This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. Upon request, this 

material will be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities. 

Issue Brief #4: 

Evidence of Organizational 

Change among SIF Grantees

A product of the National Assessment of 

the Social Innovation Fund (SIF)

September 2015
This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. Upon request, this 

material will be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities. 

Issue Brief #4: 

Evidence of Organizational Change among SIF Grantees 

September 2015

Authors 

Lara Malakoff, M.U.R.P. 

Whitney Marsland, B.A. 

Janet Griffith, Ph.D. 

Janet Pershing, Ph.D. 

Prepared For 

Lily Zandniapour, Ph.D. 

Office of Research and Evaluation 

Corporation for National and Community Service 

This document is a product of the National Assessment of the SIF, which seeks to document and capture the impact the 

SIF has on key program stakeholders. Its findings will provide evidence and tell the story of the SIF as well as identify 

lessons learned. The National Assessment is sponsored by the Corporation for National and Community Service’s Social 

Innovation Fund, designed and managed by CNCS Office of Research and Evaluation, and conducted by ICF 

International. 
nationalservice.gov/research 1 

1. Introduction

The Social Innovation Fund (SIF) leverages public and private resources to grow community solutions 

based on evidence of results. The National Assessment of the SIF seeks to document and capture the 

impact the SIF has on key program stakeholders. Findings from this multi-component independent 

assessment, conducted by ICF International, will tell the story of the SIF and identify lessons learned. The 

SIF makes grants to experienced grant-making organizations, which identify promising programs within 

communities through an open and competitive process and distribute funds to high-performing nonprofit 

organizations that implement them, and match the federal funds dollar-for-dollar. SIF subgrantees also 

match the funding they receive dollar-for-dollar. All SIF-funded interventions undergo rigorous, 

independent evaluations to advance the base of evidence for the funded intervention. 

This issue brief shares lessons about changes in SIF grantees’ organizational capacity – infrastructure, 

skills, attitudes, and behaviors – to carry out their work as grantmaking organizations, including 

strengthening their own infrastructure and building their capacity to conduct and use evaluations, scale

promising programs, and select and support subgrantees in ways that build the evidence base for 

promising community interventions. The SIF National Assessment survey collected data about change in 

organizational behavior in such key areas as competitive grantee selection, support for grantees, 

evaluation, scaling up effective programs, and communication and collaboration. The survey was 

augmented with in-depth interviews with SIF grantees to learn more about change they reported in the 

survey and to obtain documentation of important changes. This report presents evidence of change in 

grantees’ organizational capacity, based on examples grantees described in these interviews and related 

documentation they provided. 

2. Selection of Subgrantees

The goal of the SIF is to identify interventions 

that are effective in addressing pressing 

community needs. To help achieve this goal, 

SIF grantees are selected through a rigorous, 

open competition and the grantees, in turn, are 

required to select subgrantees through a 

similar competitive process. Many 

philanthropic grantmakers invest in particular 

organizations with which they have ongoing 

relationships. SIF required grantees to expand 

their pool of applicants more broadly by 

requiring an open competition. For some 

grantees, the SIF model was significantly 

different from the way they had previously 

made funding decisions. Results of a 2015 

National Assessment survey showed that 

about one-third of SIF grantees reported 

changes in their subgrantee selection practices, 

and a majority of those grantees attributed the 

changes to their participation in the SIF. 

Tools and Resources: Assessing Evaluation and 

Financial Management Capacity

The Green Light Fund developed a set of tools for assessing 

applicants’ evaluation and financial management capacity. 

Application reviewers used the evaluation assessment tool

to assess the strength of applicants’ current level of evidence, 

based on the soundness of their theory of change, their 

history with using evaluation, and their data collection 

capacity. Reviewers also rated applicants’ capacity to 

conduct an evaluation, based on their budgets, personnel, 

understanding of SIF levels of evidence, and evaluation 

methods. 

The financial management survey required applicants to 

provide copies of documents demonstrating their financial 

capacity, such as IRS forms, financial statements, audits, 

accounting policies, and procedures manuals. It also required 

them to describe the financial management qualifications of 

key staff and discuss their organizational policies and 

procedures for financial management. 
nationalservice.gov/research 2 

The SIF requirement for competitive selection helped grantees be more systematic about selecting 

subgrantees, identify applicants with strong evidence, and reach applicants they would not have reached 

otherwise. Some grantees that found value in the SIF competitive selection process adopted a full SIFstyle open competitive selection process for one or more of their non-SIF programs; others adopted 

elements of the competitive process that suited their programs and approaches. 

