Social Sector Innovation Funds

7/30/2019 Social Sector Innovation Funds

1/56

Social Sector Innovation FundsLessons Learned and Recommendations

Shivam Mallick Shah and Michele Jolin November 2012

www.americanprogress.o


2/56


3/56

Social Sector Innovation FundsLessons Learned and Recommendations

Shivam Mallick Shah and Michele Jolin November 2012


4/56


5/56

Contents 1 Introduction and summary

5 Why social sector innovation unds?

11 Spotlight on three speciic innovation unds

19 Lessons learned rom social sector innovation unds

29 Recommendations

41 Conclusion

43 Appendix A

45 Appendix B

47 About the authors

48 Endnotes


6/56


7/56

inun an summay | www.amangss.

Introduction and summary

Over he nex decade America will ace enormous social and economic shis,

driven by budge consrains a all levels o governmen, signican demographic

changes, and an increasingly globally compeiive, changing workorce. Our naion

will have less money or services a he same ime here will be greaer demand

rom a larger, older, and more diverse populaion han ever beore. Young people

and heir amilies will be especially vulnerable in he ace o hese challenges, jus

a a poin in heir lives when hey need o be gaining he criical educaion and

oher skills needed or lie-long success.

o signicanly improve oucomes or young people and heir amilies in he con-

ex o his consrained scal environmen and hese oher mouning demands, we

mus ocus on improving he ways in which axpayer dollars are spen. Te ederal

governmen mus ideniy and inves in wha works o be a caalys or and

invesor in eecive and innovaive soluions ha produce greaer social impac in

he key arenas ha will deermine our counrys uure compeiivenesseduca-

ion, economic opporuniy, workorce developmen, and youh developmen.

While he curren public debae largely has been abou more or less resources, i

also is criical o ocus on how o ge beter resuls wih exising resources.

Social secor innovaion undshose unds ha ocus on developing and scal-

ing promising and poenially ransormaive communiy-based approaches ha

solve criical social problemsare one example o how he ederal governmen

is increasingly driving public dollars oward invesing in wha works.1 Te Oce

o Managemen and Budge currenly highlighs six evidence-based iniiaives,2 o

which a subse is comprised o social secor innovaion unds. Specically:

Investing in Innovation Fund, which unds he developmen and scale-upo evidence-based kindergaren-hrough-12h-grade educaional sraegies

(Deparmen o Educaion; $150 million in scal year 2012 ending in Sepember)


8/56

2 cn Aman pgss | Sal S innvan Funs

Social Innovation Fund, which suppors public/privae invesmen in evidence-

based programs ocused on economic opporuniy, youh developmen, and

healhy uures in low-income communiies (Corporaion or Naional and

Communiy Service; $44.8 million in FY 2012)

Workforce Innovation Fund, which unds developmen and scale-up o evi-dence-based sraegies o improve educaion/employmen oucomes or U.S.

workers (Deparmen o Labor; $50 million in FY 2012).

Tese hree unds are unied by heir ocus on ransormaive change, evidence-

based crieria or invesmens, parnerships wih he privae secor, and commi-

men o learning rom granees o improve pracice more broadly. Each o hese

unds presens a iered gran-making approach ha enables hose applicans wih

greaer evidence o impac o be eligible or larger gran awards, while sill providing

gran awards or less proven bu promising eors ha are commited o collecing

relevan daa and invesing in he evaluaion o heir work. Social secor innovaionunds provide a means or governmen o build a larger evidence base o wha works

and develop a beter undersanding o he ools and bes pracices or evaluaion.

Tese unds illusrae a rend oward evidence-based decision making ha we see

aking hold in he governmen a myriad levels. Tere is growing momenum a

he ederal, sae, and local governmen levels or using daa, perormance, and evi-

dence o seer public dollars o more eecively address needs. In ac, he Oce

o Managemen and Budges Acing Direcor Jerey Ziens recenly sen a memo3

o all ederal agency heads asking hem o use evidence hroughou heir budge

submissions or scal year 2014 beginning in Ocober 2013.

Similarly, mayors and governors across he poliical specrum also are increasingly

using daa and perormance o ensure limied axpayer dollars are producing he

greaes impac possible. (See Appendix A or a discussion o he challenges and

opporuniies in advancing an inves in wha works policy agenda.)

Innovaion unds can play a criical role in helping governmens a all levels inves

in evidence-based programs, specically by ideniying promising programs in

communiies across our counry, invesing in eors o improve he evidence base,and unding heir scale and spread, when appropriae.

By conducing our own independen analysis and inerviewing leaders involved wih

designing and implemening seleced innovaion unds, seleced applicans and gran-

Social sectorinnovation unds

provide a means

or government

to build a larger

evidence base o

what works and

develop a better

understanding

o the tools and

best practices or

evaluation.


9/56

inun an summay | www.amangss.

ees o innovaion unds, and a range o indusry expers wih relevan perspecives,

his repor describes he role ha he governmen can play a muliple sages o inno-

vaionand he role social innovaion unds in paricular can play in advancing an

invesing in wha works policy agendasynhesizes he key lessons learned rom

prior innovaion unds, and proposes policy and implemenaion recommendaions

or srenghening curren and inorming uure evidence-based innovaion unds.

In he pages ha ollow, we will deail all o hese atribues o social innovaion

unds, synhesize lessons learned rom our experience o dae wih hese social

innovaion unds, and propose a se o policy and implemenaion recommenda-

ions or srenghening social innovaion unds and supporing he ederal govern-

men in implemening a wha works policy agenda. Here is a brie summary o

our policy recommendaions:

Redirec unding rom ineecive ederal governmen programs o social inno-

vaion unds. Deermine where addiional social innovaion unds should be creaed. Provide addiional unding or successul innovaion und granees. Increase unding or daa collecion and hird-pary evaluaions. Se aside a porion o larger ederal unding sreams and award hem compei-

ively agains evidence-based crieria.

We also recommend he ollowing seps be aken by he execuive and legisla-

ive branches o he ederal governmen o suppor qualiy implemenaion o

innovaion unds:

Creae an ineragency working group on social innovaion unds. Creae a common evidence ramework. Encourage greaer implemenaion o iered-awards approach. Improve he peer review process. Beter dene he role o philanhropy and he privae secor in supporing social

innovaion unds. Ensure he fexibiliy o privae-secor maching unds. Repor annually on learnings rom each innovaion und and applicaion o

hese learnings more broadly. Beter leverage daa collecion and evaluaion resuls o communicae he prog-

ress and learnings rom innovaion unds wih criical sakeholders. Beter undersand he suppor innovaion und granees seek. Coninue o increase ransparency o programs and processes.


10/56


11/56

Why sal s nnvan uns? | www.amangss.

Why social sector

innovation funds?

Te ederal governmen can leverage several disinc bu aligned approaches4 o

increasingly direc governmen unding oward social programs and inervenions

ha will have greaer impac. Governmen-run social innovaion unds can play an

imporan role in helping address criical naional or communiy needs when here is

an idenied challenge bu a sense ha we are suck in erms o making signican

progress, and when here are soluions in communiies wih an evidence base ha

could scale wih he righ kind o argeed governmen and privae-secor invesmen.

Social innovaion unds ypically inves in producs, processes, sraegies, and

approaches ha improve signicanly upon he saus quo and have he poenial

o power ransormaive change. And hese innovaions are on a coninuum in

erms o heir sage o growh and he level o daa or evidence hey have abou

heir impac. Les look a hese muliple sages o innovaion.

Multiple stages of innovation and the governments role

o mos, innovaion ypically connoes somehing ha is new and unique.

Innovaion is oen undersood as somehing unesed and in he earlies sages o

creaion and developmen. Eeciveness or evidence o impac, as well as he scal-

abiliy o ha impac, are usually excluded rom he deniion o innovaion.

In realiy, here are acually muliple sages o innovaion,5 and muliple poins a

which criical invesmens mus be made in developing and building an idea or

inervenion. Tis specrum o innovaion requires dieren kinds o invesmens

and dieren sizes o unding a each o he dieren sages.

As wih privae-secor nancing o a or-pro business, he earlies sage o a

social secor innovaion requires invesors who are ineresed in developing an

idea or concep and willing o olerae more risk. As he idea or concep evolves,

invesors need o ocus resources on developing and rening he modelsill a


12/56


Figure 1

Investing in multiple stages o innovation

riskier sage or invesors ineresed in developing he approach. As a model begins

o show promise and hereore means less risk o invesors, resources need o be

direced a undersanding he impac and resuls, as well as expanding he reach o

es is poenial or growh and impac a larger scale.

When he innovaion has developed evidence o impac and can be considered

proven, i hen makes sense or an invesor o drive large amouns o resources o

help scale and spread he idea. Governmen, philanhropy, and he privae secor

can play complemenary and imporan roles as invesors in hese muliple sages

o innovaion. In general, hey can do so because:

Philanhropy, individuals, and ohers in he privae secor have more fexibiliy,

are willing o ake more risks, and oen are closer o or have a beter sense o he

individuals or eams developing he innovaion. Teir opimal role is a he earli-

es sages o developing a concep, building a model, and beginning o under-

sand he impac o he innovaion.

