Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 83621 

1For more information, please see the program 

web page at https://home.treasury.gov/services/ 

social-impact-partnerships/sippra-pay-for-results. 

2See 42 U.S.C. 1397n. 

request for OMB approval. Comments 

will be of public record. Comments are 

invited on: (a) whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information has practical utility; (b) the 

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the collection of information; 

(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on or other forms of information 

technology; and (e) estimates of capital 

or start-up costs and costs of operation, 

maintenance, and purchase of services 

to provide information. 

Approved: November 23, 2023. 

Martha R. Brinson, 

Tax Analyst. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26371 Filed 11–29–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Social Impact Partnerships To Pay for 

Results Act Projects 

Notice of Funding Availability 

(NOFA): Social Impact Partnerships to 

Pay for Results Act (SIPPRA) Projects. 

Announcement Type: Initial 

announcement. 

Funding Opportunity Number: UST– 

SIPPRA–2024–002. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CDFA) Number: 21.017. 

Application Deadline: Applications 

under this NOFA must be submitted no 

earlier than February 12, 2024 and no 

later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time April 

15, 2024 electronically via 

www.Grants.gov. 

Funding Ceiling: $47 million ($40.9 

million for social impact projects, $6.1 

million for evaluations). 

Period of Performance: Expected 48– 

60 months but project dependent. 

Anticipated Time to Awards: October 

15, 2024. There will not be a rolling 

review. 

For More Information: Potential 

applicants are advised to review the 

Federal Register Notices for previous 

awards and other materials at https://

home.treasury.gov/services/socialimpact-partnerships/sippra-pay-forresults. Questions may be directed to 

Matthew Cook, SIPPRA Director, at 

SIPPRA@treasury.gov. 

Summary: The Department of the 

Treasury (Treasury) is issuing this 

Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) 

to invite applications from State and 

local governments for awards under the 

Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for 

Results Act (the ‘‘Act’’). An award 

recipient will receive payment if a 

specified outcome of the social impact 

partnership project is achieved as 

determined by the project’s independent 

evaluator. The payment to the Awardee 

must be less than or equal to the value 

of the outcome to the federal 

government over a period not exceeding 

ten years from the date implementation 

commences. Awards made under this 

NOFA will be administered by Treasury 

or by another federal agency with 

expertise in the social benefits 

addressed in the proposed project. 

Treasury expects to award up to 

approximately $40.9 million in such 

competitive project grants under this 

NOFA. Treasury will prioritize projects 

that directly benefit children in order to 

meet the statutory threshold that 50 

percent of awarded funds be used on 

awards that directly benefit children. In 

addition, State and local governments 

receiving project grants will be eligible 

to receive a grant for up to 15 percent 

of the project grant amount to pay for all 

or a portion of the cost of a statutorily 

required independent evaluation, which 

will be paid regardless of whether 

outcomes have been met. Treasury 

expects up to approximately $6.1 

million to be available to pay for the 

costs of independent evaluations under 

this NOFA. 

Table of Contents 

A. Program Description 

1. Program Purpose and Authorizing 

Legislation 

2. Funding Type 

3. Limitations 

4. Pay for Results Framework 

5. Outcome Valuation Methodology 

6. Independent Evaluation 

B. Federal Award Information 

C. Eligibility Information 

D. Application and Submission Information 

E. Application Review Information 

F. Federal Award Administration 

Information 

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact 

H. Other Information 

I. Appendix I: Example of Outcome 

Valuation Process 

J. Appendix II: Integration of Managed Care 

Information/Data 

K. Appendix III: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tools 

A. Program Description 

1. Program Purpose and Authorizing 

Legislation 

In 2018, Congress appropriated $100 

million to Treasury to implement the 

Social Impact Partnership to Pay for 

Results Act (the ‘‘Act’’), which 

established a new grant demonstration 

program to encourage funding social 

programs that achieve results (the 

‘‘SIPPRA program’’).1 Under this NOFA, 

Treasury announces the availability of 

approximately $40.9 million for 

payments for successful outcomes of 

social impact partnership projects 

through grants to State and local 

governments, and, for required project 

evaluations, the availability of up to 

approximately $6.1 million. All awards 

provided through this NOFA are subject 

to funding availability. 

As stated in the Act, the purposes of 

the SIPPRA program are: 

(1) To improve the lives of families 

and individuals in need; 

(2) To redirect funds away from 

programs that, based on objective data, 

are ineffective, and into programs that 

achieve demonstrable, measurable 

results; 

(3) To ensure federal funds are used 

effectively on social services to produce 

positive outcomes for both service 

recipients and taxpayers; 

(4) To establish the use of social 

impact partnerships to address some of 

the Nation’s most pressing problems; 

(5) To facilitate the creation of publicprivate partnerships that bundle 

philanthropic or other private resources 

with existing public spending to scale 

up effective social interventions already 

being implemented; 

(6) To bring pay for performance to 

the social sector, allowing the United 

States to improve the impact and 

effectiveness of vital social services 

programs while redirecting inefficient or 

duplicative spending; and 

(7) To incorporate outcomes 

measurement and randomized 

controlled trials or other rigorous 

methodologies for assessing program 

impact.2

2. Funding Type 

The Act provides funds for two types 

of awards: (1) social impact partnership 

project grants, including grants to pay 

for independent evaluations for such 

projects, and (2) feasibility study grants. 

This NOFA only relates to funds for 

social impact partnership project grants 

and funds for the cost of a grantee’s 

independent evaluation. An awardee 

under this NOFA will receive a 

disbursement only if the awardee 

achieves one or more outcomes 

specified in the award agreement and if 

such outcomes are validated by an 

independent evaluation. The federal 

payment to the awardee for each 

specified outcome must be less than or 

equal to the value of the outcome to the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
83622 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 

3See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–2(f). 4See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(b). 

federal government over a period not 

exceeding ten years from the date 

implementation commences. Payment 

for the independent evaluation will be 

made regardless of whether outcomes 

have been met. 

3. Limitations 

a. Treasury Discretion To Make Awards 

Treasury may make awards to all, 

some, or none of the applicants under 

this NOFA and may make awards for 

amounts less than the amounts 

requested by applicants. Treasury is 

placing an upper limit on the amount of 

each project award—not including the 

associated independent evaluation—of 

$10 million. 

b. Savings to the Federal, State, or Local 

Government 

According to the Act, projects may 

only be awarded if they produce savings 

to the federal, State, or local 

government, as defined in Section A.5 

Outcome Valuation Methodology. 

c. Positive Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) 

For this NOFA, Treasury will only 

consider applications that have a 

positive Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA), as 

explained in Section A.5 Outcome 

Valuation Methodology. 

d. Directly Benefit Children 

The Act requires that ‘‘[n]ot less than 

50 percent of all Federal payments made 

to carry out agreements under this 

section shall be used for initiatives that 

directly benefit children.’’ 3 Treasury 

will prioritize the funds available under 

this NOFA for projects designed to 

directly benefit children in order to 

meet the 50 percent threshold laid out 

in statute. To meet this threshold, taking 

into account the composition of the 

awards issued under the previous 

NOFA, 65 percent of the total possible 

award amount under this competition 

will be reserved for projects that directly 

benefit children. Other projects will be 

considered as long as Treasury reaches 

50 percent of the overall available 

funding with its awards. Treasury will 

consider a project to ‘‘directly benefit 

children’’ if (1) the target population is 

children (aged 0–19 at the beginning of 

the intervention); or (2) the target 

population is parents of children. If the 

project benefits parents, in order to be 

considered a project that directly 

benefits children, the application must 

present strong evidence demonstrating a 

close logical, causal, and consequential 

relationship between the project’s effect 

on parents and the resulting positive 

effect on the parents’ children, and 

being a parent must be a part of the 

intervention’s eligibility criteria. 

Portions of projects can directly benefit 

children without having the entire 

project directly benefit children. 

Treasury welcomes questions regarding 

whether a specific project concept 

would qualify as a project that directly 

benefits children. 

