had not received SLDS grants since the 2009 cycle. Priorities for the 2020 grants included (1) infrastructure, (2) education choice, and (3) equity.
• 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. Congress appropriated $55.4 million for the RELs in FY20.
• 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.

3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY20 budget.

• HUD invested $98 million on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 0.18% of the agency’s $54.195 billion FY20 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 FY20, Congress appropriated $98 million for the Office of Policy Development and Research’s Research & Technology account. FY20 funding was up $2 million from FY19, reflecting congressional support for the value of PD&R’s research, evaluations, and demonstrations. This budget includes $54 million for core research activities; $14 million for research, evaluations, and demonstrations; and $30 million for technical assistance. The total represents an FY20 investment in evaluations and evidence amounting to 0.18 percent of HUD’s $54.195 billion gross discretionary budget authority, net of salaries and expenses, for FY20. 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 FY20 appropriation of $28 million for Salaries and Expenses, up $2 million from FY19, also supports evidence in the form of PD&R’s in-house research and evaluation program; economic analyses; data linkage initiatives; and management of housing surveys, contract research, and evaluation.

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)?

• For FY20, HUD is providing $91 million of technical assistance to equip the Department’s program partners with the knowledge, skills, tools, capacity, and systems to implement HUD programs and policies successfully and to provide effective oversight of federal funding. State and local governments and authorities are among the eligible applicants, with approximately 23 awards expected. Community Compass integrates technical assistance funding from four major HUD program areas to better reflect the cross-cutting nature of housing and community development challenges. Eligible technical assistance activities include training and tool development to help program partners improve program management, evaluation, and performance measurement, and the Community Compass program itself has an increased evidence-based focus for FY20.
• In FY20, HUD is offering a new $3 million Distressed Cities technical assistance program that helps cities that recently experienced disasters build capacity for processes including data collection, analysis, and tracking outcomes. HUD operates a Section 4 Capacity Building grant program that funds national intermediaries and rural jurisdictions in building 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).

3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY20 budget.

• The Department of Labor invested $11.34 million on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing .1% of the agency’s $10.9 billion discretionary budget in FY20.

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 FY 17, 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 is 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 theRESEA community of practice, the DOL Chief Evaluation Office’s website, and in CLEAR, as appropriate.

3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY20 budget.

• MCC invested $16.1 million on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 2.3% of the agency’s $694 million FY20 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 $16.1 million on monitoring and evaluation in FY20, a decrease of $10.2 million compared to FY19 ($26.3 million total). MCC notes that this is not a reduction in investment, but a reflection of the number of evaluations conducted in FY20, which was lower than in FY19.

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 party 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.
• In FY20, MCC also realized a first-of-its-kind 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 will bring 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 will be coupled with training and capacity building to key Moroccan policymakers to promote evidence-based decision-making.

3.1 ____ (Name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY20 budget.

• Results for America was unable to determine the amount of resources SAMHSA invested in evaluations in FY20.^[1]

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?)

• Results for America was unable to determine the budget for evaluation at SAMHSA and, thus, any changes from the previous fiscal year. SAMHSA evaluations are funded from program funds that are used for service grants, technical assistance, and for evaluation activities. Each of the three program Centers uses their program funds for conducting evaluations of varying types. Evaluations have also been funded from recycled funds from grants or other contract activities.

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, policy-makers 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 (as of September 2019):
  • The Bringing Recovery Supports to Scale Technical Assistance Center Strategy (BRSS TACS) advances recovery supports and services for people with mental or substance use disorders and their families. The BRSS TACS website indicates it has provided training and technical assistance for building the capacity of peer-run, recovery community, and family organizations through evaluation, among six other topics. 
  • The National Training and Technical Assistance Center for Child, Youth & Family Mental Health (NTTAC)provides states, tribes, and communities with training and technical assistance on children’s behavioral health, with a focus on systems of care. NTTAC’s Training and Technical Assistance activities for clinical best practices, wraparound services, and workforce development focus on evaluation, fidelity assessment, and quality assurance, among nine other topics.

^[1] Results for America was unable to determine the amount of resources SAMHSA invested in evaluations in FY20 for criterion #3.