Governmen is oen less fexible and more risk averse, so i can inves in an

innovaion ha has shown some promise and is ready o increase is evidence

base and begin o scale.

Optimal role for philanthropic

and private sector investments

Optimal role for

government investments

Start-up Nascent Promising Proven Scale

Concept stageCreating the

innovation

Refining the model and

demonstrating effectiveness

Pursuing limited growth and

building organizational capacity

Scaling the

innovation

Fundamentally new

ideas, innovations,

and concepts that

are being formed

Concept at early

stage with

functioning model

Concept put into practice,

with some positive results using

appropriate methods and at

size/breadth to suggest potential

for additional growth

Concept proven

according to

experts; capacity

exists to support

scaling

Source: The Bridgespan Group; individual interviews and Results or America team analysis.


13/56


Tis is no o say ha here is no a role or he governmen o play in hese

earlier sages o innovaion. Governmen can creae prizes or challenges o

simulae and encourage more innovaion around a paricular social challenge

where here is a need or new ideas and soluions. Governmen can inves in a

less proven model, program, or approach i i has more experienced leadership

eams and a commimen o collecing he righ daa ha is conducive o con-ducing qualiy evaluaion over ime. A his earlies sage, governmen should

ocus on qualiy managemen eams, clean daa collecion, back-end evaluaions,

and perormance-based decision making.

Te ederal governmen also can have an imporan caalyic impac in simply

seeking ideas or unding a earlier sages o innovaion. By shining a spoligh on

he criical issues mos in need o innovaion, and by creaing marke incenives

or good ideas, he ederal governmen has he abiliy o signal o he marke

where innovaion eors are mos needed, and by doing so can incen a range o

sakeholders o arge heir eors where our counry needs i mos.

Noneheless, given he size and reach o governmen, he mos imporan role ha

governmen can play is ha when an innovaion is proven, hen he governmen

can signicanly expand is invesmen and scale he innovaion or approach o

communiies across he counry. (see Figure 1)

Te muliple sages o innovaion and he governmens role can be bes illusraed

hrough concree examples o various programs:

A he mos developed end o he specrum, he Nurse Family Partnership

Program6 is an example o a program ha had developed a srong evidence

base hrough rigorous hird-pary evaluaions over ime, many o which were

suppored by privae philanhropy. Because o he powerul evidence suppor-

ing he impac o his program and is approach, he ederal governmen chose

o inves signicanly in he scale and spread o several proven approaches o

high-qualiy nurse home visiing programs like ha oered by he Nurse Family

Parnership hrough he Home Visiaion Program a he Deparmen o Healh

and Human Services ($1.5 billion rom FY 2010 o FY 2014).

In he middle o he specrum, he Social Innovation Fund granees have ideni-

ed programs ha have begun o show promise and some evidence o impac, so

governmen dollars are being invesed side by side wih privae-secor unds in

expanding promising programs and developing a sronger evidence base.


14/56


Te Investing in Innovation, or i3, program direcly arges is unding based

on muliple sages o innovaion. By design, eors wih sronger evidence o

impac and eeciveness are eligible or greaer amouns o ederal unding, bu

less proven eors are sill eligible or unding i deemed srong in oher areas

(including he experience o is managemen eam and a commimen o daa

collecion and evaluaion over ime). Tis is a model o how governmen cansrucure unding along he muliple sages o innovaion.

Common principles of innovation funds

Te Oce o Managemen and Budge currenly highlighs six evidence-based

iniiaives,7 o which a subse is innovaion unds:

Investing in Innovation Fund, which unds developmen and scale-up o

evidence-based K-12 educaional sraegies (Deparmen o Educaion; $150million in FY 2012)

Social Innovation Fund, which suppors public/privae invesmen in evidence-

based programs ocused on economic opporuniy, youh developmen, and

healhy uures in low-income communiies (Corporaion or Naional and

Communiy Service; $44.8 million in FY 2012)

Workforce Innovation Fund, which unds developmen and scale-up o evi-

dence-based sraegies o improve educaion/employmen oucomes or U.S.

workers (Deparmen o Labor; $50 million in FY 2012)

Tese evidence-based innovaion unds share a se o common principles ha

disinguish hem rom oher compeiive ederal unding sreams. Specically,

hese unds:

Are relenlessly ocused on oucomes and aspire o achieve ransormaional

change Appreciae he need and demand or eecive pracices and prioriize inves-

mens in wha works Recognize he power o parnering wih philanhropy and he privae secor Recognize he need o learn rom granees and inorm larger ederal unding

sreams


15/56


Les briefy examine each o hese disinguishing eaures in urn.

Achieving transformational change

Innovaion unds are based on a undamenal belie ha curren approaches willno resul in he large-scale dramaic impac we seek. Insead o simply unding

more o he same, hese unds seek o uncover he rich supply o ideassome

proven, some emerging, many somewhere in he middleha are worhy o

greaer exploraion and invesmen.

Prioritizing investments in what works

Innovaion unds incorporae he belie ha here are sandards o evidence

agains which grans can be made, and ha hose eors wih greaer evidence oimpac should receive larger awards. A he same ime, hese unds undersand

ha making invesmens in evaluaion now will help provide he daa and creae

he inrasrucure necessary o assess impac o a given innovaion over ime, and

o more clearly disinguish ne impac rom gross oucomes in doing so. Tese

unds recognize he imporance o coninuing o suppor promising eors ha

commi o a series o acions ha will develop an evidence base over ime.

Recognizing the power of partnering

with philanthropy and the private sector

Innovaion unds are a vehicle or philanhropic groups and he privae secor o

provide local suppor necessary or eors o ake hold in a communiy and be

scalable and susainable over ime. Eecively scaling innovaion in he social sec-

or requires philanhropic and nonpro parners o inves alongside businesses

in communiies and he governmen (a all levels) o suppor and susain rans-

ormaional change. Alhough his parnership wih he philanhropic and privae

secor is oen ranslaed ino providing maching unds o ederal grans, here are

muliple ways in which he philanhropic and privae secor can suppor innova-ion und granees and leverage he governmens invesmen. We will discuss his

in greaer deail laer in his paper.


16/56


Recognizing the need to learn from grantees

and inform larger federal funding streams

All hree ypes o innovaion unds examined in his repor propose a more

engaged and purposeul parnership beween he governmen and granees, and

perhaps mos imporanly has required a more inimae relaionship among gran-ees (such as requiring paricipaion in a communiy o pracice). Te purpose o

such engagemen is mean o allow promising ideas, programs, and rends o be

elevaed and applied more broadly across organizaions, agency eors, and he

naion, and no be limied o he pracice o a single granee or program. Tis ocus

on learning and spreading wha works is anoher esamen o he noion ha he

qualiy and impac o ederal policy will be increased by learning rom wha is

working in communiies ouside o Washingon, D.C.


17/56

Slgh n h s nnvan uns | www.amangss.

Spotlight on three specific

innovation funds

Te Invesing in Innovaion Fund, he Social Innovaion Fund, and he Workorce

Innovaion Fund illusrae he principles oulined above in unique bu comple-

menary ways. An iniial examinaion o hese hree specic innovaion unds

(see able 1 on ollowing page), coupled wih inerviews wih a diverse range o

individuals conneced o hese unds and a horough review o publicly available

maerials abou hese evidence-based iniiaives, reveals a rich se o learnings and

recommendaions or increased policy and implemenaion eeciveness o hese

and similar eors moving orward.

Alhough i is sill oo early o declare ha granees o hese evidence-based inno-

vaion unds have wholly achieved heir saed oucomes and goals, granees rom

each o hese programs are already demonsraing meaningul progress in heir

communiies and beyond.

Following are examples o he iniial impac o hese hree innovaion unds, as

well as examples o inerim oucomes and progress o seleced innovaion und

granees. We have included hese sories because we believe hey illusrae he

meaningul progress underway ha is helping young people, amilies, and com-

muniies in need, bu we realize hese sories all shor o conclusive evidence o

ne impac o hese innovaion unds or hese innovaion und granees. We look

orward o examining ha evidence when i becomes available, as each o he

eors described is required o be evaluaed by a hird-pary evaluaor.

The Social Innovation Fund13

In jus hree years, he Social Innovaion Fund has leveraged $137 million o publicdollars o raise $350 million in privae dollars o inves in communiy soluions wih

he poenial or greaer impac. Imporanly, 126 unders have mached hese iner-

mediary grans and many more have provided subgranee maching unds.


18/56


Table 1

Overview o selected evidence-based innovation unds

Innovation

Fund

Investing in Innovation Fund Social Innovation Fund Workorce Innovation Fund

Host agency Department o Education Corporation or National and

Community Service

Department o Labor

Focus Provides competitive grants tolocal school districts and nonprot

organizations with records o success

to help them leverage public/private

partnerships to implement education

practices that have a demonstrated

positive impacts on student achievement.