4. Pay for Results Framework 

This section provides an overview of 

the main features of the SIPPRA 

program’s social impact partnerships: 

the pay for results model, outcomes, 

outcome payments, partnership 

formation, and the independent 

evaluations. Social impact partnerships 

are part of a pay for results model where 

groups of stakeholders including state 

and local governments, service 

providers, philanthropy, intermediaries, 

or others seek to produce outcomes that 

result in social benefit and federal, 

State, or local savings. Treasury, the 

Commission (Section E.2.c Phase 3: 

Consistency Review and Commission 

Recommendation), and the Interagency 

Council (Section E.2.d Phase 4: 

Interagency Council Certification and 

Treasury Determination) expect that 

approaches to these partnerships will 

differ across applications. 

Applications under this NOFA must 

provide all required application 

elements set out in the Act at 42 U.S.C. 

1397n–1(c)(1)–(24). 

a. The Pay for Results Model 

The pay for results model mandated 

by the Act differs from many other 

federal grant programs, in which the 

federal government funds the cost of 

programs and services prior to 

implementation of the programs. Under 

the pay for results model (also referred 

to as the ‘‘pay for success’’ model), the 

federal government agrees to make 

payments only if specific, predetermined, measurable outcomes are 

achieved. If the intervention does not 

achieve the pre-determined outcomes, 

then the federal government will not 

make an outcome payment. The Act 

provides that the federal government’s 

payment for an outcome must be less 

than or equal to the value of the 

outcome to the federal government over 

a period not exceeding ten years from 

the date implementation commences. 

Value to the federal government in this 

NOFA is defined as the net benefits 

from a BCA. For additional information, 

see Section A.5.a Federal Value for the 

SIPPRA Program. 

b. Outcomes 

The Act requires that the social 

impact partnership ‘‘produce one or 

more measurable, clearly defined 

outcomes that result in social benefit 

and federal, State, or local savings.’’ 4

An outcome is a positive impact on a 

target population that an Applicant 

expects to achieve as a result of an 

intervention over the duration of a 

project. The partnership’s ability to 

identify, achieve, and agree upon 

suitable outcomes is a key determinant 

of whether pay for results is the 

appropriate funding instrument for 

addressing the identified social issue. 

The statute identifies the following 

outcomes: 

(1) Increasing work and earnings by 

individuals in the United States who are 

unemployed for more than 6 

consecutive months. 

(2) Increasing employment and 

earnings of individuals who have 

attained 16 years of age but not 25 years 

of age. 

(3) Increasing employment among 

individuals receiving Federal disability 

benefits. 

(4) Reducing the dependence of lowincome families on Federal meanstested benefits. 

(5) Improving rates of high school 

graduation. 

(6) Reducing teen and unplanned 

pregnancies. 

(7) Improving birth outcomes and 

early childhood health and 

development among low-income 

families and individuals. 

(8) Reducing rates of asthma, diabetes, 

or other preventable diseases among 

low-income families and individuals to 

reduce the utilization of emergency and 

other high-cost care. 

(9) Increasing the proportion of 

children living in two-parent families. 

(10) Reducing incidences and adverse 

consequences of child abuse and 

neglect. 

(11) Reducing the number of youth in 

foster care by increasing adoptions, 

permanent guardianship arrangements, 

reunifications, or placements with a fit 

and willing relative, or by avoiding 

placing children in foster care by 

ensuring they can be cared for safely in 

their own homes. 

(12) Reducing the number of children 

and youth in foster care residing in 

group homes, child care institutions, 

agency-operated foster homes, or other 

non-family foster homes, unless it is 

determined that it is in the interest of 

the child’s long-term health, safety, or 

psychological well-being to not be 

placed in a family foster home. 

(13) Reducing the number of children 

returning to foster care. 

(14) Reducing recidivism among 

juvenile offenders, individuals released 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 83623 

5This may include improving the employment 

and well-being of United States military members 

as they transition to civilian status either as nonactivated members of the National Guard or 

Reserves or as they become Veterans of the Armed 

Forces. 

6See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(b). 

7The duration of a SIPPRA project may not 

exceed 10 years. 42 U.S.C. 1397n–2(c)(1)(C). 

8See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–2(c). 9See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–4(a) and (f). 

from prison, or other high-risk 

populations. 

(15) Reducing the rate of 

homelessness among our most 

vulnerable populations. 

(16) Improving the health and wellbeing of those with mental, emotional, 

and behavioral health needs. 

(17) Improving the educational 

outcomes of special-needs or lowincome children. 

(18) Improving the employment and 

well-being of returning United States 

military members.5

(19) Increasing the financial stability 

of low-income families. 

(20) Increasing the independence and 

employability of individuals who are 

physically or mentally disabled. 

(21) Other measurable outcomes 

defined by the State or local government 

that result in positive social outcomes 

and Federal savings.6

An outcome is measured by one or 

more indicators that are specific, 

unambiguous, and observable. The 

outcomes must be measured for the 

duration of the intervention period.7

These outcomes must result in social 

benefit and savings to the federal, State, 

or local government. Outcome 

measurements are used to calculate the 

value to the federal government as 

discussed in Section A.5 Outcome 

Valuation Methodology. 

c. Outcome Payments 

The federal government will only 

make a payment if the evaluation 

successfully shows, using the outcome 

valuation methodology described in 

Section A.5 Outcome Valuation 

Methodology, that an Awardee achieved 

the pre-determined outcome levels as a 

result of the intervention. To qualify for 

an outcome payment, an Awardee’s 

project must meet one or more positive 

outcome targets.8 An outcome payment 

must be less than or equal to the value 

of the outcome to the federal 

government over a period not exceeding 

ten years from the date implementation 

commences, and for projects under this 

NOFA, Treasury is capping outcome 

payments at $10 million. Under this 

NOFA, an applicant may propose one or 

multiple project outcomes and receive 

separate payments at separate points in 

time for each outcome achieved 

depending on how the partnership 

designs the intervention. 

d. Partnership Formation 

The State or local government as the 

eligible applicant may work with other 

entities, referred to as ‘‘partners,’’ to 

successfully achieve the outcomes. In 

addition to the Applicant, the 

partnership may include investors, 

service providers, and intermediaries. 

The Applicant also may fulfill one or 

more of these roles. Below are examples 

of possible partners: 

• Investor(s) are entities that, if the 

Applicant is not doing so, provide the 

funding for the social service 

interventions. Investors may be not-forprofit or for-profit entities or public 

sector funds. They accept the risk that 

they will not be repaid in the event that 

the target outcome(s) are not achieved as 

a result of the intervention. 

• Intermediary(ies) may be selected 

by the Applicant to coordinate the pay 

for results arrangement. The role of the 

intermediary may include (1) being 

responsible for achieving the negotiated 

outcome(s) for the target population by 

contracting with service providers; (2) 

raising funds from investors (if 

applicable) to cover the operating costs 

of implementing the services or 

programs; (3) changing or modifying 

service delivery methods and providers, 

with concurrence of the other partners, 

including the independent evaluator 

and, if applicable, investors; and (4) if 

outcome target(s) are met, receiving 

outcome payments from the Awardee 

and making payments to the investors, 

if applicable. The partnership is not 

required to include an intermediary 

organization, and a service provider, 

described below, may also serve as an 

intermediary. 

• Service provider(s) deliver the 

intervention designed to achieve the 

outcomes sought in a pay for results 

partnership agreement. An applicant, or, 

where applicable, an intermediary 

arranges with a service provider to 

provide services and/or administer the 

interventions. Note that a service 

provider may be a State or local 

government agency. 

e. Independent Evaluations 

The Applicant must contract with an 

independent evaluator to determine if 

the project achieved the pre-determined 

outcome levels as outlined in the project 

agreement. To ensure the objectivity of 

evaluations and to preserve the 

independence of evaluators, the statute 

requires that the federal government 

enter an agreement separate from the 

project grant to recipients exclusively to 

fund an evaluator’s work on the project. 