2.1 The SIF helped grantees build a more systematic process for subgrantee selection. 

The SIF competitive selection process required grantees to be explicit about the criteria on which they 

evaluate potential subgrantees and consistent about how they rate applicants on those criteria. SIF 

grantees developed and used various combinations of Requests for Proposals (RFPs), external and 

internal review teams, and tools and frameworks for reviewing funding applications and selecting 

subgrantees in a systematic way. Grantees developed tools for assessing subgrantee capacity to do things 

like conduct rigorous evaluations and manage finances, such as those described in the highlight box on the 

previous page. One grantee developed a standard framework for ensuring all applications were reviewed 

against the same criteria, which was shared widely through the organization and adapted for other 

grantmaking efforts. 

2.2 The SIF selection process helped grantees choose subgrantees with strong evidence. 

SIF grantees were better able to identify applicants with a strong evidence base and the capacity to build 

evidence further. Both the results of the 2015 National Assessment survey and information grantees 

shared in follow-up discussions showed that grantees 

designed SIF solicitations to clearly articulate the initial 

level of evidence they expected of subgrantees and 

required applicant organizations to provide evidence of 

intervention effectiveness and a plan for rigorous 

evaluation of the intervention. The example in the highlight 

box to the left describes how one grantee identified specific 

outcomes it expected subgrantees to be able to achieve. 

One grantee revised its RFP to ask for research, 

frameworks, best practices, and past experience to support 

applicants’ likelihood of achieving proposed impacts. 

Several others incorporated a logic model requirement into

their RFPs, which required applicants to clearly outline 

their current use of evaluation and their plans for 

conducting evidence-based interventions. Only those applicants with the capacity for evidence could 

clearly demonstrate this capacity with a logic model. The logic model then served as a baseline for 

planning technical assistance activities for funded organizations. 

2.3 The SIF’s competitive solicitation requirement helped grantees reach and engage subgrantees 

in areas not previously represented in their portfolios. 

Through the requirement to conduct open competitive solicitations some grantees reached a broader 

range of applicants, including ones in markets and geographic areas they would not have otherwise 

reached. One grantee noted that its SIF solicitation was publicized more widely than its previous 

solicitations. As a result, the organization funded a different type of organization than it normally funded 

as a SIF subgrantee – creating the opportunity to fund more of this new type of institution in the future. 

Highlight: Focus on Outcomes

The United Way of Greater Cincinnati 

(UWGC) partnered with other funders in 

Cincinnati to expand collective focus on 

outcomes through the SIF. A collaboration of 

funders specified outcomes and used a 

competitive process to select subgrantees 

that have demonstrated these outcomes in 

prior work. Many of these same funders then 

applied this model to another collaborative 

grant program, where they are able to 

identify community programs that clearly 

demonstrate cost savings and sustainability.
nationalservice.gov/research 3 

The grantee leveraged this model by applying it to other new local grantmaking activities in order to 

broaden the types of organizations it funds. 

3. Subgrantee Support and Capacity Building

The SIF increased the kinds and amount of support grantees were expected to provide to their 

subgrantees, and it required them to think carefully about how they provide this support. Results of the 

2015 National Assessment survey showed that about one-third of SIF grantees reported a stronger 

organizational emphasis on support for subgrantees, in terms of evaluation, technical assistance, or both. 

The majority of grantees that reported a 

stronger emphasis on subgrantee support 

attributed it to their participation in the SIF. 

According to the survey responses, SIF grantees 

increased their support for subgrantee program 

implementation, provided more funding to 

carry out a rigorous evaluation, and offered 

more training or technical assistance around 

conducting rigorous evaluation. Grantees saw 

positive outcomes when they provided the kind 

of hands-on support the SIF required, as 

described in the highlight box to the right. 

Ultimately, the support subgrantees received 

through the SIF was designed to give them the 

foundation they needed to grow their impact. 