Provides competitive grants togrant-making intermediaries that

competitively select nonprot

organizations in order to grow

promising, evidence-based

solutions in three priority areas:

economic opportunity, healthy

utures, and youth development.

Provides competitive grants tostate workorce agencies, local

workorce investment boards, and

institutions eligible or to apply

or WIA section 166 grants to help

them develop evidence-based,

results-driven employment and

training services .

Critical design

elements

Tiered evidence rameworkstrong

evidence required or scale up grants,

moderate evidence required or validation

grants, and promising evidence required

or development grants.

In addition to eligibility requiremento meeting evidence standard, there

are selection criteria ocused on both

evaluation and evidence.

Private sector match equal to

20 percent o requested grant

amount required.8

Every i3 grantee must conduct

an independent evaluation,

and share the results o that

evaluation with the public.

Leverages experience and

inrastructure o quality

intermediaries in the eld.

Grantees and subgrantees must

match their unds dollar or dollar,

thereby leveraging the ederalinvestment 3-to-1.

Every program supported is

evaluated.

Every WIF grantee must conduct

an independent evaluation, and

can use up to 20 percent o grant

unds to cover the cost o that

evaluation.

Funding and awards

FY 2010 $650 million; 49 awards $50 million; 11 awards N/A

FY 2011 $149.4 million; 23 awards $49.9 million; ve new awards $147 million; 26 awards9

FY 2012 $150 million; TBD10 $44.8 million; our new awards $50 million; TBD

FY 2013 Request $150 million; N/A $50 million; N/A $125 million; N/A

Philanthropic

match

The Foundation Registry i3an online

marketplace by which i3 applicants

can submit their applications and be

matched with dozens o potential unders

across the countrywas created by the

oundation community, helping support

the nearly $150 million required in

private-sector unds across the rst two

grant competitions.

Sixty oundations are currently listed

as participating oundations in the

Foundation Registry i3.12

More than 125 oundations have

provided intermediary matching

unds and many more have

provided subgrantee matching

unds.

N/A (no match required).

Source: Interviews; review o notices or ederal unding opportunities or all three social innovation unds.


19/56


Te Social Innovaion Fund has invesed in hundreds o communiies in 31 saes

and he Disric o Columbia. Tese gran dollars suppor 197 nonpro organi-

zaions14 ha are implemening promising, evidence-based soluions o pressing

social challenges acing low-income communiies.

Specically, resources rom his und are now unding program growh andspread ha will help young people creae new pahways or success and prepare

or employmen, suppor economic and asse developmen o low-income aduls

and amilies, help Americans access vial healh care, and comba povery across

a diverse cross-secion o America. For insance, he ollowing examples describe

iniial oucomes rom SIF granees:

Social Innovaion Fund granee LISC, a nonpro group ha helps neighbors

build communiies, suppors 47 nancial opporuniy ceners spanning 10 ciies.

A hese ceners, low-income amilies receive suppor and coaching o assis hem

in making beter nancial decisions. In jus six monhs LISC helped 2,400 peopleobain employmen, 1,500 individuals see an increase in heir ne incomes, 650

people improve heir credi scores, and 450 people now have a higher ne worh.

Five anipovery programs ha have proved eecive in New York Ciy are

now being replicaed in eigh ciies across AmericaCleveland; Kansas Ciy;

Memphis; Newark, New Jersey; New York Ciy; San Anonio; ulsa; and

Youngsown, Ohiowih suppor rom he Social Innovaion Fund. Tese

programs were originally developed and esed by he New York Ciy Cener

or Economic Opporuniy, he ciys award-winning anipovery cener. Te

programs being replicaed aim o urher he educaion, employmen, and asse

developmen o low-income aduls and amilies. In he rs year o one such pro-

gram, SaveUSA, paricipaing residens in our ciies opened more han 1,600

SaveUSA accouns wih close o $1 million in savings. I paricipans mainain

heir accouns, hey will be eligible or approximaely $426,000 in maching

unds. In New York Ciy alone, residens wih an average income o $16,000

were able o build up $250,000 in savings.

AIDS Unied is using is Social Innovaion Fund gran o suppor eigh innova-

ive parnershipscollaboraions o nonpros, researchers, and ohershaare improving individual healh oucomes and srenghening local services

sysems. In oal, i will connec a leas 3,500 low-income and marginalized

individuals wih HIV o high-qualiy healh care and he supporive services

hey need. Findings rom heir evaluaion are expeced o shed ligh on eecive


20/56


sraegies or increasing access o care or oher chronic disease suerers as well

as or individuals living wih HIV/AIDS.

The Investing in Innovation Fund15

As saed in he programs inaugural noice or proposals, he Invesing in Innovaion

Fund, or i3, is designed o provide grans o applicans wih a record o improving

suden achievemen and atainmen in order o expand he implemenaion o,

and invesmen in, innovaive pracices ha are demonsraed o have an impac

on improving suden achievemen or suden growh, closing achievemen gaps,

decreasing dropou raes, increasing high school graduaion raes, or increasing col-

lege enrollmen and compleion raes. In jus hree years he i3 program has:

Reviewed approximaely 2,300 applicaions vying or innovaion unds rom

across he counry

Engaged he privae secor in invesing in innovaions in educaion by securing

maching unds o nearly $150 million or he nearly $800 million o public dol-

lars graned, wih more han 250 privae-secor unders (oundaions, individu-

als, nonpro organizaions, and a range o oher nongovernmen eniies)

providing maching unds or i3 granees

Made available o he public a user-riendly, searchable daabase o inormaion

regarding all i3 applicans16 ha is now being used o share inormaion or oher

Deparmen o Educaion programs

Generaed momenum across he naion by awarding grans o 79 school dis-

rics and nonpro organizaions in 26 saes and he Disric o Columbia

Inroduced an evidence ramework and he approach o iered gran-making ied

o evidence ino he secor

Alhough he specic issue areas o ocus (absolue and compeiive prioriies)

wihin he program have varied some rom year o year, he iered evidence rame-work a he hear o he compeiion has no.

In shor, applicans mus mee specic evidence sandards in order o be eligible

or an i3 gran. Tis sandard varies depending on wheher applicans are reques-


21/56


ing Developmen, Validaion, or Scale-Up grans. In addiion o meeing an

evidence sandard or eligibiliy, i3 granees are also hen assessed agains selec-

ion crieria by peer reviewers or boh evidence and evaluaion. Te able on he

ollowing page17 describes he dieren evidence sandards ha apply o each ype

o i3 gran, and indicaes where hese elemens are considered in deermining

eligibiliy or as selecion crieria. (See able 2 on ollowing page, and noe hahe evidence ramework used or he Social Innovaion Fund is aligned wih he i3

ramework bu uses slighly dieren erms o describe each o he hree iers.)

Since is inroducion his evidence ramework developed by he Deparmen o

Educaion in parnership wih he Insiue or Educaion Sciences, he Oce o

Managemen and Budge, and a range o addiional houghul policymakers and

indusry expers has been he ocus o much discussion in he educaion eld. Tis

ramework represens a range o perspecives rom respeced indusry leaders,

which will be discussed urher laer in his paper.

Resources rom i3 are unding program growh and spread. For insance, Aspire

Pubic Schools, a charer school managemen organizaion based on Oakland,

Caliornia, and New Visions or Public Schools, a nonpro educaion group in New

York Ciy, are wo examples o i3 granees who are nonpro organizaions wih a

long rack record o improving suden achievemen ha are using heir i3 grans o

scale and expand he reach o ools hey developed in house o suppor and impac

sudens and eachers in schools ouside o heir neworks o schools. Specically:

Aspire Public Schools i3 gran is helping suppor is eors o share daa

analysis ools wih he secor using Schoolzilla. Schoolzilla is a cloud-based daa

plaorm ha oers disrics and charer managemen organizaions he daa col-

lecion and reporing ools ha Aspire developed o serve is growing nework

o charer schools, which currenly serves 12,000 sudens in grades K-12 across

34 schools in six ciies. Eighy percen o Aspires sudens are low income.

Schoolzilla is currenly being used by more han 350 schools o analyze more

han 4 million es scores, approximaely 75 percen o which are rom radi-

ional, noncharer public schools.

Trough he sysemaic use o ormaive assessmen lessons, New Visions orPublic Schools is using is i3 gran o assis high school eachers in disric and

charer schools o enhance insrucion and improve suden achievemen in

algebra and geomery. New Visions currenly serves 34,000 sudens across

76 schools hroughou New York Ciy. eachers use maerials as par o New


22/56


Table 2

Overview o Investing in Innovation Fund evidence standards

Scale-up grants Validation grants Development grants

Strength o research

Eligibility requirement

Strong evidence. Moderate evidence. Reasonable hypotheses.