State and local governments receiving 

project grants will be eligible to receive 

up to 15 percent of the project grant to 

pay for all or a portion of the cost of a 

statutorily required independent 

evaluator.9 Treasury will make the 

payment for the independent evaluator 

regardless of whether outcomes have 

been met. This separate grant may not 

be used to pay for other project 

expenses or for fees associated with 

project stakeholder participation in the 

project. The independent evaluator 

must not have a financial or other stake 

in the project that would undermine its 

objectivity, and the Applicant must 

avoid the selection of an independent 

evaluator whose objectivity might be 

impaired. See Section D.2.a.g.4 

Independent evaluator qualifications for 

the independent evaluator’s required 

qualifications. 

The independent evaluator must 

determine whether the intervention 

achieved the expected outcome(s) 

following the evaluation design plan. If 

successful, the federal government will 

then make a payment or payments to the 

Awardee based on the agreed upon 

payment schedule. See Section A.6. 

Independent Evaluation for more 

information on the requirements for the 

independent evaluation. 

5. Outcome Valuation Methodology 

Applications for social impact 

partnership projects must describe one 

or more outcome goals for the project, 

and then determine the value of each 

outcome to the federal government 

using outcome valuation. Outcome 

valuation is the process, at the 

application stage, for rigorously laying 

out the evidence and data used to 

determine the value to the federal 

government, and thus the appropriate 

payment from the federal government, 

for the improved outcomes resulting 

from project interventions. For projects 

under this NOFA, value to the federal 

government is defined as the net 

benefits derived from a benefit-cost 

analysis (BCA) over a period not 

exceeding ten years from the date 

implementation commences. 

As explained in detail below, the 

Applicant must first show that, as a 

result of the anticipated outcome of the 

project intervention, there will be 

savings to the federal, State, or local 

government. Savings is defined as 

reductions in governmental outlays that 

are directly the result of the project 

intervention net of the project’s cost. 

Increased revenues as a result of the 

intervention are not considered savings. 

There must be savings for a project to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
83624 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 

10See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(b); 42 U.S.C. 1397n– 

5(a)(8). 

11This guide is not intended to be a general guide 

for BCA and is for the purposes of the SIPPRA 

program only. 

12Applicants proposing to generate value to the 

federal government only through reductions in 

federal administrative expenses will not be 

considered eligible. 

13See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(b); 42 U.S.C. 1397n– 

5(a)(8). 

14For further explanation of these principles, see 

OMB Circular A–94, pg. 17. 

be funded through the SIPPRA 

program.10

Applicants must then perform a BCA 

that will be used to determine the value 

to the federal government. The 

Applicant may use savings to the 

federal, State, or local governments, 

calculated in the previous step, as one 

of the benefits used in the calculation. 

Using the BCA process, the Applicant 

will then determine the net benefits of 

a project outcome, which is the 

monetized value of the benefits minus 

the costs. If this number is greater than 

zero (i.e., benefits exceed costs), then 

there is a positive value to the federal 

government. If the net benefit is not 

greater than zero, there is not a positive 

value to the federal government, and 

therefore the project is not eligible for 

payment. The federal payment to an 

Awardee must be less than or equal to 

the value of the outcome to the federal 

government over a period not exceeding 

ten years from the date implementation 

commences. Treasury is placing an 

upper limit of $10 million on the 

amount of each project award (not 

including amounts for the associated 

independent evaluation). 

a. Federal Value for the SIPPRA 

Program 

Applicants must use benefit-cost 

analysis (BCA) to determine the value to 

the federal government, which is the 

maximum amount that the Applicant 

can receive as an outcome payment. 

BCA is a systematic process for 

identifying, quantifying, and comparing 

expected benefits and costs of a 

potential project, policy, or action to 

society. In executing the BCA, 

Applicants must account for both social 

benefits (including savings to a State or 

local government or to the federal 

government) that provide positive value 

to the federal government, and costs, 

which result in negative value, to 

determine the net value to the federal 

government. 

The rest of this section provides a 

recommended guide for calculating 

benefits and costs through BCA to 

determine the value to the federal 

government for the purposes of the 

SIPPRA program.11 Applicants may 

consult OMB Circulars A–4 and A–94 

for additional guidance. 

Step 1. Demonstrate Savings to the 

Federal, State, or Local Government 

Over the course of the period of 

performance of a project, interventions 

must provide savings to the State or 

local government or to the federal 

government, in the form of reduced 

outlays as described below. This step is 

a threshold requirement and must be 

presented as a separate calculation in 

the application, prior to those savings 

being incorporated into the BCA as a 

social benefit of the project outcome. 

The federal, State, and local savings 

calculation analysis requires estimating 

the savings—reductions in outlays 12— 

that accrue to the federal, State, and 

local governments that are the result of 

the intervention, over the period of 

performance of the project. The savings 

calculation must incorporate increases 

in costs due to intended or unintended 

impacts of the intervention. In some 

cases (particularly where there are 

complex program interactions), it may 

be necessary to estimate baseline 

outlays and compare outlays under the 

intervention to arrive at an appropriate 

estimate of savings. The application 

must provide sufficient information 

(e.g., all data sources, related literature, 

assumptions, and justifications) to show 

how the Applicant estimated savings 

that occur as a direct result of the 

proposed intervention. Applicants must 

document and submit their estimates of 

changes to outlays as a direct result of 

each proposed intervention such that 

these analyses can be replicated. Only 

Applicants with federal, State, or local 

savings will be considered for the 

SIPPRA program.13 Savings to each 

level of government should be presented 

separately to show how outlays are 

changing at each level of government as 

a result of the intervention. 

The Applicant must carefully 

consider how the project intervention 

may cause the substitution of benefits 

delivered through one social program 

for another. Specifically, the Applicant 

must consider how the intervention will 

affect eligibility for other federal 

programs and how this will affect the 

change in outlays. For example, an 

intervention that increases employment 

could decrease participation in 

government assistance programs while 

increasing eligibility for reimbursable 

employment-based tax credits. Both the 

decrease in assistance outlays and the 

increase in refundable tax credit 

expenditures are changes in government 

outlays resulting from the project 

intervention and must be taken into 

account in the savings calculation. 

In estimating the project 

intervention’s effect on the outlays of a 

government program, the Applicant 

must carefully consider the funding 

structure of the program and whether or 

not the program is oversubscribed, i.e., 

the program has more eligible 

individuals than funding available for 

services, such that when one individual 

is removed from the program another 

eligible individual replaces that 

individual. 

For applicants who plan to use 

savings from Medicaid or CHIP, see 

Section J. Appendix II: Integration of 

Managed Care Information/Data for the 

integration of managed care 

information/data. This information is 

required to certify such savings. 

Step 2. Assess Costs and Benefits From 

the Intervention’s Effect to the ‘‘Target’’ 

Population for Each Time Period 

The next step of the outcome 

valuation process is to use BCA to 

assess the costs and benefits of the 

intervention on its target population. 

BCA is a systematic process for 

identifying, quantifying, and comparing 

expected benefits and costs to society of 

a potential project, policy, or action. 

Estimated benefits are based on the 

projected social impacts of the project, 

valued in monetary terms. There are a 

wide range of benefits that can be 

included in a BCA, and which ones to 

include will be heavily dependent on 

the type of intervention that is designed. 

For example, if the program seeks to 

increase economic opportunity through 

a job training program, it might be 

expected to result in increased wages, 

increased revenues to the federal, State, 

and local government, and decreased 

outlays on programs like SNAP or 

Medicaid. 

The savings calculated in Step 1 must 

be included in the BCA. Such benefits 

must be adjusted by the Marginal Cost 

of Public Funds, a cost adjustment 

which accounts for the distortion effect 

of taxes on the cost-benefit tradeoff of 

actions (this effect is referred to as Dead 

Weight Loss). Because of Dead Weight 

Loss, the cost of every dollar of public 

funds (the Marginal Cost of Public 

Funds) is greater than $1. For the 

purposes of consistency within the 

SIPPRA program, all benefits from 

government savings must be multiplied 

by the Marginal Cost of Public Funds of 

$1.25.14 Similarly, any increases in 

revenues to any level of government 

must be adjusted by the Marginal Cost 

of Public Funds. See Appendix I for an 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 83625 

15https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2023/07/msr_fy2024.pdf, p. 6. 

