3.1 “____ (name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY19 budget.”

• The Administration for Children and Families invested approximately $200 million in evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing approximately 0.3% of the agency’s approximately $59 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, ACF’s Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation has a budget of approximately $200 million, a $35 million increase from FY18.

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, to support grantees who are conducting their own local evaluations (for example projects supporting Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grantees and Personal Responsibility Education Program grantees), and to provide general capacity building support (for example the TANF Data Innovation Project and the Tribal Early Childhood Research Center). ACF also publishes resources such as The Program Manager’s Guide to Evaluationto provide guidance to programs planning and implementing evaluations.

3.1 “____ (name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY19 budget.”

• ACL invested $18.8 million on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 0.85% of the agency’s $2.2 billion FY19 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 budget for evaluation was $18.8 million in FY19; there were no significant changes to the evaluation budget since the previous year. The bulk of ACL’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, and 2019 OPE added approximately $950,000, $1.7 million, and $3.2 million from these programs to its evaluation budget respectively.

3.3 Did the agency provide financial and other resources to help city, county, and state governments or other grantees build their evaluation capacity (including technical assistance funds for data and evidence capacity building)?

• ACL 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 research-based insight into 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.

3.1 “____ (name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY19 budget.”

• USAID invested $195.6 million on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 1% of the agency’s $18.8 billion FY18 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 FY18, USAID operating units reported investing approximately $191 million on evaluations that were completed or ongoing in that fiscal year. LER’s budget for evaluation technical assistance and evaluation capacity-building in FY18 was $4.6 million, coming to a total of $195.6 million. This represents 1% of the Agency’s $18.8 billion FY18 budget.¹ This total does not include 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.
• USAID Missions and Operating Units (OUs) reported completing 189 evaluations with resources totaling approximately $70 million. In addition, Missions/OUs are currently managing another 209 ongoing evaluations, many that span more than one year, with total ongoing evaluation budgets estimated to reach almost $121 million. Overall, USAID’s spending on evaluations completed or ongoing in FY18 was $191 million, a reduction from the FY17 total of $252 million. LER’s FY18 budget was $4.6 million, down from $8.9 million in FY17 due in part to an overall FY18 Agency program budget decline from $19.6 billion in FY17² to $18.8 billion in FY18. Despite these reductions, the overall proportion the Agency invested in evaluations remained at 1% of program funds.

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.

¹Source for FY2018 Agency budget: FY 2020 Congressional Budget Justification. Page 2. Bilateral Economic Assistance total ($24,433,542,000) minus State’s Global Health Programs ($5,670,000,000) is $18,763,542,000.

²Source for FY2017 Agency budget: FY 2019 Congressional Budget Justification. Page 2. Bilateral Economic Assistance total ($25,316,492) minus State’s Global Health Programs ($5,670,000) is $19,646,492.

3.1 “____ (name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY19 budget.”

• CNCS invested $12,450,000 on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 1.2% of the agency’s $999,211,010 million 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?)

• Congress allocated $4,000,000 to CNCS for its evaluation budget. This is the same amount allocated in FY18.

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 FY19), 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 FY19 budget.”

• ED invested $53.5 million on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 0.11% of the agency’s $47.9 billion discretionary budget (not including Student Financial Assistance and administrative funds) in FY19.
• This total reflects a targeted definition of program funds dedicated to evaluation, including impact studies and implementation studies. It is important to note that the timing of evaluation projects and the type of research projects proposed by the field results in year-to-year fluctuations in this amount and does not reflect a change in ED’s commitment to evaluation.

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, ED spent $53.5 million on evaluation related activities, an increase from the $39.7 million spent in FY18.
• This amount included $39.7 million spent on evaluations in FY19, a slight increase from about $38 million it spent in FY18. While ED does not have a specific budget solely for evaluation, it is authorized by ESEA to reserve up to .5% of ESEA program funds for evaluation activities. Other sources of funding include the IES budget and program funds that require evaluations.
• The FY20 President’s Budget proposed a new pooled evaluation authority in the Higher Education Act (HEA), similar to that of the ESEA, that would permit the Department to reserve up to .5% of funding appropriated for each HEA program (with the exception of the Pell Grant program) to support rigorous independent evaluations and data collection and analysis of student outcomes of all HEA 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)?

• Since FY15, IES has been supporting a cohort of 16 state grantees, with awards totaling approximately $24 million, as part of the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems grant program. This supports efforts related to (1) increasing use of data for decision making; (2) conducting training on data use, data tools, or accessing data and reporting systems; and (3) utilizing research and analysis results. In FY19, IES announced a new round of SLDS funding totaling $26.1 million.
• The Regional Education Laboratories (RELs) provide extensive technical assistance on evaluation and support research alliances 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 FY19.
• 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 FY19 budget.”

• HUD invested $96 million on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 0.18% of the agency’s $53.762 billion FY19 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 FY19, Congress appropriated $96 million for the Office of Policy Development and Research’s (PD&R’s) Research & Technology account. FY19 funding was up $7 million from FY18, reflecting congressional support for the value of PD&R’s research, evaluations, and demonstrations. This budget includes $50 million for core research activities; up to $21 million for research, evaluations, and demonstrations; and not less than $25 million for technical assistance. The total represents an FY19 investment in evaluations and evidence amounting to 0.18 percent of HUD’s $53.762 billion gross discretionary budget authority, net of salaries and expenses, for FY19. 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 FY19 appropriation of $26 million for Salaries and Expenses, up $2 million from FY18, 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 FY 2019, HUD is making available $25 million through the Community Compass NOFA for technical assistance to equip HUD’s customers 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.
• 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 (Section 24 CFR 507.200) 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 507.205 and 507.206).

3.1 “____ (name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY19 budget.”

• The Department of Labor invested $9.94 million on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing .1% of the agency’s $12 billion discretionary budget in FY19.

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, DOL’s CEO is directly overseeing approximately $9.94 million in evaluation funding (this includes a direct appropriation of $8.04 million for department program evaluation and a set-aside amount of approximately .02% of select department accounts). 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 FY18, CEO oversaw approximately $21 million in evaluation and evidence building activities.
• This amount only represents the dollars that are directly appropriated or transferred to 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 FY19, 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, over the course of approximately six months. 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 the RESEA 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 FY19 budget.”

• MCC invested $26.3 million on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing 3.7% of the agency’s $905 million FY19 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 $26.3 million on monitoring and evaluation in FY19, an increase of $11.2 million compared to FY18 ($15.1 million total).

3.3 Did the agency provide financial and other resources to help city, county, and state governments or other grantees build their evaluation capacity (including technical assistance funds for data and evidence capacity building)?

• In support of MCC’s emphasis on country ownership, MCC also provides 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.

3.1 “____ (name of agency) invested $____ on evaluations, evaluation technical assistance, and evaluation capacity-building, representing __% of the agency’s $___ billion FY19 budget.”

• RFA was unable to determine the amount of resources SAMHSA invested in evaluations in FY19.³

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?)

• RFA 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.

³RFA was unable to determine the amount of resources SAMHSA invested in evaluations in FY19 for criterion #3.