Internal validity

(strength o causalconclusions) and

external validity

(generalizability)


High internal validity and high

external validity.

(1) High internal validity and moderate

external validity; or (2) moderateinternal validity and high external

validity.

Theory and reported practice

suggest the potential or ecacyor at least some participants and

settings.

Prior research

studies supporting

eectiveness or

ecacy o the

proposed practice,

strategy, or program


(1) More than one well-designed

and well-implemented18

experimental study or well-

designed and well- implemented

quasi-experimental study; or (2)

one large, well-designed and

well-implemented randomized

controlled, multisite trial.

(1) At least one well-designed and

well-implemented experimental or

quasi-experimental study, with small

sample sizes or other conditions

o implementation or analysis that

limit generalizability; (2) at least one

well-designed and well-implemented

experimental or quasi-experimental

study that does not demonstrate

equivalence between the intervention

and comparison groups at program

entry but that has no other major

aws related to internal validity; or

(3) correlational research with strong

statistical controls or selection bias

and or discerning the inuence o

internal actors.

(1) Evidence that the proposed

practice, strategy, or program,

or one similar to it, has been

attempted previously, albeit on

a limited scale or in a limited

setting, and yielded promising

results that suggest that more

ormal and systematic study is

warranted; and (2) a rationale or

the proposed practice, strategy,

or program that is based on

research ndings or reasonable

hypotheses, including related

research or theories in education

and other sectors.

Practice, strategy,

or program in

prior research

Selection Criterion

The same as that proposed or

support under the Scale-up grant.

The same as, or very similar to, that

proposed or support under the

Validation grant.

The same as, or similar to, that

proposed or support under the

Development grant.

Participants

and settings in

prior research


Participants and settings included

the kinds o participants and

settings proposed to receive the

treatment under the Scale-up

grant.

Participants or settings may have been

more limited than those proposed

to receive the treatment under the

Validation grant.

Participants or settings may

have been more limited than

those proposed to receive

the treatment under the

Development grant.

Signifcance o eect

Selection criterion

Efect in prior research was

statistically signicant, and

would be likely to be statistically

signicant in a sample o the size

proposed or the Scale-up grant.

Efect in prior research would be likely

to be statistically signicant in a sample

o the size proposed or the Validation

grant.

Practice, strategy, or program

warrants urther study to

investigate ecacy

Magnitude o eect

Selection criterion

Based on prior research,

substantial and important or thetarget population or the Scale-up

project.

Based on prior research, substantial

and important, with the potential othe same or the target population or

the Validation project.

Based on prior implementation,

promising or the targetpopulation or the Development

project.

Source: U.S. Department o Education.


23/56


Visions validaed collaboraive inquiry model. Currenly in is rs year and

encompassing 14 schools and 3,200 sudens, he ve-year Accessing Algebra

Trough Inquiry program is on pah o impac 65,000 sudens in New York

Ciy and beyond.

Oher examples, such as he Diplomas Now eam comprised o lead applicanJohns Hopkins Universiys Cener or Social Organizaion o Schools and

parnering wih nonpro groups Communiies in Schools and Ciy Year, are

supplemening proven school modelsin his case, alen Developmen, wih

proven parner suppor or menoring, uoring suppor and oher suppors

rom Ciy Year and Communiies in Schoolsare implemening eors in

schools already and seeing dramaic resuls. Troughou sies in Philadelphia,

Miami, and Seatle, schools implemening Diplomas Now saw a leas a 50 per-

cen drop in he number o sudens ailing mah.

All o hese examples help illusrae ha i3 granees are making a meaningul di-erence in communiies oday.

The Workforce Innovation Fund19

Granees or he Workorce Innovaion Fund were announced in June 2012:

26 grans across 18 saes ranging rom $1 million o $12 million each.20 While

he und is oo new o claim signican impac already, i is worh noing ha

he remendous response and qualiy o applicaions received helped lead he

Deparmen o Labor o supplemen he original $98 million program wih $49

million rom FY 2011 and FY 2012 unds. I is also worh noing ha leaders rom

he Deparmen o Labor proacively worked wih counerpars in oher agencies

o learn rom he experience o oher innovaion unds when designing and now

implemening is program.

Tere are noable dierences in he Workorce Innovaion Fund rom he

Invesing in Innovaion Fund and he Social Innovaion Fund ha are he resul o

houghul and deliberae policy decisions ha refec he conex o he work-

orce developmen eld. For insance, alhough he Workorce Innovaion Funddoes no adhere o he same evidence ramework as he oher wo unds, i does

include a iered gran-making approach where applicans mus ideniy he level

o evidence on which heir proposal is based, as well as ariculae heir plans or

evaluaion o heir proposed eor. All Workorce Innovaion Fund granees are


24/56


required o conduc an independen hird-pary evaluaionhe cos o which

can be covered by up o 20 percen o heir gran.

Also, meeing an evidence bar is no an eligibiliy requiremen in he workorce

gran as i is in oher wo social innovaion unds, bu raher is a selecion cri-

erion agains which applicaions are reviewed. And he Workorce InnovaionFund does no include a privae-secor maching requiremen bu does srongly

encourage parnerships wih criical sakeholders, including he privae secor,

in is reques or proposals. Te qualiy o hese parnerships is assessed wihin

muliple selecion crieria as well. Tese nuanced dierences refec he ocus o

he Deparmen o Labor o suppor innovaion and help build he evidence base

needed or he eld over ime.

O he 26 grans awarded his pas summer, here are several examples o eors

ha appear well posiioned or success.

Te Ciy o Los Angeles Workorce Invesmen Board is leading a consorium o

Los Angeles Ciy and Los Angeles Couny workorce invesmen boards in build-

ing he LA Reconnecions Career Academy, a career developmen collaboraive

ha aims o recrui nearly 1,400 ou-o-school youh and young aduls and pro-

vide hem he supporive services hey need o reconnec o educaion and work.

Tis career academy builds upon he ciys commimen o realign youh work-

orce invesmen unds o comba he high school dropou crisis in Los Angeles.

Is leadership eam represens he workorce developmen, educaion, human

services, and business leadership in he ciy and surrounding couny.

Te Tree Rivers Workorce Invesmen Board in Pitsburgh will use is gran

o design and build a New App (appreniceship) or Making i in America.

Te design and implemenaion o a new employmen and raining sysem or

advanced manuacuring aims o beter suppor he needs o boh poenial

workers and poenial employers.


25/56

Lssns lan m sal s nnvan uns | www.amangss.

Lessons learned from

social sector innovation funds

Based on inerviews wih policymakers and granees o he Social Innovaion

Fund and he Invesing in Innovaion Fund, along wih a more cursory consid-

eraion o he Workorce Innovaion Fund (given ha he program is early sage

and o dae has run jus a single compeiion), he ollowing are several key lessons

learned ha could improve curren and inorm uure innovaion unds. Tere is

boh some good news in erms o promising lessons learned as well as some areas

or improvemen and noable challenges ha need o be addressed.

The good news

There is a rich supply of quality ideas and organizations in need of funds

Firs and oremos, here is a rich supply o promising and evidence-based pro-

grams and organizaions ha are eligible or and can enormously bene rom he

kind o ederal unding provided by evidence-based innovaion unds.

In designing and launching he unds, here was a serious concern among poli-

cymakers and advocaes abou wheher here would be a sucien number o

organizaions who could mee he evidence sandards and qualiy or grans. Tis

concern so ar seems o be unounded. Te quaniy and diversiy o applicans

across hese programs illusraes boh an adequae pipeline or supply and he

ineres o he eld in such programs.

For insance, wih he i3 program, in 2010 only 2.9 percen o applicans received

grans, and in 2011 only 3.8 percen o applicans received grans. Te SocialInnovaion Funds inermediary organizaions re-graned unds o oher organiza-

ions, and each ound ha hey oo received ar more qualiy applicaions han

hey could und, and in some insances were overwhelmed by he demands o

reviewing and processing so many gran applicaions.


26/56


Te high scores and razor-hin margins beween granees and nongranees urher

illusrae he qualiy o he ideas pu orh or unding consideraion. Furhermore,

he coninued implemenaion o nonunded applicans demonsraes local buy-in

and deerminaion, as well as (again) he qualiy o ideas beyond hose ew ha

were awarded innovaion unds.

One possible excepion o he adequacy o he pipeline or supply o granees

may be wih he number o qualied applicans or he Social Innovaion Fund.

In 2010 (he rs year o compeiion), here were 69 inermediary applicans,

bu here were 24 in 2011 and 31 in 2012.21 Tis may sugges a need or he

Corporaion or Naional and Communiy Service o beter marke or com-

municae he role o inermediaries, or a need or philanhropy o suppor he

creaion and srenghening o eniies who could serve as inermediaries. Tis

could include more local Unied Ways, communiy oundaions, and oher resuls-

oriened communiy gran makers.