16See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–2(c)(1)(B). 

17As described above, for purposes of meeting the 

SIPPRA statutory requirement that a project provide 

savings to the State or local government, or to the 

federal government, savings must be achieved by 

the time of project completion. See 42 U.S.C 1397n– 

5(a)(9). However, for purposes of counting savings 

as benefits towards the BCA calculation, savings 

may be calculated up to a 10-year time period like 

other benefits. 

18See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(c)(22); 42 U.S.C. 1397n– 

4(b). 

19See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–4(a) and (f). 

example of how to apply the Marginal 

Cost of Public Funds. 

Costs include the resources required 

to develop the project and the costs to 

facilitate the project over time. Costs 

associated with impacted federal, State, 

and local programs must be included in 

the estimated cost of the program, and 

these should also be multiplied by the 

Marginal Cost of Public Funds. 

Applicants are encouraged to use 

existing research, incorporating 

analytical tools grounded in 

microeconomic theory, to quantify the 

costs and benefits of their expected 

outcomes. For a greater discussion of 

analytical tools for BCA see Section K. 

Appendix III: Benefit-Cost Analysis 

Tools. When possible, stated preference 

(for example, surveys of how much an 

individual values a particular good or 

service) should be avoided in arriving at 

any of the core assumptions of the BCA. 

Step 3. Assess External Costs and 

Benefits 

Applicants’ BCA must also consider 

the effects of interventions that extend 

beyond the target population. In 

particular, some interventions may 

generate positive or negative unpriced 

external effects, known as externalities. 

For example, when a person consumes 

a gallon of gasoline, they pay a price, 

and receive a benefit. However, that 

gallon of gasoline also produces air 

pollutants, both in its production and 

final consumption. Therefore, when the 

consumer uses the gallon of gasoline, air 

pollution is a negative externality of that 

purchase. Similar externalities, whether 

positive or negative, must be considered 

in the Applicant’s BCA. 

Additionally, when considering 

external costs and benefits, applicants 

must guard against double-counting, 

since some benefits or costs are 

embedded in other broader measures. 

To balance this goal with concerns 

about under-counting meaningful effects 

by excluding potentially overlapping 

benefits or costs, it may be helpful to 

include a range—with the lower-bound 

estimate prioritizing the avoidance of 

double-counting and the upper-bound 

estimate prioritizing avoidance of 

omitted categories of impacts. See OMB 

Circular A–4 for additional guidance. 

Step 4. Sum Costs and Benefits by Time 

Period 

As illustrated in the example 

provided in Appendix I: Example of 

Outcome Valuation Process, for each 

time period in the analysis, sum the 

costs and benefits calculated in Steps 1– 

3. Calculate the net benefits for each 

time period by subtracting the costs 

from the benefits. 

Step 5. Appropriately Account for 

Inflation and Sum Across Time Periods 

In order to ensure a meaningful 

comparison between benefits and costs, 

it is important that all monetized values 

used in a BCA be expressed in common 

terms. Data obtained for use in BCAs is 

sometimes expressed in nominal dollars 

from several different years. Nominal 

dollars reflect the effects of inflation 

over time and are sometimes also called 

current or year of expenditure (YOE) 

dollars. Such values must be converted 

to real dollars (also referred to as 

constant dollars), using a common base 

year, to net out the effects of inflation. 

Applicants must use the Consumer 

Price Index (All Urban) from the FY 

2024 President’s Budget Mid-Session 

Review for all inflation adjustments.15

Projects that have benefits and costs 

beyond 2033 should assume an inflation 

rate of 2.3%. 

In some benefit-cost calculations, after 

netting out the effects of inflation, a 

second distinct adjustment, called 

discounting, is made to account for the 

time value of money. However, the 

SIPPRA program operates over a 

relatively short period of time, lowering 

the impact of discounting on value 

calculations. Therefore, do not discount 

costs and benefits. 

For the BCA used in SIPPRA, a 10- 

year time period is allowed in which to 

accrue benefits.16 Once each time 

period is adjusted for inflation, sum 

across the time periods—up to 10 

years.17 Also, calculate the benefit-cost 

ratio by dividing the benefits by the 

costs. Only projects with a benefit-cost 

ratio greater than one will be considered 

for SIPPRA. 

For an example of how to apply these 

steps, see Section I. Appendix I: 

Example of Outcome Valuation Process. 

b. ‘‘Tips’’ for Conducting BCA for 

SIPPRA Program Projects 

The following recommendations may 

be helpful to applicants in conducting 

BCA for SIPPRA projects. 

Tip #1. Avoid any Effects of Your 

Program to the General Economy 

Some changes have big enough 

impacts to change the prices of goods or 

services in a market. For example, a 

national change to the replacement rates 

for unemployment insurance will have 

large enough effects to adjust wages for 

everyone, not just individuals in a 

program (known as general equilibrium 

effects). However, programs and policy 

changes of the size that are eligible 

under SIPPRA are not large enough to 

affect prices. For example, a small job 

training program for unskilled workers 

is unlikely to move the market price for 

unskilled labor. Therefore, when 

assessing the benefits of the program, 

the BCA analyst must only consider the 

additional wages the worker receives 

and not consider any benefit to 

employers. 

Tip #2. Do Not Give Different Weights 

to Different Groups or Populations of 

People 

Some BCAs use distributional 

weights, an approach in which different 

weights are applied to costs and benefits 

for different groups. For the purposes of 

SIPPRA, Treasury is not considering 

distributional weights. 

Tip #3. Do Not Use Discounting for 

Time Preference 

When performing forward-looking 

BCA, future costs and benefits are 

sometimes discounted. However, given 

that the SIPPRA program operates over 

a relatively short period of time, costs 

and benefits will not be discounted for 

time preference. As explained above, 

however, adjusting for inflation is 

required. 

6. Independent Evaluation 

This section addresses post-award 

independent evaluations, including 

evaluation design, research 

methodologies, and expected 

coordination of activities. 

a. Overview 

By statute, SIPPRA program projects 

must have evaluations conducted by 

independent evaluators.18 Awardees 

can expect to commit significant time 

and resources to the formal evaluations 

of their project. All applicants are 

eligible to receive evaluation funding to 

support post-award evaluation costs, 

regardless of whether outcomes are met. 

The federal government will fund up 

to 15 percent of the amount of the 

estimated project award (not including 

the cost of the evaluation) for an 

independent evaluation of the project.19

The federal government will base its 

maximum award of funds for the 

grantee’s cost of an independent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
83626 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 

20See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(c)(7). 

21See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–4(c). 

22More information on evidence standards in the 

context of Federal program evaluations can be 

found at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/ 

136/SLFRF-Compliance-and-ReportingGuidance.pdf. 

23See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–10(3)(J). 

24See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–2(b)(3). 

evaluator on the amount of the top tier 

outcome payment. The federal 

government will fund only completed 

post-award evaluation work. The federal 

government will not pay for pre-award 

costs or the portion of an evaluator’s 

contract contemplating evaluation work 

that is not completed in the event a 

project terminates earlier than expected. 

b. Evaluation Requirements 

The Act requires projects to establish 

that the outcomes ‘‘have been achieved 

as a result of the intervention.’’ 20 The 

evaluation used to determine whether a 

State or local government will receive 

outcome payments under SIPPRA shall 

use experimental designs with random 

assignment or other reliable evidencebased research methodologies that, as 

certified by the Interagency Council, 

allow for the strongest possible causal 

inferences when random assignment is 

not feasible.21 The project’s 

independent evaluation must be 

designed to assess the strength of the 

causal evidence, i.e., the degree to 

which the evaluation establishes the 

causal impact of the intervention on the 

outcomes of interest not due to other 

factors.22

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) 

are generally considered to be the most 

rigorous type of experimental design. In 

RCTs, a sample is randomly split into 

two groups—treatment and control. One 

will receive the intervention and the 

other will continue as normal. These 

studies are designed to minimize the 

chance that the observed difference in 

outcomes is due to an alternative 

explanation. 