3.1 SIF grantees increased their investment in growing subgrantee capacity. 

Grantees invested more in increasing the capacity of their subgrantees through the SIF—especially 

related to compliance, evaluation, and communications. 

Compliance. The need for SIF grantees to ensure subgrantee compliance with federal requirements was 

so strong that several grantees hired or assigned staff members solely devoted to compliance. Early on, 

one grantee hired a manager for compliance and grants management to support subgrantees’ 

organizational development, grant management, government funding compliance (with an emphasis on 

federal funding), and reporting. The compliance manager’s role included conducting compliance-focused 

site visits and developing presentations to help subgrantees meet requirements. Grantees were confident 

that the federal compliance capacity they helped subgrantees develop through the SIF will help them 

leverage future federal funding. 

Evaluation. One of the most important features of the SIF is the requirement that all interventions 

undergo a rigorous external evaluation that builds the evidence base for replication and scale up. This 

requirement sets a “high bar” for the SIF grantees and their subgrantees. To help meet this requirement, 

SIF grantees provided technical assistance (TA) to subgrantees around meeting SIF evaluation 

requirements and working with local evaluators. They also developed roadmaps for subgrantees to 

identify and address evaluation capacity needs. Some grantees held evaluation convenings for their 

subgrantees, which focused on growing evaluation skills, overcoming barriers to implementing 

evaluation plans, orienting new subgrantees to evaluation, and reviewing reporting procedures. Grantees 

used subgrantee feedback from convenings to improve the evaluation support they provided. 

Highlight: Hands on Support to Subgrantees

The SIF increased the amount of hands-on support and 

oversight that many grantees provided to their subgrantee 

organizations. The John A Hartford Foundation developed a 

strategy for providing this hands-on support to its 

subgrantee organizations by implementing frequent checkins with the subgrantees and working closely with them 

throughout the grant. As a result, the grantee helped 

integrate the organizations’ programmatic, clinical, finance, 

compliance, and human resources staff to improve program 

implementation. One subgrantee had difficulty developing 

this level of integration, and the Foundation implemented a 

corrective action plan to support communication across all 

levels of the organization
nationalservice.gov/research 4 

Communications. An important part of the SIF is communicating the impact of the programs it funds to 

the public. One grantee saw a great need for helping SIF subgrantees and other organizations it worked 

with effectively tell their impact stories. The grantee conducted storytelling trainings, attended by more 

than 200 participants, to help organizations find powerful stories to tell; craft clear, bold stories of their 

impact; and use their stories to increase public understanding of the mission and, ultimately, to acquire 

additional financial support. 

3.2 The SIF helped grantees be 

more strategic about how 

they support their 

subgrantees. 

The SIF led to a more sophisticated 

and standardized approach to TA

than many grantees had used prior to 

receiving the grant. Several grantees 

developed standards for providing 

TA across sites. One grantee 

disseminated local practices to 

subgrantees through a resource 

website. As a result of this support, 

especially around documenting and 

capturing data, subgrantees 

improved the quality of their data. 

SIF grantees developed a better 

understanding of what types of TA 

subgrantees needed. For example, one grantee incorporated subgrantees’ input about their needs into its 

TA strategy, and another grantee developed a performance dashboard to track subgrantee performance 

in order to tailor TA, as illustrated in the highlight box above. Grantees culled performance and survey data 

from subgrantees about learning needs, goals, and priorities and identified topics for future learning. 

Timing of technical assistance. SIF grantees also increased their understanding of what TA was needed 

at various points in their subgrantees’ program lifecycle. Grantees found that early in the grants, TA 

needed to focus on implementation, start-up, 

compliance, and developing measurement plans. 

Subsequent TA focused on using data to inform 

decision-making, and TA in the later years of grants 

focused on evaluation and sustainability. The result 

of having a strategic approach to TA was that 

grantees knew more about the type of TA that was 

needed, had a better understanding of the TA they 

could provide to address subgrantee needs, and were 

better able to communicate this, as described in the 

highlight box to the right. 

The SIF was the first time one grantee was able to earmark funds specifically for developing subgrantee 

skills around key priorities, such as evaluation, data, and evidence building. The grantee expects to 

expand this support with additional external investment. 

Tools and Resources: Subgrantee Performance Dashboard

New Profit developed a performance dashboard to track subgrantee 

performance on a variety of financial, administrative, and programmatic 

indicators. Organizations are flagged, based on performance 

benchmarks, and red or yellow flags highlight potential needs for 

targeted technical assistance.