Noneheless, he qualiy o he inermediary applicans or he Social Innovaion

Fund seems o have remained srong despie he decline in applicaions rom he

programs inaugural compeiion. Given he adequacy o he pipeline and he

scale o needs in our communiies, his would sugges ha he ederal governmen

should increase (someimes signicanly) he amoun graned by each Innovaion

Fund o suppor more evidence-based inervenions.

Organizations are responding to government signals

about the need for evidence

Te evidence sandards included in innovaion unds have provided incenives

and pressure or organizaions o ocus on improving heir evidence base. And

organizaions are responding o governmen signals ha evidence could be

increasingly imporan o receiving ederal resources.

Muliple innovaion und applicans (no jus granees) noed ha applying or inno-

vaion grans allowed hem o push heir organizaion o adop an oucomes-driven

or evidence-based approach o heir work. Oher innovaion und granees noed hahe learnings rom heir gran are inorming he broader work o heir organizaions.

Case in poin: One Social Innovaion Fund granee described an eor o collec

common perormance indicaors across heir subgranees ha is now becom-


27/56


ing sandard pracice or oher gran-making porolios a heir organizaion.

Anoher granee described how hey are beter able o encourage local aliaes

o run evidence-based compeiive gran processes because o heir requiremen

o do so as an SIF granee.

All o hese examples illusrae he power innovaion unds can have on he recipienorganizaion isel in addiion o he inended impac on young people, amilies, and

communiies. Given ha organizaions are beginning o respond o ederal govern-

men signals abou he need or evidence, he ederal governmen and philanhropic

organizaions may wan o increase unding or organizaions o improve heir daa

collecion and conduc hird-pary evaluaions in order o mee evidence sandards.

Te governmen also may wan o increase evidence sandards in oher governmen

programs in order o expand he number o signals coming rom he governmen and

urher incen behavior changes beyond he number o acual governmen grans.

I is imporan o noe hough ha a shi oward becoming a daa-driven andevidence-based organizaion can come wih risk. Several organizaions noed a

relucance o evaluae heir eors and share heir ndings publicly due o he con-

cern ha hey would be punished by unders and he public or anyhing shor

o uniormly posiive impac. Tis is paricularly roubling or organizaions since

i is mos common or evaluaions o show mixed resuls and o demonsrae some

bu no necessarily uniormly posiive impac. Noneheless, organizaions noed

he value o evaluaions in helping hem undersand and improve upon heir prac-

ice, coupled wih he growing demand or evidence o wha works rom public

and privae unders, as wo criical acors ha are increasingly moving hem in

his direcion despie he iniial perceived risk o doing so.

Matching grants draw new financial resources

Mach requiremens rom he privae secor and philanhropic organizaions in

order o qualiy or hese innovaion und grans are encouraging new sources o

unding. Te privae-secor mach o he Social Innovaion Fund and i3 helped

granees secure unds ha would have been oherwise hard o raise, and orge

parnerships ha are srenghening he impac o heir work.

Boh Social Innovaion Fund and i3 granees describe how he required privae-

secor mach helped hem secure unds rom new unders who welcomed he

leverage he ederal gran dollars provided heir privae mach. A closer look a he

Matchrequirements

rom the priva

sector and

philanthropic

organizations

in order to

qualiy or the

innovation

und grants a

encouraging

new sources o

unding.


28/56


i3 program reveals ha more han 250 dieren organizaions provided more han

325 maching grans o he 49 i3 granees announced in is inaugural compeiion

in 2010. O he near $140 million raised by privae-secor maching unds, 53

percen came rom noncorporae oundaions and he remaining 47 percen rom

nonpro organizaions, individuals, corporae oundaions, privae companies,

and oher nongovernmen eniies.

O he $140 million raised by maching unds, more han $100 million was new

cash raised by i3 applicans.22 And i3 granees in each o is compeiions have

had o secure heir privae-secor maches very quickly. Due o he large number

o applicansnearly 1,700 in 2010 and nearly 600 in 2011he Deparmen o

Educaion chose no o require evidence o a secured privae-secor mach a he

ime o applicaion. Insead, ollowing peer review, applicans were named high-

es raed and hen had jus several weeks o secure heir privae-secor maches.

Once evidence o a secured privae-secor mach was reviewed and approved by

he Deparmen o Educaion, highes-raed applicans were named granees.

Despie his noable ime crunch o secure maches, every highes-raed i3 appli-

can successully secured heir privae-secor mach and become an i3 granee.23

Te diversiy o privae-secor unding parners and he more han $100 million

in new cash alone demonsrae he eeciveness o he i3 mach requiremen in

broadening he base o unders or evidence based innovaion unds.

Noneheless, inerviews wih governmen ocials and granees sugges he success

o innovaion unds could be increased by providing more clariy abou and fexibil-

iy wih he purpose o privae-secor engagemen. oo oen, he engagemen o he

privae secor is limied o simply lling a shor-erm, criical unding gap. By more

clearly providing incenives and describing he aims o privae-secor engagemen,

and by more clearly describing ha he privae secor includes all nongovernmen

eniies (nonpros, philanhropy, and no jus he radiional or-pro secor), he

governmen can help more innovaion und granees beter leverage he resources o

he privae secor and hereby maximize and possibly accelerae heir impac.

Ideas can transfer and influence how other federal programs are designedand how federal funds are ultimately allocated

Innovaion unds are nding resuls-oriened ideas ha can be adoped on a larger

scale by he ederal governmen. By design, innovaion unds are inended o be a


29/56


ool or governmen o ideniy promising, evidence-based ideas in communiies

around he counry, suppor he developmen o heir evidence base, and scale he

ideas o more communiies. Te goal is or he successul ideas o infuence ederal

policy more broadly. Our inerviews wih policymakers and granees sugges ha

his idea ranser is beginning o happen in a ew selec circumsances, alhough

more needs o be done o ensure his happens more ecienly and eecively.

For insance, Social Innovaion Fund inermediary he New York Ciy Cener or

Economic Opporuniy has worked closely wih he New York Ciy Mayors Fund

and senior leaders a he Deparmen o Housing and Urban Developmen o gar-

ner suppor or including $50 million in Presiden Obamas FY 2013 budge or a

program called Jobs-Plus, which aims o increase he level o earnings and employ-

men among residens o public housing.

Evaluaions o Jobs-Plus indicae meaningul impac, and hereore he New

York Ciy Cener or Economic Opporuniy included expanding he program oaddiional sies as a proposed use o is Social Innovaion Fund gran. Nine Jobs-

Plus programs are run in New York Ciy, one which is suppored by his SIF gran.

By leveraging he daa ha demonsraes eeciveness and sraegically working

wih agency and leaders a he Deparmen o Housing and Urban Developmen,

he ciys Cener or Economic Opporuniy has helped make he case or ederal

unding o a Social Innovaion Fund inermediary-sponsored program.

The need for improvement

Common evidence framework

Our research indicaes ha here is a need or more alignmen on evidence san-

dards. Innovaion unds generally have sough o creae a common sandard o

evidence o impac, bu here sill remains insucien alignmen across all ederal

agencies regarding wha is mean by eeciveness (or ransormaional change) and

wha measures are used o deermine eeciveness. A common evidence ramework

is criical o help creae a level playing eld by miigaing he uninended conse-quences o comparing resuls rom evaluaions wih various levels o design rigor

i.e., weakly designed evaluaions may yield srong evidence o impac whereas a

well-designed evaluaion may yield weak evidence o impac. Policymakers and

unders need o make sure wha hey are comparing is acually comparable.


30/56


Te Social Innovaion Fund, i3, and Workorce Innovaion Fund share common

elemens in he way ha evidence is considered and used as a crierion or selec-

ion and in erms o he evidence base o be developed over ime. For insance, all

hree programs ask applicans o presen boh he evidence hey have already o

demonsrae he eeciveness o wha hey propose o do as well as heir plans or

urher evaluaing he work hey propose o do. In ac, all hree programs requiregranees o conduc an independen hird-pary evaluaion. All hree programs

also adhere o a iered evidence ramework wih hree caegories or consider-

aion. Te erms or hese hree caegories vary across he programs, bu in shor

hey all indicae dieren levels o proven eeciveness and more or less range

rom promising o proven.

Bu absen resuls rom a randomized conrolled rial, here remains lack o agree-

men inside and ouside governmen abou wha consiues meaningul evidence

o impac. Tis means here is no clear indusry sandard ha he governmen

can simply adop.

Furhermore, using random conrolled rials as he measure, here is a limied

pipeline o organizaions ha have he sronges evidence o impac. In ac, many

argue ha sysemic change eors will never have he evidence required o show

ha hey work because by heir very naure here is no applicable conrol group

agains which progress can be measured.

Te perceived high cos o evaluaion, he limied capaciy in he eld o conduc

qualiy evaluaions a scale, and he limied capaciy o implemening organiza-

ions o suppor qualiy evaluaions urher exacerbaes his issue. Te Oce o

Managemen and Budges recen guidance encouraging agencies o consider

evidence-based iered gran-making approaches24 presens an opporuniy o

help increasingly align evidence sandards across governmen, and reinorces he

imporance o beter undersanding how o apply he appropriae sandards o

evidence o dieren circumsances and conexs.

