APPENDIX C 

2016 RSVP/FGP/SCP Grant Renewal 

Evidence-based Programs Instructions

I. Background 

The Administration is committed to using taxpayer dollars effectively and efficiently. Central to that 

commitment is a culture where agencies (1) ask and answer questions that help them find, implement, 

spread, and sustain effective programs and practices, (2) identify and fix or eliminate ineffective 

programs and practices, (3) test promising programs and practices to see if they are effective and can be 

replicated, and (4) find lower cost ways to achieve positive impacts. By providing opportunities to 

expand evidence-based practices, CNCS is equipping partners to demonstrate and enhance the impact of 

volunteering toward pressing needs. 

The term “evidence-based program,” in general, refers to a set of activities and practices supported by a 

theory of change tested through a rigorous program evaluation. Federal agencies consider a program to 

be “evidence-based” if program evaluations demonstrate a causal relationship between program 

activities and specified outcomes. 

II. Opportunities and Applicant Instructions

For assistance in considering relevant local options, send an email to evidencebased@cns.gov to set up 

an appointment. General technical assistance will be offered through live and recorded webinars, as well 

as “evidence-based office hours.” 

A. RSVP Only - National Performance Measures requirement

RSVP grantees seeking funding through the 2016 administrative renewal process have the option of 

fulfilling the National Performance Measures requirement by committing a certain number of volunteers 

to serve in an evidence-based health education program. Volunteers engaged in a qualified work plan 

will count toward the minimum requirement in the Invitation to Apply, Section A.3. National 

Performance Measures. See the Invitation to Apply for options and Appendix B for important 

definitions. 

Qualified evidence-based health education programs must be registered and appropriately ranked in one 

of the registries in Table 1 sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.1 In the 

community needs section of the applicable work plan(s), 

- enter “Evidence-based Programs work plan,” 

- identify the program model by its name and origin, and 

- describe how it relates to the proposed service activity. 

NOTE: All volunteers committed in the renewal application work plans must be supportable by the 

baseline level of funding.

1

 A number of Senior Corps grantees have implemented the “Bone Builders” program, which had been based on 

published research from Tufts University. For the 2016 renewal cycle, pending rigorous evidence in support of its 

impact on health, Senior Corps will allow grantees to use the Bone Builders model as a health education program 

that meets the National Performance Measures requirement.

Page 1 of 6 Updated 2/24/2016 
APPENDIX C 

2016 RSVP/FGP/SCP Grant Renewal 

Evidence-based Programs Instructions

B. All Programs - Opportunity for increased funding

In conjunction with the renewal process, Senior Corps will accept proposals for funding at a higher level 

than the baseline grant award in order to engage volunteers in evidence-based programs. Senior Corps 

encourages grantees to consider innovative ways of using CNCS funding to bring evidence-based 

services to their communities, extend the availability of evidence-based services to new populations, and 

partner with researchers seeking to understand the contribution of Senior Corps volunteers supporting 

evidence-based programs. 

To qualify, sponsors and their partners may replicate an evidence-based program model listed on a 

Federal evidence registry (see Table 1 below), or they may create their own program model and 

collaborate with researchers to evaluate its effectiveness. In the latter case, the planned evaluation design 

must meet requirements necessary to achieve the specified rating for listed repositories. 

For the purposes of this Notice, “replicate” means that essential components or key elements of the 

service activities are implemented as described in the evidence-based program model and that 

adaptations are relatively minor. Some modification to a given model may be necessary and appropriate 

in response to local conditions, and all applicants with programs based in part or in full on an evidencebased model are encouraged to apply. 

Grantees may submit requests for programs not listed in Table 1 supported with rigorous causal 

evidence. The review panel will be asked to assess the strength of evidence for meaningful positive 

outcomes based on cited research studies. Table 2 below contains guidance for identifying strong studies 

in a number of program areas not included in Table 1. 