Tools and Resources: Menu of TA Options

By placing a strong emphasis on approaching TA in a 

strategic way, the SIF helped grantees understand 

subgrantees’ TA needs, plan their TA strategies, and 

communicate more clearly to subgrantees the TA 

they could provide. The Corporation for Supportive 

Housing (CSH) developed a resource that 

summarized the host of technical assistance options 

available to subgrantees so that they could better 

understand the assistance available to them to 

support and sustain the SIF model. 
nationalservice.gov/research 5 

3.3 The support grantees provided to their subgrantees gave the subgrantees a solid foundation 

from which to grow. 

Grantees helped subgrantees develop the skills they needed to implement projects with the level of rigor 

required of the SIF. Results of the 2015 National Assessment survey showed that there was a statistically 

significant change in all seven areas in which grantees were asked to assess change among their 

subgrantees as a result of the SIF, including subgrantees’ ability to design and conduct rigorous 

evaluations of their interventions, and their ability to make use of evaluation findings for program 

improvement. 

Grantees made efficient use of the TA they were required to provide by ensuring that it was useful for the 

SIF program, as well as applicable to efforts well beyond the SIF. One grantee realized that many of the 

organizations it funded, both through the SIF and through other programs, had not been trained to 

conduct robust data management and rigorous evaluation. As a result, the grantee and a university 

partner developed an organizational training and support curriculum. The curriculum provided a 

medium for non-profit program directors to share effective management practices and strengthen their 

work. 

4. Evaluation

The SIF requires that grantees and subgrantees rigorously evaluate their programs to strengthen the 

evidence base and assess whether their approaches are effective, efficient, and lead to more impact in the 

communities they serve. The SIF’s substantial focus on evaluation was reflected in results of the 2015 

National Assessment survey, where about two-thirds of SIF grantees reported an increase in their 

capacity around evaluation. Of the five areas of investigation in the National Assessment, grantees 

reported the largest amount of change in the area of evaluation. SIF grantees planned and implemented 

more extensive evaluations than they had in the past, hired evaluation-focused staff to increase their 

evaluation capacity, engaged independent external evaluators to conduct the required evaluations, used 

evidence to improve results, and communicated results to prospective funders and other stakeholders. 

4.1 The SIF focus on 

evaluation helped 

grantees plan and 

implement more—and 

more formalized—

evaluation. 

A key goal of the SIF is to build 

nonprofit organizations’ 

evaluation capacity so they can 

assess the impact of their 

programs. One tool the SIF has 

developed and made available is 

the Social Innovation Fund 

Evaluation Plan Guidance: a Stepby-Step Guide to Designing a 

Rigorous Evaluation. To 

accommodate the SIF’s strong 

Tools and Resources: Strategic Scorecard

The SIF served as a pilot for United Way for Southeastern Michigan to be 

more strategic about measuring outcomes. The grantee’s SIF team worked 

with subgrantees to identify common outcomes and indicators on a list of 

key initiatives. Then, the leadership team and the board of directors 

developed and adopted a new organization-wide scorecard that outlined 

one-year performance metrics and three-year outcomes expected. 

For example, for the economic opportunity key initiative, the 3-year outcome 

was “bridging systems that foster innovative, talent-development 

approaches, resulting in pathways to careers for youth and adults,” and the 

related 1-year performance metric was “increasing cross-sector partners 

participating in collaborative systems development from 18 to 21 to connect 

individuals to careers and skilled trades.” The scorecard provided space to 

report the projected previous fiscal year’s baseline data; previous quarter, 

current quarter, and year to date data; and the next fiscal year’s goal for 

each key initiative.

The scorecard was unique in that it integrated outcomes measures for all 

teams, including teams not focused on impact (e.g., volunteer 

management).
nationalservice.gov/research 6 

focus on evaluation, grantees implemented more formalized frameworks for preparing for and 

implementing evaluations, and they became more intentional about how they related evaluation results 

to growth. As a result of the SIF, one grantee updated its existing subgrantee administration guide to 

include guidance on conducting evaluations. The evaluation portion of the guide outlined expectations 

for subgrantee data collection, specific measures to be evaluated, guidance for collecting pre- and postdata, and data reporting protocols. This helped the grantee generate more key data that could be used to 

engage stakeholders and improve the quality of the data collected. See the highlight box on the previous page 

for an example of how the SIF helped one grantee become more strategic about identifying and capturing 

data on common outcomes and indicators. 