Improved peer review

Eecive sewardship o axpayer dollars is one o he greaes responsibiliies o

he ederal governmen. Peer review sysems are known o have been pu in place

o preven agencies rom allocaing ederal gran awards in biased ways, and o

proec agencies rom such accusaions o misconduc. Peer review sysems were


31/56


no necessarily designed o maximize qualiy decision making or improve he

value o programs. In ac, many would argue ha he basic model o peer review:

Oen disallows he mos inormed reviewers rom reviewing applicaions

because o perceived confics

ypically does no include an in-person meeing wih he applicans leadershipeam ypically disallows a reviewer rom reviewing exernal inormaion o assess

claims made in an applicaion

Tis basic model is simply inconsisen wih he invesmen analysis bes pracices

any privae-secor under would employ.

Our inerviews ound ha here is a need o updae peer review and oher selec-

ion processes o ensure greaer qualiy and alignmen across innovaion unds.

Te curren governmen process or selecing grans creaes cerain consrains onhe poenial impac and eeciveness o innovaion unds.

Innovaion Funds, like mos governmen programs, rely on assessmens o submi-

ed proposals made by panels o peer reviewers. Peer review is embraced by he

governmen as an imporan way o ensure airness in he selecion o granees.

ypically, agency programs pos a call or peer reviewers o he general public and

hen review he many resumes received or confics o ineress and oher acors

o deermine wheher hey are eligible o be a peer reviewer. Once seleced, peer

reviewers are ypically assigned o a specic panel o peer reviewers who hen

review some subse o applicaions and score hem agains he programs selecion

crieria (and someimes, compeiive preerence prioriies as well).

Tese scores are hen abulaed across panels and hen used o develop a slae o

graneesa rank-ordered lis o applicans by score. Someimes here are addi-

ional layers o review, or a variey o reasons, bu or he mos par, he scores

assigned by peer reviewers inorm he lis o likely granees or a given program.

Wih innovaion unds, he peer review process creaes cerain consrains ha

migh infuence he eeciveness and impac o hese programs. For insance,policymakers and hose involved wih implemening Social Innovaion Fund and

i3 programs expressed concern ha individuals wih he mos relevan experise in

a gran-making area were oen no allowed o be peer reviewers. Insead, hey are

deemed conficed and unable o review gran proposals.


32/56


Alhough i is imporan o noe apparen conficsand his should be con-

sidered as an imporan acor when selecing and assigning peer reviewers

oher acors based on experience also mus come ino play. Because he Social

Innovaion Fund and i3 are seeking o und ransormaional, evidence-based

ideas here is a need o have he gran applicaions reviewed by individuals who

boh undersand he scope o he eld, he poenial or he ideas o be ransor-maion and, mos imporan, he qualiy o he evidence and plan o build evi-

dence over ime. Our research and inerviews indicae ha here is grea variaion

in how agencies implemen peer review, and here are indeed examples o agencies

ha adhere o less resricive confics policy.

Policymakers and hose involved wih implemening social secor innovaion und

programs also expressed concern ha here are cerain oudaed rules, such as

disallowing peer reviewers rom reviewing any applicaions rom heir home sae

because hey may have a bias in suppor o hose applicaions. Tis urher compli-

caes he acual implemenaion o peer review panels where geography is unlikelyo be a criical acor in selecion.

In a similar vein, hose involved wih implemening i3 noed ha curren agency

sysems in place or scoring applicaions relies on oudaed echnology and racured

guidance o agency sa. For insance, panel moniorshose agency sa who

manage he peer review panelsoen are insruced o no read he applicaions

ha heir panel o peer reviewers is reading so ha hey are no biased in anyway. Bu

his means ha when asked quesions by heir panel o peer reviewers, panel moni-

ors may lack he relevan conex and conen knowledge o provide he highes-

qualiy responses, which in urn may impac how peer reviewers score applicaions.

Peer reviewers ypically are required o only consider he conens o a proposal

when assessing scores. Tis guidance hereore disallows peer reviewers rom

leveraging heir prior knowledge abou a given leadership eam, opic, organiza-

ion, or geography. Tis also disallows peer reviewers rom gahering addiional

inormaion o es or quesion somehing hey have read in an applicaion hey

are reviewing. Alhough such saeguards are in place or good reason and such

assessmens may be subjecive, enabling some fexibiliy here could provide valu-

able insigh ino he review process.

Limied echnology is anoher acor upon which agency sysems can improve.

Peer reviewers ypically mus inpu all o heir commens and scores by access-

ing oudaed agency-specic sysems, which can be edious and ime consuming

It is critical that

some o the

challenges o

the peer review

process be

addressed in

order or the

innovation

unds to achieve

their intended

impact and

results.


33/56


and discourage peer reviewers rom providing meaningul eedback o applicans.

While many o he challenges described here apply o oher governmen programs

as well, given he unique scope and purpose o he innovaion undsocus on

ransormaional change, iers o evidencei is criical ha some o he chal-

lenges o he peer review process be addressed in order or he innovaion unds o

achieve heir inended impac and resuls.

In addiion o peer review, oher deaul inernal processes can limi he eecive-

ness o innovaion unds. In many agencies, deaul processes do no ypically

prioriize ransparency, and curren capaciy consrains make his even more

dicul o change or large-scale compeiions.

Privacy concerns and regulaions, or example, are oen cied as he reason why

applicaions, scores, and peer reviewer commens canno be shared wih he pub-

lic. When he Deparmen o Educaion chose o pos unprecedened amouns o

inormaion on he applicaions i received or he rs round o i3 and PromiseNeighborhoods on a newly creaed websie, htp://www.daa.gov/communiies/

educaion, his required signican inernal leadership and resources and ye sill

did no mee he needs o many criical sakeholders.

Improved collaboration and learning

Tere also is a need or more fexibiliy or collaboraion and learning, boh o

which are criical o he success and impac o innovaion unds. A presen, col-

laboraion and learning can be limied by curren ederal governmen consrains.

Te innovaion unds have sough o creae a learning relaionship or communiy

o pracice among granees o allow promising ideas, insighs, or rends o be

shared more broadly across organizaions and possibly he eld. Curren ederal

consrains can preven common-sense collaboraion wih he eld ha could

improve program eeciveness. For insance, because mos agencies will no share

inormaion wih a subse o paries ha is no oherwise made available o all par-

ies, i can be dicul or a ederal agency o parner wih nonpros ha may be

able o provide meaningul argeed assisance o applicans.

Similarly, i can be more dicul o parner wih he philanhropic communiy

because an agency may be prohibied rom sharing gran applicaions or oher

inormaion ha can inorm a philanhropiss ineres in unding an eor.


34/56


Sharing lessons learned to more broadly impact

other federal programs and policies

Lessons learned rom innovaion unds need o inorm unding rom larger

sreams o ederal dollars and ederal policy more broadly. As noed earlier,by

design, he innovaion unds inend o have a more engaged and purposeul par-nership beween he governmen and granees in order o share ideas and lessons

learned and increase he poenial or successul, evidence-based programs o

infuence governmen policy and unding more broadly. Given ha he size o he

innovaions unds isand likely will remainrelaively small compared o oher

compeiive and ormula programs, a key goal in he design and creaion o hese

unds always was o use hese unds as examples o show ha evidence-based

unding can work and o es he ways in which i can mos successully be done.

o dae, here are good examples o where his is happening, such as he example

described earlier wih he experience o he New York Ciy Mayors Fund, he

New York Ciy Cener or Economic Opporuniy, and he Deparmen oHousing and Urban Developmen. Bu inerviews wih policymakers and individ-

uals who implemen he unds sugges ha more needs o be done o share wihin

he hos agency he lessons learned abou how o expand evidence-based unding

in he ederal governmen, and he lessons learned need o help inorm eors o

make he larger compeiive or ormula dollars increasingly evidence based.

Te innovaion unds need o more inenionally share lessons abou implemena-

ion o his kind o evidence-based unding, such as wih he evidence ramework,

he peer-review process, and he maching requiremen, as well as share learnings

rom he hird-pary evaluaions underway by granees and he learnings rom he

program-wide evaluaions ha deparmens are conducing hemselves. By leveraging

he work underway by innovaion und granees o srenghen our collecive under-

sanding o wha works, in wha conex and wih wha levels o suppor, large ederal

governmen programs can beter design and implemen oher ederal programs.


35/56

rmmnans | www.amangss.

Recommendations

Innovaion unds are one example o how he ederal governmen can increasingly

drive public dollars oward promising or proven soluions. A sraegic approach o

improving exising and creaing addiional innovaion unds can help increase he

amoun o governmen resources ha are direced a evidence-based soluions and

address he needs o more communiies across he counry.