Applicants may request one-time and/or annual funding to cover associated costs, including, but not 

limited to: special training and supervision, establishment of new partnerships and proceedures, 

monitoring of evidence-based practices, and/or analyzing outcome data. The annual level of funding 

(supplement plus existing award) may not exceed $500,000. The final funding level will be determined 

in consultation with selected applicants through a formal pre- or post-award budget revision based on 

available funds. All policies and requirements for grants under the FGP, SCP and/or RSVP grant apply. 

Instructions for requesting additional funding 

All information regarding an evidence-based funding request must be entered in the final, “Other” 

section of the application narrative (see Senior Corps grant application instructions, Part II. Section F: 

Other NOFA Requirements). Core parts of the application for administrative renewal—including work 

plans and budget information—should be built on the current/baseline annual funding level. 

In the “Other” section of the application narrative, applicants must describe how additional funding will 

be used to engage volunteers in service activities related to one or more evidence-based programming 

models, including, at a minimum: 

1) Work plan information related to each evidence-based programming model 

a. For each new work plan to be added to the project, identify: 

• Service activity 

• Anticipated number of volunteers engaged & persons served in year 1 

Page 2 of 6 Updated 2/24/2016 
APPENDIX C 

2016 RSVP/FGP/SCP Grant Renewal 

Evidence-based Programs Instructions

• Anticipated number volunteers engaged & persons served in year 2

• Anticipated number volunteers engaged & persons served in year 3

• Output measure 

• Outcome measure

b. For each work plan to be modified, identify: 

• The performance measure/work plan 

• Anticipated number of volunteers engaged & persons served in year 1 

• Anticipated number volunteers engaged & persons served in year 2

• Anticipated number volunteers engaged & persons served in year 3

2) Detailed proposed use of supplemental CNCS funds in 1st grant year for each evidencebased model

a. Typical volunteer support expenses include volunteer recruitment, CHC background 

checks, volunteer training, general project monitoring, and oversight. In the narrative 

portion regarding each evidence-based program model, provide 1) a basis of estimate 

and 2) an amount in the following categories, as applicable, for volunteer engagement 

and support costs to be supported by CNCS:

• Personnel/Fringe 

• Staff Travel

• Equipment/Supplies 

• Contractual and Consultant Services 

• Other

b. Evidence-based programming expenses include program data collection, program 

evaluation, program outreach, and other services related specifically to the evidencebased program model. In the narrative portion regarding each evidence-based program 

model, provide 1) a basis of estimate and 2) an amount in the following categories, as 

applicable, for evidence-based programming support costs to be supported by CNCS:

• Personnel/Fringe 

• Staff Travel

• Equipment/Supplies 

• Contractual and Consultant Services 

• Other

c. Volunteer expenses include meals, insurance, uniforms, stipend, and mileage

reimbursement. In the narrative portion regarding each evidence-based program model, 

indicate 1) a basis of estimate and 2) an amount for volunteer expenses to be supported 

by CNCS.

3) Total amount of CNCS funding requested in all years for each evidence-based program 

Indicate the amount to be requested from CNCS in each year taking into account start-up costs 

and/or ramp-up time:

• Year 1

• Year 2 

• Year 3

4) Non-Corporation funding in remaining year for each evidence-based program model 

Page 3 of 6 Updated 2/24/2016 
APPENDIX C 

2016 RSVP/FGP/SCP Grant Renewal 

Evidence-based Programs Instructions

a. In the narrative portion regarding each evidence-based program model, identify excess 

share from application budget section that will be applied to meet match requirements.

b. Identify other funding that will be applied to the grantee/excess share of the budget, if the 

supplemental funding is approved. Indicate, in the following categories, as applicable 1) 

the source and 2) amount of non-corporation funding, that will support: 

• Typical volunteer support costs 

• Evidence-based programming costs 

• Volunteer expenses

5) Information regarding each evidence-based program model 

Provide information sufficient to assess the connection between published studies, intended 

outcomes, and funded service activities, including, as appropriate: 

• The name of the evidence-based program model and the Federal registry or clearinghouse 

in which it is listed. See Table 1 for Federal evidence registries, addresses and

instructions for identifying qualifying programs or studies within each. 