4.2 Grantees increased their evaluation capacity with evaluation staff hires and the use of external 

evaluation partners. 

SIF grantees learned quickly that they had to devote a significant amount of capacity to evaluation, and 

they engaged staff and external partners to focus specifically on evaluation. The 2015 National 

Assessment survey results showed that key indicators of increased evaluation capacity among SIF 

grantees were increases in the presence of staff position(s) or groups dedicated to evaluation and 

increases in the use of external evaluation partners. One grantee engaged existing staff to support 

evaluation under the SIF, and organizational leaders supported further increasing internal evaluation 

capacity, with the goal of eventually establishing 

a full time position dedicated to evaluation. 

Another grantee hired a program officer for 

monitoring and evaluation, with primary 

responsibility for leading program evaluation, 

monitoring program implementation, 

coordinating evaluation efforts with external 

evaluators, and providing subgrantees with 

evaluation TA. 

In part as a result of the SIF experience, including 

the requirement for independent, external 

evaluators, some grantees moved to a model 

where evaluation support came primarily or 

entirely from third party evaluators, rather than 

from an internal evaluation team. The external 

evaluators specialized in providing various types 

of support—place-based, randomized controlled trial (RCT), qualitative data—and were selected based 

on subgrantees’ needs for specific evaluations. One grantee provided subgrantees with tools and 

templates to help them select external evaluators, as described in the highlight box on the previous page. 

Some grantees experienced growing pains as they developed the capacity to implement the SIF’s rigorous 

evaluation requirements. But one grantee was pleased to see that this newfound capacity gave it leverage 

to advocate for in-house evaluation capacity in non-SIF programs. The grantee developed a data team 

that included a delegate from each program that used data. The organization created several new 

positions not funded through the SIF and gave existing staff new data responsibilities. 

Tools and Resources: 

Support for External Evaluator Selection 

Under the SIF, grantees and subgrantees relied on 

external evaluators to implement rigorous evaluations. 

The GreenLight Fund supported its subgrantees’ use of 

external evaluators by providing them with an RFP 

template they could use to select external evaluators and 

by participating in interviews with prospective evaluators. 

The RFP template helped organizations provide 

prospective evaluators with background on the program’s 

purpose, vision, and mission. It also included a sample 

scope of work that outlined the outcomes to be explored 

and measured, evaluation expectations, and potential 

evaluation challenges. This template helped four 

subgrantees run a competitive selection process to 

select a new external evaluator for its program.

ools and Resources: 

Support for External Evaluator Selection

Under the SIF, grantees and subgrantees relied on

external evaluators to implement rigorous evaluations. 

The GreenLight Fund supported its subgrantees’ use of 

external evaluators by providing them with an RFP

template they could use to select external evaluators and 

by participating in interviews with prospective evaluators. 

The RFP template helped organizations provide

prospective evaluators with background on the program’s

purpose, vision, and mission. It also included a sample 

scope of work that outlined the outcomes to be explored

and measured, evaluation expectations, and potential 

evaluation challenges. This template helped four

subgrantees run a competitive selection process to 

select a new external evaluator for its program.
nationalservice.gov/research 7 

4.3 The SIF focus on evaluation helped grantees use evidence to improve results. 

The SIF helped grantees orient their programs toward using evidence to make programmatic 

improvements, so they had a bigger impact in the 

communities they served, as illustrated in the 

example presented in the highlight box to the right. 

Grantees cited common outcomes frameworks to 

better measure success and robust data collection 

systems to track and monitor progress as two key 

developments that led to better use of evidence. 

One grantee used evaluation results obtained 

prior to and during the SIF to continually adjust 

and expand its goals. It focused early quasiexperimental evaluations on assessing the 

progress on an original set of goals. Following 

the first evaluation, the grantee developed a new 

strategic framework based on a revised and more 

sophisticated set of objectives and measures of 

success. 

4.4 SIF subgrantees were better positioned to attract new funders, because they had the skills to 

conduct rigorous evaluations and communicate program effectiveness. 

