Leading Examples

This federally funded, $9.5 million program supports the implementation of literacy instruction programs. Montana’s grant program (1) Defines evidence by citing ESSA and requiring grantees to select evidence-based programs from a list it provides (page 5); (2) Prioritizes evidence through an evidence requirement by including an absolute priority that applicants use evidence-based strategies (page 12); (3) Advances equity by including an eligibility requirement that schools served by grant activities have a student population of 50% or more Free and Reduced Meal status, in the top 15% in the state for Free and Reduced Meal status, or with the highest percentage of students reading or writing below grade level (page 8); and (4) requires grantees to adopt an assessment from a list provided by the state to facilitate progress monitoring and evaluation (page 5).

This federally-funded, $35.6 million grant program funds services to improve child literacy through coaching and teaching of teachers. California’s grant program demonstrates: 1) Defining evidence by citing and describing ESSA (page 6); 2) Prioritizing evidence by awarding up to 8 points for evidence-based strategies (page 35); 3) Building evidence by awarding up to 8 points for grantees’ evaluation plans (page 40); and
4) Advancing equity by requiring applicants to identify local and regional needs and showing how the evidence-based strategies they select will address those needs (page 10).

This federally funded, $7.5 million grant program launched by OSSE as part of their recovery-focused high-impact tutoring initiative, advances equity by awarding up to 5 points (out of 100) to applications that will serve schools and non-school sites with larger proportions of at-risk students and English learners or that are focused on students with disabilities, students involved in the juvenile justice system, or students who are one or more grade level behind (pages 8 and 13).

This federally funded $22.1 million grant program funds services to improve child literacy. Georgia’s grant program: 1) Defines evidence by referencing the state’s definition of evidence (page 20); 2) Prioritizes evidence by awarding up to 35 points for a description of the project goals that demonstrates how the grant activities are consistent with evidence-based practices (page 5, 8 and 9); 3) Builds evidence by requiring grantees to provide data to the SEA to facilitate a state-led evaluation (page 6); and 4) Advances equity by awarding up to 15 points for stakeholder engagement (page 2) and requiring disaggregated outcomes data (page 17).

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families awarded grants to twelve states and one tribe for the Safe Access for Victims’ Economic Security demonstration. Simultaneous with this grantmaking process, the agency published a grant announcement for a training, technical assistance, resource, and evaluation center.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families sponsored the Buffering Toxic Stress Consortium, which included six research grantees partnering with Early Head Start service grantees. The grantees, in collaboration with federal staff, met regularly to share information and identified common measures for use in all their studies.

This federally funded $2.6 million grant program focuses on developing model comprehensive literacy sites into early childhood through high school education curricula across the state. Ohio’s grant 1) Defines evidence by citing ESSA (Section 8A, page 43); 2) Prioritizes evidence by awarding up to 9 points for evidence-based strategies (page 46); 3) Builds evidence by awarding up to 15 points for descriptions of how proposed projects will be monitored through data-driven decision making and awards up to 20 points for applications that describe how funds will be used to evaluate the success of the activities funded by the grant program (page 24); and 4) Advances equity by awarding up to 10 points for a commitment to serve multilingual learners or students with disabilities (page 26) and, for early childhood education applicants, requires evidence of serving low-income children and an equity audit (page 35).

Pennsylvania’s Department of Education requires grantees of the ESSA Title IV-B Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers grant program to participate in local evaluations and created a Local Evaluation Toolkit to support grantees in fulfilling this requirement.

This federally funded, $16.1 million grant program funds services to increase capacity surrounding safe, inclusive, and supportive learning environments and preventing violence through increased emotional resilience. Maryland’s grant program: 1) Define evidence by citing and describing ESSA (page 11);  2) Prioritizes evidence through an evidence-preference by awarding up to 10 points for evidence-based strategies (page 23); and 3) Builds evidence by awarding up to 10 points for evaluation plans (page 24).

This federally funded, $35.9 million grant program funds the development of sustainable educational systems to increase the literacy skills of Minnesota students, especially those with the highest needs. Minnesota’s grant program: 1) Prioritizes evidence by requiring applicants to commit to evidence-based literacy strategies (page 8); 2) Builds evidence by requiring grantees to report data that will inform a state-level evaluation (page 6) and by awarding additional funds to grantees that participate in a national impact student conducted (page 5); and 3) Advances equity by awarding priority points to applicants that serve a high number of children living in poverty, English learners, children who identify as American Indian, and children with disabilities (page 7).

This federally funded, $7 million grant program funds services providing academic and enrichment opportunities for children and their families. Nevada’s grant program: 1) Define evidence by citing ESSA (page 9 and Appendix D); 2) Prioritizes evidence by requiring applicants to demonstrate that they will use evidence-based practices (page 61); 3) Builds evidence by requiring applicants to participate in both state evaluations and annual external evaluations (page 23). 4) Advance equity by including priority points for underserved counties, as well as for high schools with graduation rates below 67% (page 7).

The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) YouthBuild program requires grantees to participate in an evaluation, if one is undertaken by the DOL (page 62).

The Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act (SIPPRA), signed into law in 2018, is intended to increase employment and earnings of low income individuals who may experience barriers to employment and increase the financial stability of low-income families. Funding for training providers is distributed according to a tiered outcome payment scheme based on levels of success in achieving this outcome.

In 2020, the Workforce Development Board of Central Ohio (WDBCO) released performance-based RFPs for their one-stop center operator and their main career services provider that combined cost-reimbursement with performance payments for priority outcomes. Each of the five performance metrics the WDBCO prioritized was assigned a baseline measure as the minimum level of performance required to begin receiving bonus payments, and each metric accounts for 9% of the total direct operational costs.

In 2023, Duval County Public Schools (FL) used an outcomes-based contracting model to implement a high impact tutoring program. This case study includes steps for implementing this contract and the “rate card” Duval used for pricing outcomes.

In 2022, Denver Public Schools (CO) used outcome-based contracting to implement a state-funded high impact tutoring program. This case study includes steps for implementing this contract and the “rate card” Denver used for pricing outcomes.

AmeriCorps’s State and National competitive grants program allocates up to 20 points for an applicant’s level of evidence and the quality of the evidence.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Upward Bound program includes a competitive preference priority for strategies supported by evidence (pages 18-20).

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Innovation and Early Learning Programs, Education Innovation and Research Program expansion grants fund only evidence-based activities, as defined explicitly in the grant announcement.

The federal American Rescue Plan and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP-ESSER) specified minimum percentages of funding that SEAs were required to use on evidence-based academic interventions, summer programs and afterschool activities.