Treasury will also accept other 

reliable, evidence-based research 

methodologies commonly known as 

quasi-experimental design studies. 

These are studies with an evaluation 

design in which outcomes for the 

treatment group, or a broader target 

population that includes both the 

treatment group and those outside the 

treatment group, are measured relative 

to a comparison group. Such a design 

attempts to approximate an 

experimental design and can support 

causal conclusions, without random 

assignment. Sophisticated analytic 

techniques are used to control for 

factors that might be associated with the 

outcome being analyzed. Applicants 

that cannot implement an RCT study 

will not be deemed less competitive or 

penalized for implementing a quasiexperimental design. Applicants using a 

quasi-experimental design must address 

other possible causes of the outcomes, 

such as selection, other policies, 

economic conditions, and other 

confounding factors. This should 

include a description of the contrast in 

services that the comparison and 

treatment group will receive during the 

project period. 

A part of this evaluation will be a 

statistical significance requirement 

where the coefficient on the treatment 

variable is statistically significant 

(supporting rejection of the null 

hypothesis of no impact). For purposes 

of the SIPPRA program, the coefficient 

will be considered statistically 

significant if the null hypothesis falls 

outside of the 80 percent confidence 

interval. The choice of how to best 

calculate standard errors and confidence 

intervals is left to the independent 

evaluator, who must follow best 

practices based on the identification 

strategy. The power calculation (see 

guideline #12 on pg. 20) required in the 

evaluation design plan will be a critical 

input for Treasury to consider when 

evaluating the application. 

Applicants may use classical 

statistical analysis or Bayesian statistical 

analysis. For applicants using Bayesian 

statistical analysis, the appropriate 

Bayesian tests must be used to show the 

equivalent of classical statistical 

significance at the 80 percent level. 

Additionally, applicants using Bayesian 

statistical analysis must conduct prior 

sensitivity analysis to ensure any causal 

result is not due only to a dominant 

prior. Applicants using this approach 

must use high-quality experimental or 

quasi-experimental evidence to justify 

the prior distribution. 

c. Evaluation Design Plan 

The Applicant must provide an 

evaluation design plan that includes a 

range of information related to design, 

implementation, statistics, and data. 

The full list of requirements is available 

in Section D.2.a.(g)5 Evaluation design 

plan. 

The design plan may evolve during a 

project’s early implementation period 

(approximately the first 6–12 months) to 

ensure proper measurement of project 

outcomes. However, outcome goals may 

not change without prior approval from 

Treasury or the administering federal 

agency. Grantees must submit the 

design plan to Treasury or the 

administering federal agency once it is 

finalized. Elements of the evaluation 

design plan may be posted on the 

Federal Interagency Council on Social 

Impact Partnerships (Interagency 

Council) website.23

d. Evidence Standard 

The Act requires Treasury to take into 

consideration the likelihood, based on 

evidence provided in the application 

and other evidence, that the State or 

local government in collaboration with 

the intermediary and the service 

providers will achieve the specified 

outcomes.24 The evidence base should 

consist of well-designed and wellimplemented experimental studies or 

quasi-experimental studies that support 

the effectiveness of the practice, 

strategy, or program; and/or large, welldesigned, and well-implemented 

randomized controlled, multi-site trials 

that support the effectiveness of the 

practice, strategy, or program. The 

magnitude of the impact assumed for 

the SIPPRA project must be derived 

from this evidence base. 

For each project application, the 

Subject Matter Expert Panel (see Section 

E.2.b) will determine the strength of the 

evidence provided, as described further 

below. Projects with strong or moderate 

evidence are most likely the best 

candidates for the SIPPRA program, but 

all projects will be considered. 

• Strong evidence means that the 

evidence base can support causal 

conclusions for the specific program 

proposed by the applicant with the 

highest level of confidence. The 

evidence must support causal 

conclusions (i.e., studies with high 

internal validity) and include enough of 

the range of participants and settings to 

support scaling up to the state, regional, 

or national level (i.e., studies with high 

external validity). The following are 

examples of strong evidence: (1) More 

than one well-designed and wellimplemented experimental study or 

well-designed and well-implemented 

quasi-experimental study that supports 

the effectiveness of the practice, 

strategy, or program; or (2) one large, 

well-designed and well-implemented 

randomized controlled, multi-site trial 

that supports the effectiveness of the 

practice, strategy, or program. 

• Moderate evidence means that there 

is a reasonably developed evidence base 

that can support causal conclusions. 

Evidence from previous studies on the 

program, the designs of which can 

support causal conclusions (i.e., studies 

with high internal validity) but have 

limited generalizability (i.e., moderate 

external validity). This also can include 

studies for which the reverse is true— 

studies that only support moderate 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 83627 

25The Act provides that the period of 

performance under the award agreements may not 

exceed 10 years. See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–2(c)(1)(C). 

Treasury will strive to maximize use of the amounts 

Congress appropriated to make awards and outcome 

payments. The Act appropriates funds that are 

available for ten years to make awards. See 42 

U.S.C. 1397n–9 and 1397n–13. Federal law 

generally provides that disbursements of funds 

awarded within the SIPPRA program 10-year 

window (e.g., outcome payments) must occur 

within five years after that 10-year window closes. 

See 31 U.S.C. 1552(a). 

causal conclusions but have broad 

general applicability. The following 

would constitute moderate evidence: (1) 

At least one well-designed and wellimplemented experimental or quasiexperimental study supporting the 

effectiveness of the practice strategy, or 

program, with small sample sizes or 

other conditions of implementation or 

analysis that limit generalizability; (2) at 

least one well-designed and wellimplemented experimental or quasiexperimental study that does not 

demonstrate equivalence between the 

intervention and comparison groups at 

program entry but that has no other 

major flaws related to internal validity; 

or (3) correlational research with strong 

statistical controls for selection bias and 

for discerning the influence of internal 

factors. 

• Preliminary evidence means that 

the evidence base can support 

conclusions about the program’s 

contribution to observed outcomes. The 

evidence base consists of at least one 

non-experimental study. A study that 

demonstrates improvement in program 

beneficiaries over time on one or more 

intended outcomes OR an 

implementation (process evaluation) 

study used to learn about and improve 

program operations would constitute 

preliminary evidence. Examples of 

research that meet the standards 

include: (1) outcome studies that track 

program beneficiaries through a service 

pipeline and measure beneficiaries’ 

responses at the end of the program; and 

(2) pre- and post-test research that 

determines whether beneficiaries have 

improved on an intended outcome. 

The project narrative must include a 

theory of change and a logic model that 

builds from this evidence base. A theory 

of change must inform the intervention 

design by reflecting the logical (and 

evidence-informed) reasoning that 

supports the expectation the actions 

taken will lead to the intended 

outcomes. The logic model builds off 

this theory of change. A logic model 

provides a bridge between project 

design and the evaluation by clarifying 

the inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, 

and impacts that can help to crystalize 

how each of those things can be 

measured and tracked. 

e. Evaluation Facilitation 

The Applicant is expected to 

participate in and manage several 

activities to ensure the successful 

independent evaluation of 

demonstration projects. These activities 

include: 

• Working with the independent 

evaluator to facilitate the execution of 

the overall evaluation strategy and to 

ensure the intervention is performed 

according to the evaluation design plan 

described above; 

• Reporting progress and final 

evaluation results to Treasury and/or 

the relevant federal agency on schedule; 

• Over the course of the performance 

period, working with the independent 

evaluator to ensure that project 

randomization procedures and other 

evaluation processes are adhered to; 

• Working with the independent 

evaluator to modify evaluation plans, as 

appropriate. 