The SIF fostered a culture of evaluation by making funding available to support evaluation-related 

activities. Having the capacity to conduct rigorous evaluations armed grantees and subgrantees with 

robust data, which allowed them to better communicate their programs’ positive outcomes. Potential 

funders were attracted to organizations that could clearly communicate preliminary results (even before 

final results were available) and highlight the effectiveness of their programs. 

The SIF helped grantees build the evidence case, which in turn grew their base of potential funders, 

garnered champions within their organizations, and improved the policy case that allowed them to 

expand their work. Maura Riordan, of AIDS United, noted, “How we have increased our own evaluation 

capacity during SIF has put us in the position to be really competitive in these federal proposals. It is clear 

when we do the writing and reflect on how far we’ve come, we are in a much better place to pursue these

big opportunities.” 

Another grantee experienced a policy shift toward more results-oriented work, which coincided with the 

SIF. Partners were already moving toward a results-based accountability framework, but the SIF further 

increased the rigor with which they evaluated their programs. It became clear that donors within their 

networks were looking for the kind of results rigorous evaluations produce. 

5. Scaling

The SIF identifies programs that work and supports scaling of those programs to make a deeper or 

broader impact in communities. The SIF helped grantees develop strategies and methods for 

understanding which programs could and should be scaled. Grantees used what they learned from 

scaling their SIF programs and applied it to scaling up other programs within their organizations. 

Highlight: Demonstrating the Benefits of Evaluation

Conducting in-depth program evaluation is a core 

component of the SIF. The Corporation for Supportive 

Housing (CSH) is using a randomized controlled trial 

(RCT) to evaluate their program. Given that 

subgrantees are often focused on using the SIF funding 

to serve as many people as possible with the supportive 

housing intervention, some subgrantees were hesitant 

to implement an RCT for fear of not being able to serve 

all beneficiaries in need. However, CSH worked closely 

with the subgrantees to understand their concerns and 

to demonstrate the value of an RCT evaluation. If and 

when the evaluation shows strong evidence, 

subgrantees will see that participants are served in the 

long term, and they can then use these results to scale 

the model to serve more people in need. 
nationalservice.gov/research 8 

5.1 The SIF helped grantees develop methods for choosing which interventions to scale up. 

The focus on evaluation and the TA that grantees provided to their subgrantees helped them better 

understand which programs were likely candidates for expansion. According to results of the 2015 

National Assessment survey, about half of SIF grantees noted changes in their efforts to select programs 

for scale-up based on rigorous evaluation that demonstrates their effectiveness. The majority of grantees 

that noted changes attributed them to their SIF participation. 

One grantee trained its subgrantees to calculate the economic and social cost savings of providing 

program services, in order to determine which interventions to scale up. It used the estimated cost of 

delivering the programs at each of its sites to calculate the cost savings threshold, or measure of savings 

relative to how much was spent. Results suggested that all sites had highly achievable cost-saving 

thresholds, but some were more cost-effective than others and therefore more attractive for scaling. 

With an understanding of which programs were likely candidates for expansion, SIF grantees could play 

a key role in helping to scale those programs. They developed tools and resources to help subgrantees 

with their scaling and replication efforts, such as the 

tool described in the highlight box to the right. One 

grantee developed a comprehensive tool for tracking its 

subgrantees’ scaling efforts as part of its plan for 

growing SIF subgrantee impact. By populating this tool 

with each subgrantees’ scaling plans and progress, the 

grantee saw how scaling evolved from year to year and 

understood exactly where, how, and among which 

subgrantees site expansion and new site growth was 

achieved. Another grantee tested out early stage ideas 

and identified the ones that aligned with larger 

community goals. Decisions the grantee made about 

how to scale these early stage ideas were largely 

influenced by the grantee’s SIF scaling experience. 

5.2 Grantees packaged what they learned from the SIF to support scaling. 

The SIF served as a learning lab for grantees, who took lessons from the SIF and applied them within 

their organizations to support scaling efforts. Participation in the SIF allowed one grantee to increase its 

number of project sites and increase its data. As a result of this experience, the grantee published key 

lessons learned about scaling its SIF-funded programs, with a specific focus on the infrastructure required 

to support scaling—standards for service delivery, performance measurement, and technical assistance 

and training. This grantee developed a how-to guide for implementing its programming more broadly. 

