Repurpose for Results: Shifting Funds Towards Evidence-Based Outcomes

2020 Invest in What Works Federal Standard of Excellence

Results for America’s Invest in What Works Federal Standards of Excellence (Federal Standard of Excellence) Criteria 15, Repurpose for Results, highlights agencies’ abilities to shift federal resources from less effective programs to ones with that are proven to work — all while learning from these efforts and supporting grantees in improving their performance. Results for America has identified several effective strategies agencies have used to shift funds including:

• A policy(ies) for determining when to shift funds away from grantees, practices, policies, interventions, and/or programs that consistently failed to achieve desired outcomes and actions the agency took on to implement the policy
• Efforts to identify and provide support to enhance the performance and results of programs or grantees that failed to achieve desired outcomes

In FY20, Millennium Challenge Corporation was the leading example in the Federal Standard of Excellence for its Policy on Suspension and Termination, an established clear policy that outlines the conditions for which partner countries may lose federal funding. It focuses on performance measurement, and aims to avoid wasting funds on programs that are proven ineffective. These criteria include:

• A decline in performance on the indicators used to determine eligibility;
• A decline in performance not yet reflected in the indicators used to used determine eligibility; or
• Actions by the country which are determined to be contrary to sound performance in the areas assessed for eligibility for assistance, and which together evidence an overall decline in the country’s commitment to the eligibility criteria

MCC has removed or reduced funding for fourteen country partnerships due to “concerns about country commitment to MCC’s eligibility criteria or a failure to to adhere to their responsibilities under the compact.” A primary example of this is MCC’s first compact with Lesotho. After carefully monitoring the Automated Clearing House Sub-Activity project funded by MCC, the agency decided to remove funding once the data indicated that the program would not produce the original economic growth and poverty reduction outcomes. The remaining funds were transferred to an alternative program that expanded financial services to people living in remote parts of Lesotho.

The agency has actively provided assistance to countries who are not meeting evidence-based targets through quarterly performance reviews with senior leadership. In the FY20 compact with Ghana, after the country failed to reach agreed-upon targets, MCC reallocated program funds. Once a program is complete and a country fails to meet the expected goals; MCC thoroughly assesses to learn why the program did not meet expected results beginning with program design, the theory of change, and program implementation. The results from this assessment are published and shared through a country’s star report.

AmeriCorps takes a similar approach to reinvesting in more effective practices. In FY20 AmeriCorps State and National declined funding requests in the amount of $1,722,851 to six new and recurring applicants that did not provide adequate evidence of effectiveness for their proposed programs. AmeriCorps demonstrates a clear commitment to evidence-based interventions through its strategic priorities and has worked directly with competitive grantees to improve their performance by providing evaluation technical assistance. An example of this is through the AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation investment of $500,000 for grantees seeking to improve their ability to demonstrate evidence of effectiveness. In FY20, AmeriCorps State and National grant program assisted two grantees with “intensive evaluation technical assistance” and closely monitored their progress to ensure that the grantees were able to successfully implement their evaluation plans and hit key milestones. Additionally, AmeriCorps provided support to eleven tribal grantees to improve their data collection and evaluation plans.

While it can be politically difficult to justify shifting funding from an underperforming program or grantee, such shifts can be feasibly made with a focus on improvement and learning — and using such funds for more effective, evidence-based programs, too. For example, federal agencies can provide robust technical support to boost and improve performance and support grantees deliver results. As agencies continue to invest public funds in grant programs, there is a moral imperative to invest funds in evidence-based practices to ensure goals are being met and results are delivered for residents.