• Ensuring that the independent 

evaluator can collect all relevant data 

and has access to needed datasets. 

f. Agreement With Independent 

Evaluator 

Because the evaluation findings 

provide the basis for pay for results 

payments to the grantee, the agreement 

each applicant enters into with an 

independent evaluator must require an 

agreed-upon evaluation design and 

methodology, observed outcome 

measure(s), and findings regarding 

outcome targets. The agreement must 

address the following: 

• Plan to obtain relevant datasets 

from various sources, for example, local 

agencies, state agencies, or other federal 

agencies, including the responsibilities 

of the grantee and evaluator in 

accomplishing this task; 

• Design and coding of a management 

information system, as needed, that is 

tailored for research or evaluation, to 

track participants and obtain individual 

level data; 

• Collection or assessment of 

individual-level data. The independent 

evaluator must work directly with the 

Applicant and other organizations to 

enter into one or more agreements for 

the access and use of the data. These 

agreements must include assuring data 

quality and adherence to all federal and 

state data privacy statutes and policies 

and data security standards; 

• Institutional Review Board (IRB) 

approval or a plan to get IRB approval 

to ensure the protection of human 

subjects, to the extent applicable; and 

• Submission of progress reports to 

Treasury, the Interagency Council, and 

the head of the relevant agency in 

accordance with the reporting 

requirements described in Section F.3.b 

Evaluation Progress Reports and Section 

F.3.c Evaluation Final Reports. 

If the Applicant is unable to execute 

an agreement prior to the application 

deadline, Treasury will accept a draft 

agreement containing these elements. 

B. Federal Award Information 

1. Type of Federal Award 

Treasury expects to award up to $40.9 

million to fund projects under this 

NOFA, with an additional amount up to 

$6.1 million available to fund the 

independent evaluations. The total 

amount awarded under this NOFA will 

be determined based on the number and 

strength of applications for projects 

received and other programmatic 

considerations. Treasury reserves the 

right to make no awards or to make 

awards for amounts less than the 

amounts requested by applicants. As 

stated above, Treasury is placing an 

upper limit on the amount of each 

project award—not including the 

associated independent evaluation—of 

$10 million. 

As noted above, for projects funded 

under this NOFA, the federal 

government, under separate agreements 

with grantees, will also make available 

up to 15 percent of the project award 

amount (not including the cost of the 

evaluation) for the cost of an 

independent evaluation. These 

agreements to pay for evaluations will 

provide for payment regardless of 

outcomes, but the agreements will limit 

payments to evaluation work performed. 

2. Project Period 

SIPPRA funds must be liquidated by 

September 2033. Therefore, the period 

of performance for SIPPRA project 

awards must end by September 2032, to 

allow for up to six months for final 

measurement, analysis, evaluation, 

submission of the independent 

evaluator’s final report, and submission 

of payment requests to the federal 

government.25 Applicants should 

carefully construct their project timeline 

to allow sufficient time for all required 

activities. Treasury expects the period of 

performance to generally be about 48–60 

months, but this will be heavily 

dependent on the nature of the project 

interventions. Applicants must specify 

the intervention period and explain the 

basis for specifying such period. 

Requests to extend the period of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
83628 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 

26See 2 CFR 200.29. 

performance after an agreement is 

awarded will not be considered. 

C. Eligibility Information 

1. Eligible Applicants 

Only States or local governments are 

eligible applicants; applications from 

any other entities will not be reviewed. 

The Act defines the term ‘‘State’’ to 

mean each State of the United States, 

the District of Columbia, each 

commonwealth, territory, or possession 

of the United States, and each federally 

recognized Indian tribe. For purposes of 

this NOFA, the term ‘‘State’’ shall, 

consistent with the Uniform 

Administrative Requirements, Cost 

Principles, and Audit Requirements for 

Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) at 

2 CFR part 200, include any of a State’s 

agencies or instrumentalities, and the 

terms ‘‘local government’’ and 

‘‘federally recognized Indian tribe’’ shall 

have the meanings given in the Uniform 

Guidance. Multiple agencies within a 

state or local government are eligible to 

apply, or interjurisdictional groups of 

state or local governments may apply 

together. In both cases, a lead applicant 

must be identified. Local governments 

for SIPPRA purposes may include, but 

are not limited to, cities, counties, 

school districts, or other special 

districts. 

Eligibility determinations in prior 

funding rounds have no bearing on and 

do not guarantee eligibility in this round 

of SIPPRA funding. Applicants are also 

not able to request changes or 

amendments to agreements based on 

this NOFA’s criteria if made under the 

previous NOFA. 

2. Cost Sharing or Matching 

Cost sharing or matching funds, as 

defined in the Uniform Guidance,26 are 

not required, and the financial 

contributions from any investors for 

project implementation are not 

characterized as cost sharing or 

matching funds. 

3. Other 

The identified social problem(s) or 

other social benefits to be addressed by 

the intervention must relate to one of 

the outcomes identified in SIPPRA and 

listed in Section A.4.b. Outcomes. 

D. Application and Submission 

Information 

1. How To Obtain an Application 

Package 

This NOFA, found at www.Grants.gov 

and www.Treasury.gov/SIPPRA, 

contains all of the information and links 

to forms needed to apply for grant 

funding. An application package may be 

obtained from Grants.gov by using this 

NOFA’s CFDA number: 21.017 or by 

emailing the SIPPRA Director Matthew 

Cook at SIPPRA@treasury.gov. 

Information on how to apply for grants 

can be found at https://www.Grants.gov/ 

web/grants/applicants/apply-forgrants.html. 

2. Content and Form of Application 

Submission 

a. Application for Project Award 

Applications submitted in response to 

this NOFA must include the following: 

(a) SF–424, Application for Federal 

Assistance; 

(b) SF–424A, Budget Information for 

Non-Construction Programs (if 

applicable); 

(c) SF–424C, Budget Information for 

Construction Programs (if applicable); 

(d) SF–LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying 

Activities; 

(e) Grants.gov Lobbying Form; 

(f) Project Narrative 

The project narrative (page limit is 20 

pages) must include the following: 

(1) A not more than two-page project 

overview that will state the name of the 

project, amount of funding requested, 

project intervention period, total project 

timeline, name of service provider, 

name of intermediary (if any), name of 

investor(s), name of independent 

evaluator, if the project directly benefits 

children, a brief summary of the project, 

and brief summary of the expected 

outcomes to be achieved as a result of 

the intervention. 

(2) The outcome goals of the project, 

formulated as discussed in Section 

A.4.b Outcomes, and describing the 

existing base of evidence and citing 

available research literature. This 

section must include a theory of change 

and logic model for how the 

intervention will lead to these outcome 

goals building from the available 

research. See Section A.6.d Evidence 

Standard for a discussion of the theory 

of change and the logic model; 

(3) The project timeline, including the 

project intervention period; 

(4) A description of each intervention 

in the project and anticipated outcomes 

of the intervention including a summary 

of the value of the anticipated outcomes 

that is laid out in detail in section #7 of 

the project narrative attachments; 

(5) A service delivery plan for 

delivering the intervention through a 

social impact partnership model, 

including the proposed payment terms 

(e.g., the terms of any tiered payment 

scheme proposed by the applicant) and 

performance thresholds (i.e., the 

outcome goal or, in the case of a tiered 

payment scheme, a range of outcomes); 

(6) The target population that will be 

served by the project and the criteria 

used to determine the eligibility of an 

individual for the project, including 

how the target population will be 

identified, how individuals will be 

referred to the project, how they will be 

enrolled in it, and the extent to which 

affected stakeholders will be engaged in 

the development and implementation of 

the project and evaluation; 

(7) A succinct summary of the unmet 

need in the area where the intervention 

will be delivered or among the target 

population who will receive the 

intervention and the expected social 

benefits to participants who receive the 

intervention and others who may be 

impacted; 

(8) A description of whether and how 

the applicant and service providers plan 

to sustain the intervention, if it is timely 

and appropriate to do so, to ensure that 

successful interventions continue to 

operate after the period of the social 

impact partnership; 

(9) Whether (and if so, how and what 

percentage of) the project will directly 

benefit children; and 

(10) The Applicant may also consider 

including information on how the 

intervention would foster innovation in 

social policy, yield a diversity of target 

populations and grantees, advance 

racial equity and support for 

underserved communities as described 

in Executive Order 13985, or include 

any other non-monetary benefits that 

could not be included in the BCA. 