For some grantees, the SIF resulted in grantees creating and filling new positions, such as a scaling and 

replication manager. One grantee’s scaling and replication manager developed and used a multimedia 

toolkit to showcase to other agencies, both in the region and on the national level, which interventions 

were the most effective. Another grantee integrated a new type of case management position into its 

programs and delivered webinars to publicize best practices for doing this. 

The SIF also helped grantees use new-found partnerships to support scaling. Participation in the SIF put a 

grantee that worked largely in its local geographic area on the national stage, which helped it develop 

partnerships with other cities and engage more with federal agencies. 

Tools and Resources: Preparing to Scale

The SIF is focused on growing programs that can 

make a deeper or broader impact on 

communities. Mile High United Way supports 

scaling by helping its subgrantees describe their 

programs to groups that might adopt them. Mile 

High United Way is developing an implementation 

template in which subgrantees record the details 

of their programs. The template calls for the 

subgrantee to outline the need for the program, its 

vision and mission, its logic model and theory of 

change, and its core program components. The 

grantee encourages subgrantees to use the 

template to support scaling and replication efforts. 
nationalservice.gov/research 9 

6. Collaboration

The SIF builds collaboration and sharing of best practices and lessons learned into its model as a way to 

continually improve the effectiveness of the programs it funds. The SIF provided grantees with a variety 

of opportunities to collaborate and learn from one another, encouraged grantees to support knowledgesharing among their subgrantees, and highlighted the value of partnerships with other organizations and 

potential funders. About half of SIF grantees reported in the 2015 National Assessment survey that they 

made use of these opportunities and saw considerable change in their participation in knowledge sharing 

activities, their participation in funding alliances with other nonprofit organizations, and their 

collaboration for the purpose of advocacy. 

6.1 The SIF gave grantees a variety of collaborative learning opportunities. 

The SIF afforded grantees a variety of opportunities to share resources, knowledge, and best practices 

with their peers. The network of SIF grantees provided a base for the grantees to engage with each other 

through various experience-sharing groups and meetings. For example, one grantee brought together 

other SIF grantees to participate in a panel at its community leaders’ conference, and another grantee 

brought together different partners monthly for idea exchange, professional development, and collective 

problem solving. 

The learning opportunities fostered through the SIF allowed grantees to share resources and knowledge 

that they can implement moving forward. For some grantees, the SIF was their first large federal grant, 

and they did not have policies and procedures in place to adhere to some federal requirements. Because 

the grantees brought a range of prior experiences (either from other grant programs or from the previous 

years of SIF), grantees could benefit from others’ expertise. For example, one new grantee was able to 

learn from other SIF grantees and adopt some of their existing policies for making subgrant awards, 

rather than creating these materials from scratch. The grantee noted that it is stronger as an organization 

and better positioned to take on additional federal grants as a result of the financial policies it learned 

from its SIF peers. Another grantee incorporated learning goals into its programs, based on learnings 

from other grantees. This grantee’s evaluator now works with subgrantees to identify specific learning 

goals and addresses those goals through evaluation. 

6.2 The SIF influenced how grantees support 

peer learning among their subgrantees. 

The SIF encouraged grantees to create networks for 

their subgrantees around common issues, and they 

used a variety of creative ways to do so, such as the 

collaborative problem solving approach described in 

the highlight box to the right. Some grantees had 

established subgrantee learning networks prior to their 

involvement in the SIF, but participation in the SIF 

helped them expand the use of the networks with 

funding to do so. One grantee initiated monthly small 

scale evaluation group calls with subgrantees. During 

these calls, the grantee, subgrantees, and evaluators 

discussed the progress of the evaluation. Another 

grantee conducted bimonthly meetings with 

Highlight: Collaborative Problem-Solving

SIF grantees were creative about how they 

brought together peers and partners for idea 

exchange and collective problem solving. Venture 

Philanthropy Partners hosted a “hackathon,” 

modeled after convenings in which developers 

collaboratively create new software or improve 

existing software. This “hackathon” did not focus 

on software. Instead, it used the “hackathon” 

collaborative problem solving strategy by 

convening program partners to “get inside the 

youth development” system in which they worked 

to “identify a common barrier affecting each 

organization.” The “hackathon” leveraged key 

staff from multiple organizations to address young 

people’s access to public transportation, which 

can limit their participation in the educational and 

career preparation services that are available 

throughout the National Capital Region.
nationalservice.gov/research 10

subgrantees to discuss a variety of topics, including evaluation, marketing, and accounting. These 

convenings grew to include more than just SIF partners, which is a direct result of the open learning 

collaborative they established through the SIF. 