Te ollowing policy and implemenaion recommendaions are designed o help

ederal agency leaders, policymakers, and heir criical exernal parners makeinormed decisions o suppor and sar evidence-based innovaion unds, as well

as improve he impac o he exising innovaion unds, so ha here is consisency

where appropriae and clariy a all imes as o he ederal governmens approach

oward invesing in wha works hrough innovaion unds.

Policy recommendations

Redirect funding from ineffective programs to innovation funds

Congress should increase unding or he Invesing in Innovaion Fund a he U.S.

Deparmen o Educaion, he Social Innovaion Fund a he Corporaion or

Naional and Communiy Service, and he Workorce Innovaion Fund a he U.S.

Labor Deparmen by a leas 25 percen annually and sop invesing in programs

ha are no achieving heir desired resuls.

We recommend increasing resources or all o hese programs, wih corresponding

decreases in oher agency programs ha do no use evidence as a crieria, givenha here is sucien demand or hese programs and ha hese unds are seer-

ing more public dollars oward evidence-based soluions.


36/56


Determine where additional innovation funds should be created

Te Oce o Managemen and Budge should ideniy wihin 180 days he educa-

ion, youh developmen, workorce developmen, and social mobiliy challenges

ha could bene rom he creaion o an innovaion und; provide an adequae

jusicaion and raionale or he need or an innovaion und; and oer sug-gesions or placemen in a paricular agency. I here is an adequae raionale,

Congress should creae argeed innovaion unds ha are ocused on issues

poised or ransormaional change. Given he experise and reach o OMB as well

as heir expressed ineres in evidence-based policy, hey are bes posiioned o

provide an adequae jusicaion o Congress as o he proper ocus and place-

men o new innovaion unds.

Provide additional funding for successful innovation fund grantees

Te Obama adminisraion should include provisions in uure budge requess

direcing all ederal deparmens and agencies o provide poins o signican preer-

ence o organizaions ha have received grans rom and have me he perormance

benchmarks esablished by ederal innovaion unds when applying or unds rom

oher ederal compeiive gran programs. Te goal o his recommendaion is o

help successul innovaion und granees expand heir infuence on broader ederal

policy as well as increase unding rom oher sreams o ederal unding.

Increase funding for data collection and third-party evaluations

Te Obama adminisraion should include provisions in uure budge requess

ha increase unding or individual organizaions, collaboraions, or sysemic-

change eors ineresed in improving heir daa collecion and/or conduc-

ing a hird-pary evaluaion. Tis could also be advanced by he Congressional

Appropriaions Commitees, which could require a meaningul se-aside o unds

rom each program o be used or rigorous daa collecion and evaluaion o grans

unded under ha program.

Given ha organizaions are beginning o respond o ederal governmen signals

abou he need or evidence, he ederal governmen should increase unding o

improve heir daa collecion and conduc hird-pary evaluaions in order o mee

evidence sandards and improve pracice.


37/56


Set aside a portion of larger federal funding streams

and award them competitively against evidence-based criteria

Evidence-based innovaion unds are and will likely remain a small porion o oal

ederal unds. Wih his sark realiy in mind, mos agree ha heir overall impac

will likely remain limied i how he primary ederal unds are awarded remainsunchanged. Agencies should consider wheher some porion o larger ederal und-

ing sreams ha are ypically awarded by ormula can be se aside and compeiively

awarded o hose applicans ha have evidence o he ne impac o heir work, and/

or are commited o invesing in qualiy daa collecion and evaluaion such ha heir

ne impac can be assessed over ime. Tis approach will urher help he governmen

incen he creaion o a broader evidence base agains which o assess wha works.

Implementation recommendations

Create an interagency working group on social sector innovation funds

Te Whie House and he Oce o Managemen and Budge shouldcreae an

Ineragency Working Group on Innovaion Funds o suppor he developmen,

coninuous improvemen, and implemenaion o unds. o ensure agencies have

he suppor o move swily in seting up new unds and in coninuing o align and

improve exising ones, he Whie House and OMB should regularly convene an

ineragency working group on innovaion unds.

Te working group would allow agencies o leverage shared knowledge and

experise, develop shared sandards and pracices, and o inorm he design o

new unds while also inorming he design o he inernal processes ha will allow

hose unds o operae successully. Te working group also could ocus on align-

ing evidence sandards among exising and new innovaion unds. Te bene or

he adminisraion would be a cohesive, coordinaed porolio o innovaion unds

operaing rom a core se o principles o drive policy goals and ineress.

Create a common evidence framework

Te Whie House Domesic Policy Council and OMBwih he Council o

Economic Advisers a key parnershould iniiae an ineragency process o cre-


38/56


ae a common evidence ramework ha can be used across geographies, agencies,

and programs o gauge eeciveness and impac. Tis ramework should be devel-

oped and veted by expers in he governmen and he philanhropic, nonpro,

and privae secors, and mus consider a ocus on cos25 as well as a ocus on ou-

come. I should be user-riendly and allow promising organizaions o sel-assess

wheher hey mee he crieria or dieren levels o unding.

Furhermore, he ederal governmen mus suppor eors o develop addiional

measures o eeciveness, and o consider how daa and assessmen can be used o

improve pracice in real ime and no jus deermine impac over ime. Te ederal

governmen mus also inves resources in raining is own sa on hese emerging

rameworks, and building he capaciy o is sa and he eld o urher rene and

improve upon he proposed rameworks.

o develop a common evidence ramework, he Deparmen o Educaions i3

evidence ramework is an imporan saring poin. Moving orward, he WhieHouse Domesic Policy Council and OMB, along wih he Council o Economic

Advisers, should work wih he Deparmens o Educaion, Labor, Healh and

Human Services, and Jusice and he Corporaion or Naional and Communiy

Service o develop his common ramework wihin one year. Te Whie House

and OMB should include he inpu and eedback rom criical hird paries o

develop a deeper evidence ramework ha can be embraced and applied by oher

agencies wihin various levels o governmen, as well as possibly by philanhropy

and he privae secor. Tis ramework mus consider addiional measures o

impac, as well as he relevance o conex, cos, and usabiliy.

Encourage greater implementation of tiered awards approach

Te ederal governmen should drive grans o hose organizaions wih he

sronges evidence o impac. An imporan approach o ampliy is he sraegy o

iered awards, so ha applicans wih greaer amouns o evidence are eligible

or larger ederal gran awards. Tis is criically conneced o he developmen o a

common evidence ramework described above. o implemen his kind o iered

awards approachas boh i3 and he Workorce Innovaion Fund haveagen-cies mus beter undersand he implemenaion challenges ha may resul.

Case in poin: Peer reviewers and agency sapanel moniors and peer review

rainerswill need o be well versed on he dieren eligibiliy requiremens and

The ederal

government

must support

eorts to

develop

additional

measures o

eectiveness,

and to consider

how data and

assessment

can be used

to improve

practice in real

time and not

just determine

impact over time.


39/56


selecion crieria across he iers. And agency leaders will need o deermine a se

o policy guidelines ha incorporaes he challenges o muliple iers. Are here

muliple slaes rom which granees are seleced? Can applicans who are ineligible

or one ier be redireced o anoher ier by agency sa? Logisically, can individuals

review applicaions rom dieren iers? Answers o hese quesions alongside he

back-oce sysems needed o allow managemen fexibiliy across iers are essenial.

Anoher possible approach o consider is adding compeiive preerence poins or

applicans who demonsrae cerain levels o evidence and/or commi o a selec

se o approaches or daa collecion, analysis, and evaluaion ha will build an

evidence base over ime. Because he dierence in scores beween granees and

nongranees can be so slim, earning hese compeiive preerence poins can make

a signican dierence in who earns ederal grans.

Improve the peer review process

Te newly ormed Ineragency Working Group on Innovaion Funds (described

previously) should iniiae a process o ideniy weaknesses in he peer review

process and repor on needed improvemens wihin 180 days. Specically, he

Ineragency Working Group on Innovaion Funds should review and synhesize

how peer review is implemened in a range o agencies o beter undersand wha

approaches are currenly employed well and can serve as a model or oher agen-

cies. Tis review should, a a minimum, consider:

Te purpose o peer review Te use o iered applicaion and/or iered review processes26

Te recruimen and confics policy used o selec peer reviewers Te guidance, raining, and ongoing suppor provided o peer reviewers Te guidance, raining, and suppor given o panel moniors Te srucure and composiion o a ypical review panel How peer reviewers are recognized and compensaed or heir service Te general approach o public disclosure o peer reviewer names, scores, and

commen

An assessmen o he echnologies peer reviewers and agency sa are requiredo use.

Reviewing, scoring, and awarding innovaion und gran applicaions requires

a level o fexibiliy and argeed experise ha radiional agency sysems and


40/56


processes, oen or good reason, are ypically designed o limi. Te quaniy o

qualied reviewers required because o he scale o applicaions o innovaion

unds, coupled wih he broad range o experise required because o he ypically

broad range o issues eligible or unding under innovaion unds means ha nd-

ing enough qualiy peer reviewers is challenging.