Depending on the number of 

applications, Treasury may take these 

into consideration when choosing 

awardees. 

(g) Project Narrative Attachments; 

The following items are required to be 

submitted as attachments to the project 

narrative: 

1. Project budget: Provide a narrative 

for the budget, including amounts 

expected to be expended by partners. 

Please limit this to 5 pages or fewer. 

2. Partnership agreements: Provide a 

partnership agreement between the 

Applicant and all project partners. The 

partnership agreement must either be 

signed or, if submitted in draft form, 

must be accompanied by signed letters 

of intent to enter into such an agreement 

should the application be successful. 

The partnership agreement between the 

applicant and the partners, which must 

be attached to the grant application, 

must address each of the following. 

(1) Clearly defined roles and 

responsibilities of each partner; 

(2) A plan for sharing data among the 

partners, including but not limited to a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 83629 

27See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–2(c)(1)(B) and (2). 

Memorandum of Understanding or 

Memorandum of Agreement, which may 

be conditioned on the award of a grant, 

that appropriately safeguards the 

privacy of individuals in the targeted 

population in accordance with 

applicable laws; 

(3) A representation that all project 

partners have reviewed an independent 

evaluation plan for the project and an 

agreement by all the partners to 

cooperate in the implementation of the 

evaluation plan as necessary; and 

(4) A payment arrangement between 

the applicant and project partners 

(including the intermediary and/or 

investors, as applicable), demonstrating 

that all partners understand that 

payment by the federal government is 

conditioned upon the independent 

evaluator’s verification that the project’s 

pre-determined outcome(s) and value 

generated have been met. This payment 

arrangement must include a plan and 

timeline describing each payment point 

that the project partners have agreed on, 

and the corresponding outcome targets 

that will be evaluated in the impact 

evaluation. Although the federal 

government generally will make 

payments to the grantee if the 

independent evaluator determines that 

the project achieved the specified 

outcome as a result of the intervention 

and the payment is less than or equal to 

the value of the outcome to the federal 

government,27 the federal government is 

not responsible for making payments to 

the Awardee’s partners. 

3. Partner qualifications: Please limit 

this to 3 pages or fewer. 

(1) Service provider. Describe the 

expertise of each service provider that 

will administer the intervention, 

including a summary of the experience 

of the service provider in delivering the 

proposed intervention or a similar 

intervention, or demonstrating that the 

service provider has the expertise 

necessary to deliver the proposed 

intervention. This description must 

include a discussion of the capacity of 

the service provider to deliver the 

intervention to the number of 

participants the State or local 

government proposes to serve in the 

project. 

(2) Intermediary. With respect to any 

intermediary specifically, the 

application must discuss the 

intermediary’s mission and goals; its 

experience and capacity for providing or 

facilitating the provision of the type of 

intervention proposed; information on 

whether the intermediary is already 

working with service providers that 

provide this intervention or an 

explanation of the capacity of the 

intermediary to begin working with 

service providers to provide the 

intervention; its experience working in 

a collaborative environment across 

government and non-governmental 

entities to implement evidence-based 

programs; its previous experience 

collaborating with public or private 

entities to implement evidence-based 

programs; its ability to raise or provide 

funding to cover operating costs, as 

applicable; its capacity and 

infrastructure to track outcomes and 

measure results, including its capacity 

to track and analyze program 

performance and assess program impact; 

its experience with performance-based 

awards or performance-based 

contracting and achieving milestones 

and targets; and an explanation of how 

the intermediary would monitor 

program success, including a 

description of the interim benchmarks 

and outcome measures. 

(3) Investor. In addition, to the extent 

the Applicant intends to use investors 

and has not already identified and 

received commitments from them, the 

application must discuss the experience 

of the State or local government, 

intermediary, if any, or service provider 

in raising private and philanthropic 

capital to fund social service 

investments. 

4. Independent evaluator 

qualifications: Provide a summary 

explaining the independence of the 

evaluator from the other entities 

involved in the project and the 

evaluator’s experience in conducting 

rigorous evaluations of program 

effectiveness including, where available, 

well-implemented RCTs and quasiexperimental analyses on the 

intervention or similar interventions. 

When discussing experience, please 

note both personnel and organization 

experience. Applicants must address the 

following qualifications of the evaluator. 

Please limit this to 3 pages or fewer. 

(1) Experience working with the 

datasets the project expects to use; 

(2) Prior work in conducting 

implementation and causal impact 

evaluation and how their past 

methodologies and evaluation design 

experience will be used in the proposed 

project. Please provide examples of 

evaluations that they have completed of 

similar scope and complexity; 

(3) Qualifications of the key personnel 

designing and overseeing the evaluation 

and ensuring its quality, including their 

education or training and type and years 

of experience; 

(4) Experience in managing similar 

evaluation protocols (e.g., this type of 

sampling, data collection, analysis); and 

(5) Experience dealing with 

unforeseen data or implementation 

issues in other program evaluations. 

Provide specific examples and 

experiences dealing with unforeseen 

data or implementation issues. 

5. Evaluation design plan: Provide an 

evaluation design plan by following the 

following guidelines. Please limit this to 

10 pages or fewer. 

Demonstrate a high-quality design by: 

(1) Explaining how the proposed 

evaluation is best suited for the project; 

(2) Documenting the project 

evaluation’s research question(s), the 

data to be collected and analyzed, how 

data quality and integrity will be 

maintained, e.g., how attrition will be 

minimized, and specify overall and 

subgroup samples; 

(3) Describing how the project will be 

implemented with fidelity, e.g., how 

random assignment to treatment and 

control groups will be ensured; 

(4) Providing and justifying the 

selected evaluation strategy, i.e., RCT or 

quasi-experimental design; 

(5) Explaining how the methodology 

will measure relevant unintended 

outcomes and/or negative impacts; 

(6) Stating whether the design is 

likely to generate evidence that can 

support causal conclusions, as 

described in Section A.6.d Evidence 

Standard; 

(7) Describing anticipated challenges, 

such as attrition, failed randomization, 

and oversubscription and plans to 

mitigate them; and 

(8) Showing how the evaluation will 

be independent of the intervention and 

financing structure. 

Incorporate appropriate evaluation 

design by 

(9) Describing the metrics that will be 

used in the evaluation to determine 

whether the outcomes have been 

achieved as a result of the intervention 

including key outcomes and outcome 

targets; an explanation of how the 

metrics will be measured; and an 

explanation of how the metrics are 

independent, objective indicators of 

impact that are not subject to 

manipulation by the service provider, 

the intermediary, or investors, if any; 

(10) Describing the statistical 

assumptions required to infer causal 

effects in the research design (e.g., 

absence of spillovers, identifying 

conditions for non-RCTs, etc.). Provide 

examples of how these assumptions 

could be violated; 

(11) Proposing all important 

covariates that will be used in 

evaluation analysis, including how 

these measures will be operationalized, 

and the data used for them; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
83630 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 

(12) Describing anticipated statistical 

and analytical methods (such as 

regression equations to be used), power 

calculations, and minimal detectable 

impacts for each proposed outcome. 

Please include the actual power and 

minimal detectable impact estimates for 

each proposed outcome; 

(13) Describing what hypothesis 

testing procedure will be used (e.g., pvalues), what hypotheses will be tested, 

and how the tests will be conducted 

(e.g., robust standard error estimators, 

etc.) 