• Citation of research studies that provide evidence for a causal connection between the 

services and practices of an identified program model and desired outcomes for the 

population served. Explain how the results of available program evaluations are 

applicable to the applicant’s proposed geographic service area and target population. 

6) Information regarding implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of each program model 

Provide a description of the evidence-based services and practices that Senior Corps volunteers 

will support in relation to the identified program model, including, as appropriate: 

• An explanation of modifications to the program as implemented in cited research studies. 

The applicant should explain how these adjustments are appropriate for local conditions. 

• A description of methods the applicant will use to monitor and maintain fidelity to 

identified features of the program model. 

• A description of any partnerships with researchers studying the efficacy of the model or 

fidelity of the Senior Corps implementation.

III. Supplemental Funding Review and Award Process

All evidence-based augmentation requests for FY 2016 will be assessed in May 2016. For projects 

underway in or prior to April 2016, grantees selected to receive augmented funding will be asked to 

submit an amended budget and work plan(s) in eGrants. Grantees with projects starting July 1 will be 

asked, if selected under this process, to incorporate changes to budget and work plans prior to the Grant

Officer’s review and the initial award.

As part of an initial review of submissions, the Senior Corps program office will identify grantees with 

submissions in the “Other” field and will request clarifications to augmentation requests that contain 

inadequate information. Following clarification, expert external reviewers will assess the “Other” 

section of submitted narratives, and, together with reviewers familiar with the operations of Senior 

Corps programs, rate the: 

1) Potential impact on persons served, and 

2) Perceived opportunity for the proposed program to support learning around the engagement of 

seniors in evidence-based interventions. 

Page 4 of 6 Updated 2/24/2016 
APPENDIX C 

2016 RSVP/FGP/SCP Grant Renewal 

Evidence-based Programs Instructions

Table 1. Federal program registries 

These registries rate or list programs based on rigorous studies and outcomes of interest to the agency. 

Use the link in the table below to go directly to the search page. Follow instructions in the third column 

to identify programs that received accepted evidence ratings and positive outcomes. 

Agency Name of registry, web address, and 

description

Acceptable rating and how to 

find/filter for it

Institute for Education 

Sciences

(U.S. Department of 

Education)

What Works Clearinghouse/Find What Works

www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

Description: Summarizes and rates evidence for 

150+ educational interventions, many with cost 

and contact information. Does not rate volunteer 

reading programs.

Program must be rated 

“Potentially Positive” (+) or 

“Positive” (++)

In box at left, select Topic(s) of 

interest, additional options will 

appear: under the heading 

Effectiveness Rating select 

Positive or Potentially Positive.

Administration for 

Community Living

(U.S. Dept. of Health and 

Human Services) 

Aging and Disability Evidence-Based Programs 

and Practices 

www.acl.gov/Programs/CPE/OPE

Description: Contains information on supporting 

research, implementation materials, cost and 

contacts for a dozen programs that can be readily 

replicated (10-20 pages each).

All program models listed on this 

page

Centers for Disease 

Control

(U.S. Dept. of Health and 

Human Services)

CDC Compendium of Effective Fall Interventions

www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/Falls

Description: Highlights 15 exercise and 12 

multifaceted programs shown to reduce falls 

among seniors 60+ (2-4 pages each).

All program models listed in the 

compendium

Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services 

(U.S. Dept. of Health and 

Human Services)

Evaluation of Community-based Wellness and 

Prevention Programs

https://innovation.cms.gov 

Description: Examines Medicaid cost savings 

from participation in programs promoting 

physical activity, falls prevention, and chronic 

disease self-management, including Matter of 

Balance and CDSMP.

Program must have at least one 

“Level 1” study 

Evidence for programs is reviewed 

in Section 1. Evidence Review 

Results.