Whas more, he deep experise required o eecively assess evidence o impac

and qualiy o proposed evaluaion plansbecause o he undamenal ocus on evi-

dence and evaluaion ha innovaion unds espousecoupled wih he diculy in

assessing experise in relevan compeencies such as scaling or innovaion, only adds

o he challenge o nding enough qualiy peer reviewers or innovaion unds.

Rehinking peer review processes, saring wih when hey should be used, and hen

deermining who should review and how, can dramaically change wha he govern-

men undersands as eecive and worhy o replicaion or scale, while mainaining

i no increasing he qualiy and objeciviy o he reviews. By more ighly managinghe review process, agencies can run large compeiive gran programs wih greaer

consisency and qualiy. Moving orward, he newly convened Ineragency Working

Group on Innovaion Funds should aciliae a comprehensive review o agency peer

review pracices and recommend acionable improvemens.

Better define the role of philanthropy and the private sector

Federal agency leaders implemening and/or designing innovaion unds should

specically ariculae he purpose o he privae secor engagemen hey seek

in heir requess or proposals.Te ederal governmen can more houghully

consider and dene he role o philanhropy and he privae secor in providing

leverage o governmen unds. A a minimum, uure innovaion unds should

be designed wih he inpu o philanhropic and privae-secor sakeholders, and

innovaion unds should aim o clearly sae he inended role o philanhropy/he

privae secor in achieving heir inended impac.

Specically, he purpose o philanhropic and privae secor engagemen may be:

o engage high-capaciy sakeholders in suppor o granee success o

srenghen he qualiy o proposed ideas and eors o creae local buy-in (and accounabiliy) ha can aciliae long-erm

susainabiliy


41/56


o signal o ohers wha programs are o high qualiy and hereore worhy o

heir suppor and engagemen o provide needed and fexible unds o ge he immediae work a hand done

By ariculaing he purpose o he engagemen, program parameers can be beter

inormed and designed o help deliver he inended resuls, and privae-secorparners o all shapes and sizes can more meaningully engage in imporan inno-

vaion eors.

In ac, some innovaion und granees noed ha heir privae-secor parners are

oen more compelling advocaes o policymakers on he imporance o innova-

ion unds hen hey are hemselves. Leveraging he voice o commited privae-

secor parners may urher help secure imporan ederal innovaion eors.

Ensure the flexibility of private-sector matching funds

Philanhropic and privae-secor maching unds should have he fexibiliy o be

used as broadly as possible as long as he use remains consisen wih ha oulined

in he original gran applicaion. Social Innovaion Fund granees noe ha hey

are unable o use heir privae-secor maching unds or undraising aciviies

even hough he erms o heir grans will likely require exensive undraising in

order o mee he demands o he privae-secor mach requiremen. Oher gran-

ees noe ha he exensive reporing requiremens or ederal gran unds are also

applied o heir privae maching unds, which in urn has generaed signican

workload or heir organizaionsand someimes required addiional hiring

given he size o hese maches.

In order o urher incen philanhropic and oher privae-secor engagemen wih

ederal innovaion eors, i is imporan o proec he fexibiliy o hese nongov-

ernmen unds. Moving orward, agency leaders rom he Deparmen o Educaion

and he Corporaion or Naional and Communiy Service in paricular should

convene a cross-uncional eam o legal, communicaions, and policy expers o

deermine wha proacive seps can be aken o ensure appropriae fexibiliy or

philanhropic and oher privae-secor unds. Teir ndings should hen be broadlydiscussed wih oher agencies considering launching addiional innovaion unds.


42/56


Report annually on learnings from each innovation fund

and application of these learnings more broadly

Te Oce o Managemen and Budge should require all ederal agencies ha

hos an innovaion und o repor back annually on he ways in which he pro-

grams learnings are being shared and aced upon wihin he agency and wih oherappropriae ederal agencies. Hos agencies mus be willing o be a consumer o

he programs learnings, and inenionally consider how o leverage he learnings

rom innovaion programs o improve he work o oher agency programs.

Te hos agency o an innovaion und mus see he success o he und as ine-

gral o he success o he agency, and hereby prioriize learning rom he eor.

o aciliae qualiy implemenaion and key learning, he nus and bols o he

innovaion und mus be led by experienced agency ocials who have run qual-

iy, compeiive programs in he pas and can boh eecively manage he many

echnical inricacies o running such programs wih he abiliy o eecively com-municae progress and challenges o he res o he agency, Congress, OMB, he

Whie House, and a range o exernal sakeholders so maters can be resolved and

amplied wihou undue delay.

Wihou ha ype o dedicaed high-level agency leadership coupled wih expe-

rienced echnical agency implemening parners, innovaion unds will sruggle

o succeed inside mos agencies and will ail o disill learnings ha can be shared

and applied more broadly o oher agency programs and adminisraion priori-

ies. As curren innovaion unds maure, OMB and he Whie House should

work wih agency leaders o boh assess learnings and impac o hese respecive

innovaion unds, bu o also deermine how hese learnings and pracices can be

leveraged o srenghen broader agency or adminisraion eors.

One specic example o agency acion o encourage he ranser o ideas and

learnings rom innovaion unds o oher agency programs is happening a

he Deparmen o Educaion. Eors are underway o revise he Educaion

Deparmen General Adminisraive Regulaions, or EDGAR, o include he

evidence ramework used in he Invesing in Innovaion und. Tis change would

allow any Deparmen o Educaion program o adop his evidence rameworkwihou needing o go hrough he lenghy rule-making process..


43/56


Better leverage data collection and evaluation results to communicate the

progress and learnings from innovation funds with critical stakeholders

In addiion o reporing on progress o OMB annually, each ederal agency wih

an innovaion und should creae a robus communicaions sraegy o convey he

value and poenial o hese unds o oher key sakeholders, including he broaderpublic. Innovaion unds would bene rom requen communicaions and

updaes o key sakeholders on he progress and learnings o heir programs.

In paricular, granees (and subgranees) will wan o recognize ha here is con-

siderable value o be gained rom eecive communicaion o heir early successes

and progress oward oucomes. As hese sories are shared wih policymakers,

philanhropy groups, oher praciioners, and he public, hey will help build an

undersanding o he innovaion unds poenial o achieve impac over ime.

Agencies would also do well o communicae how innovaion unds are con-ribuing o improved agency perormance across he board, and o share heir

lessons learned wih heir sakeholders. Boh agencies and granees will wan

o recognize ha proacive communicaions will have he mos value, and hey

will wan o plan accordingly o ensure hey have he capaciy o susain a robus

communicaions sraegy.

Furhermore, ederal governmen agencies mus develop a plan o suppor

access o and learning rom he evaluaions o innovaion und granees, in order

o inorm boh local communiy pracice and oher governmen agencies and

programs. One way o encourage his learning is o require ha publicly unded

eors make heir evaluaions publicly available, wih he appropriae precauions

aken o proec he privacy o any specic individuals. Te ederal governmen or

anoher inormed hird pary migh hen consider how hey can make his inor-

maion usable o a broader audience o praciioners and policymakers. All hree

innovaion unds discussed in his paper require granees o conduc hird-pary

evaluaions, bu here is no ye an ariculaed approach o how hese evaluaions

will be used o improve pracice and inorm decision-making more broadly.

Te newly convened Ineragency Working Group on Innovaion Funds shouldpropose an aligned approach or monioring progress on he ground and assessing

hard evaluaion resuls as hey come ogeher, synhesizing his inormaion and

presening i o criical audiences o improve learning and decision making.

Innovation u

would benef

rom requent

communicati

and updates t

key stakehold

on the progre

and learnings

their program


44/56


Better understand the support innovation fund grantees seek

Te ederal governmen mus assess he ypes o suppor innovaion und granees

need, and deermine he role o he ederal governmen versus ha o exernal par-

ies in providing ha suppor. Tere are limis o he level o suppor and hough

parnership he ederal governmen can provide any individual granee becausehe governmen is no designed o provide hands-on counsel o granees. Whereas

he Social Innovaion Fund leans on inermediaries o provide subgranees needed

suppor, he Invesing in Innovaion und requires granees o paricipae in commu-

niies o pracice, and oher programs such as Promise Neighborhoods rely on hird

paries wih relevan experise o provided suppor o curren and poenial granees.

Leaders rom he Deparmen o Educaion, he Corporaion or Naional and

Communiy Service, and he Deparmen o Laborideally hrough he newly

convened Ineragency Working Group on Innovaion Fundsshould consider

working wih a hird pary o proacively monior hese dieren approaches oimprove our undersanding boh o he ype o criical suppor innovaion gran-

ees need, as well as he bes arrangemens hrough which o provide ha suppor.

Continue to increase transparency of programs and processes

Fuure innovai

Social Sector Innovation Funds

Documents

Transcript of Social Sector Innovation Funds