6.3 The SIF highlighted the value of external partnerships. 

The SIF showcased to grantees the importance of connecting with partners in the areas in which they 

serve, especially for funding purposes. Establishing relationships with funding partners was essential for 

SIF grantees to meet the match requirement, especially for those implementing programs in underresourced communities. Grantees formed creative funding partnerships, which served them during the 

SIF and will continue to serve them into the future. For example, one SIF grantee helped its subgrantees 

leverage local resources, which allowed subgrantees to gain momentum for their projects and turn the SIF 

work into larger grants within the community. Through helping subgrantees raise match funds in their 

communities, SIF grantees formed relationships with local funders, which opened up opportunities with 

new funding streams. The SIF match requirement also pushed another grantee to focus on multi-sector 

funding sources, including business, philanthropy, and government. 

Expanded funding alliances. Participation in the SIF also enabled grantees to expand funding alliances 

to solve community problems, reaching out and engaging partners they had not worked with before. As a 

result of the SIF, one grantee expanded local funding alliances established prior to its participation in the 

SIF to include national funders. Another grantee noted that the SIF made it recognize the importance of 

leveraging the resources and competencies different entities offered. This highlighted the need for 

multiple motivated stakeholders to solve problems, and as a result of the SIF the organization is more 

likely to collaborate with other organizations to apply for funding. For another grantee, establishing 

connections with other, larger grantee organizations allowed it to share important and relevant data that 

could be used to inform its work. 

7. Conclusion

The SIF National Assessment asked SIF grantees to report on the degree to which SIF participation 

changed their organizations’ capacities and practices. The examples and resources described in this report 

provide concrete documentation of the changes the SIF grantees have made. In addition to supporting 

the grantees’ self-reports of change, this report helps illustrate the variety of changes the grantees have 

undertaken and provides examples that others can learn from for carrying out other SIF grants or similar 

innovation initiatives. These examples also provide a starting point for more in-depth documentation of 

change resources related to the SIF. 

8. Methodology

This report is based on interviews with SIF grantees and follow-up documentation they provided. All 

20 members of the 2010-2012 cohorts of SIF grantees were invited to participate in a 30 minute

telephone interview. Prior to the interviews, ICF reviewed each grantee’s responses to the SIF National 

Assessment survey to identify areas where grantees reported organizational change as a result of their 

participation in SIF. These key areas of change guided the interviews. 

Interviews were conducted between June and August 2015 with 19 of the 20 SIF grantees from the 2010-

2012 cohort. Interviews were conducted by a senior team member, a separate team member took notes, 

and (with respondent permission) the interviews were recorded. At the beginning of the interview, the 

interviewer introduced the team, reviewed the interview protocol, and—based on the survey responses—
nationalservice.gov/research 11

reviewed and confirmed with the grantee the areas where the organization’s responses indicated 

organizational change. For each change area, the interviewer asked for more detailed information about 

the change, asked about evidence to support the reported change, and requested copies of available 

documentation. Of the 19 interviewees, 16 provided documentation of change to ICF. Documentation 

was filed on the ICF network for analysis. The remaining three referenced key changes, but did not have 

documentation of the changes to provide. 

9. About The Social Innovation Fund

The Social Innovation Fund, an initiative of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) 

under the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, is a new approach by the federal government to 

address urgent national challenges. The fund mobilizes public and private resources to grow the impact 

of promising, innovative community-based solutions that have evidence of compelling results in three 

areas of priority need: economic opportunity, healthy futures, and youth development. 

The operating model of the SIF is distinguished by the following six elements: 

Innovation │ Evidence │ Scale │ Grantmakers │ Match │ Knowledge Sharing 
Corporation for National and Community Service 

1201 New York Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20525

TEL: (202) 606-5000 

TTY: (202) 606-3472 

NationalService.gov