National Institutes of 

Health, National Cancer 

Institute 

(U.S. Dept. of Health and 

Human Services)

Research-tested Intervention Programs (RTIPs)

https://rtips.cancer.gov/rtips

Description: Summarizes and rates evidence and 

replicability for 150+ cancer prevention 

programs.

Program must score 4 or higher 

in “Research Integrity” and 

“Intervention Impact.”

Filter by any criteria

Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services 

Administration 

(U.S. Dept. of Health and 

Human Services)

National Registry of Evidence Based Programs

www.nrepp.samhsa.gov 

Description: Rates 350+ substance abuse and 

mental health interventions. Most designed for 

professional delivery. Search results are divided 

into two lists--newly reviewed, legacy--depending 

on when the program was added to the registry.

Newly reviewed programs must 

be “Promising” or “Effective” for 

desired outcome. Legacy 

programs must be rated 3+ for 

desired outcome. 

Enter keyword and click Search 

Now. Filter results by rating.

Page 5 of 6 Updated 2/24/2016 
APPENDIX C 

2016 RSVP/FGP/SCP Grant Renewal 

Evidence-based Programs Instructions

Agency Name of registry, web address, and 

description

Acceptable rating and how to 

find/filter for it

National Institute of 

Justice

(U.S. Department of 

Justice)

CrimeSolutions.gov

www.crimesolutions.gov

Description: Summarizes and rates evidence for 

350+ programs for criminal justice outcomes. 

Programs must be rated 

“Promising” or “Effective”

Search by keyword and filter by 

any criteria

Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency 

Prevention 

(U.S. Department of 

Justice)

Model Programs Guide

www.ojjdp.gov/mpg 

Description: Summarizes and rates evidence for 

250+ programs for juvenile justice and youth 

prevention, intervention, and reentry outcomes.

Program must be rated 

“Promising” or “Effective”

Search by keyword and filter by 

any criteria

Table 2. Program evaluation research registries

These registries rate the rigor of studies of interest in the areas of strengthening families, labor national 

service, and employment readiness. Having the required rating in column three does not automatically 

qualify a program as “evidence-based” for the purpose of this Invitation. Activate the link provided in 

column two to go directly to the search page, then follow instructions in the third column to identify 

studies with an acceptable evidence rating. Senior Corps (evidencebased@cns.gov) can assist grantees 

in the assessing if study results support a viable request for additional funding. An expert panel will 

assess the strength of evidence for meaningful positive outcomes for any programs not listed in Table 1. 

Agency Name of registry, web address, and 

description

Required study rating and how 

to filter search results*

Administration for 

Children and Families 

(U.S. Dept. of Health and 

Human Services,) 

Strengthening Families Evidence Review

http://familyreview.acf.hhs.gov

Reviews 199 studies and identifies 18 with high 

and moderate rating. (Does not rate programs.)

Study must be rated “Moderate” or 

“High”

At left, in Study Search 

Descriptions box, click on Study 

Rating and select Moderate and

High

Corporation for National 

and Community Service 

(CNCS)

Evidence Exchange

www.nationalservice.gov/evidence-exchange

Description: Contains evaluation research 

reports on models sponsored by CNCS, notably 

Minnesota Reading Corps (Pre-K, K-3) and 

social enterprise.

Study must be rated “Moderate” or 

“Strong.”

Open the Advanced Search tab. 

Locate the Levels of Evidence

criteria and select Moderate and 

Strong.

U.S. Department of Labor Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and 

Research (CLEAR)

http://clear.dol.gov

Description: Summarizes and rates studies

(250+) in topic areas such as career academies, 

opportunities for youth, and behavioral finance. 

Supporting studies must be rated

“Moderate Causal Evidence” or 

“High Causal Evidence”

Select a Topic Area, filter by Study 

Type: Causal Analysis and identify 

studies with the required rating. 

Page 6 of 6 Updated 2/24/2016