(14) Including the anticipated 

customized randomization plan if 

applicable; 

(15) Describing an approach for 

coordinating all partners and required 

evaluation activities, including assisting 

the independent evaluator in collecting 

and accessing the necessary data, and 

include a timeline; 

(16) Describing an approach for 

conducting an evaluation of program 

implementation, potentially using an 

implementation framework (e.g., the 

Consolidated Framework for 

Implementation Research) 

6. Independent evaluator contract or 

agreement: Provide a copy of the 

contract or agreement to be entered into 

between the State or local government 

and the independent evaluator. The 

contract or agreement must address the 

following information. 

(1) Plan to obtain relevant datasets 

from various sources, for example, local 

agencies, state agencies, or other federal 

agencies, including the responsibilities 

of the grantee and evaluator in 

accomplishing this task; 

(2) Design and coding of a 

management information system, as 

needed, that is tailored for research or 

evaluation, to track participants and 

obtain individual level data; 

(3) Collection or assessment of 

individual-level data. The independent 

evaluator must work directly with the 

applicant and other organizations to 

enter into one or more agreements for 

the access and use of the data. These 

agreements must include assuring data 

quality and adherence to all federal and 

state data privacy statutes and policies 

and to all applicable data security 

standards; 

(4) Institutional Review Board (IRB) 

approval or a plan to get IRB approval 

to ensure the protection of human 

subjects, to the extent applicable; and 

(5) Submission of progress reports to 

Treasury, the Interagency Council, and 

the head of the relevant agency in 

accordance with the reporting 

requirements described in Section F.3.b 

Evaluation Progress Reports and Section 

F.3.c Evaluation Final Report. 

7. Outcome valuation: Provide an 

attachment detailing the outcome 

valuation of the anticipated outcomes, 

as described in Section A.5 Outcome 

Valuation Methodology. Start by 

detailing the projected savings to the 

federal, state, or local government and 

make clear which level of government 

anticipates receiving savings. Then, 

provide a completed BCA that details 

the monetized benefits and costs 

including incorporating the federal, 

State, or local savings as a benefit. 

Applicants must provide the estimated 

total value and savings, estimated value 

and savings per project participant, 

estimated value and savings per dollar 

spent on the intervention, as well as the 

methodology used by the Applicant in 

arriving at such estimates. Also, provide 

the estimated savings over the course of 

the period of performance. Applicants 

should cite evidence that the reviewers 

can assess when deriving the estimated 

benefits and costs. Treasury strongly 

recommends that the Applicant provide 

an unprotected Excel spreadsheet that 

allows a reviewer to view and 

manipulate all underlying data. Please 

limit this to 10 pages or fewer. 

8. Legal compliance: If the Applicant 

proposes a project including a 

construction component, the Applicant 

must identify the State and federal 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies that will apply to the project, 

and the environmental documents 

required under State and federal laws. If 

an applicant proposes a project 

including a transportation component, 

the applicant must identify applicable 

federal, State, and local laws relating to 

that component, and any transportationrelated permitting and licensing 

documents required under federal, State 

and local laws. The applicant must 

identify laws applying to the population 

being served and demonstrate that the 

project will be in compliance with those 

laws. The applicant must also comply 

with applicable federal, State, and local 

privacy laws. The applicant must also 

identify any approved waivers of any 

existing laws or regulations, including 

but not limited to environmental or 

transportation laws or regulations, 

required by the intervention design; if 

waivers are pending, the applicant must 

include documentation that it has 

sought the waiver, that it is under 

consideration, and when approval is 

expected to be received. Failure to 

obtain a necessary waiver may be 

grounds for termination of a grant. 

9. An application may contain 

additional supporting documentation as 

attachments, such as an existing 

feasibility study. 

b. Form for Project Award 

The project application must be 

prepared using the following formatting 

and organizational guidelines: 

1. Number all pages. 

2. The Project Narrative must: 

i. include a table of contents; 

ii. be double-spaced, with text in a 

single column; 

iii. be a standard 12-point font, such 

as Times New Roman; 

iv. use 1-inch margins; 

v. not exceed 20 pages in length, 

excluding the table of contents and 

appendices. The only substantive 

portions that may exceed the 20-page 

limit are documents supporting 

assertions or conclusions made in the 

Project Narrative. See each individual 

attachment for page limits. 

vi. As appropriate, include graphics, 

charts, or lists to make the information 

easier to review. 

vii. If possible, provide website links 

to supporting documentation rather 

than copies of these supporting 

materials. It is important to ensure that 

the website links are currently active, 

accessible, and working. 

viii. If supporting documents are 

submitted, applicants must clearly 

identify within the Project Narrative the 

relevant portion of the Project Narrative 

that each supporting document 

supports. 

ix. Use appropriately descriptive file 

names (e.g., ‘‘Project Narrative,’’ 

‘‘Chart,’’ ‘‘Evaluation Design Plan’’) for 

all attachments. 

x. All file names must be prefaced 

with the applicant’s name or initials, 

e.g., ‘‘Land of Ozzie Oz’’ or ‘‘LOO.’’ 

3. Unique Entity Identifier and System 

for Award Management (SAM) 

Registration for Grants.gov is a critical 

prerequisite to applying for a grant. It is 

a multi-step process that may take 

several weeks to complete before an 

application may be submitted. 

Grants.gov scheduled maintenance and 

outage times are announced on the 

Grants.gov website, http:// 

www.Grants.gov. The deadline will not 

be extended due to scheduled 

maintenance or outages. Applicants may 

incur significant risk by waiting to the 

last day to submit by Grants.gov. 

General information for registering and 

submitting applications through 

Grants.gov can be found at https:// 

www.Grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.

html along with specific instructions for 

the forms and attachments required for 

submission. Applicants encountering a 

problem with Grants.gov may call the 

Grants.gov Contact Center at 1–800– 

518–4726 or 606–545–5035 to speak to 

a Customer Support Representative, or 

email support@Grants.gov. The Contact 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 83631 

28For more information about SAM, see the 

information provided by the General Services 

Administration at https://sam.gov/content/about/ 

this-site. 

29See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–4(f). 

30See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–6. 

31See 5 U.S.C. App. 2 10(b). 

Center is open 24 hours a day, seven 

days a week, other than on federal 

holidays, when it is closed. All required 

documents comprising the application 

must be included at the time the 

application is submitted as set forth in 

Section D.2 Content and Form of 

Application Submission. 

Applications may be withdrawn by 

providing written notice to SIPPRA@

Treasury.gov at any time before an 

award is made. 

Applicants must register with SAM, a 

federal government-wide portal used for 

acquisition and federal assistance 

processes and maintain an active SAM 

registration until the application process 

is complete and, if a grant is awarded, 

throughout the life of the award. SAM 

registration must be renewed annually. 

Treasury suggests finalizing a new 

registration or renewing an existing one 

at least one month before the NOFA 

application deadline to allow time to 

resolve any issues that may arise. 

Applicants must use their SAMregistered legal name and address on all 

grant applications to Treasury. Treasury 

will not make an award to an applicant 

if the applicant has not complied with 

all applicable SAM requirements.28

On April 4, 2022, the federal 

government stopped using the DUNS 

Number to uniquely identify entities. 

Now, entities doing business with the 

federal government use a Unique Entity 

ID (UEID) created in SAM.gov. The 

UEID is a unique, multiple-digit 

sequence recognized as the universal 

standard for identifying and keeping 

track of over 70 million entities 

worldwide. Applicants for federal 

assistance are no longer required to go 

to a third-party website to obtain their 

identifier. This transition allows the 

government to streamline the entity 

identification and validation process, 

making it easier and less burdensome 

for entities to do business with the 

federal government. 

Applicants must obtain this UEID 

number immediately to ensure all 

registration steps are complete prior to 

submitting an application. Applications 

will be identified by the UEID of the 

State or local government lead 

applicant. Information on how to obtain 

a UEID may be found at SAM.gov, or by 

calling 866–705–5711. 

If your entity is registered in SAM.gov 

today, your UEID has already been 

assigned and is viewable in SAM.gov. 

This includes inactive registrations. The 

UEID is located on your entity 

registration record. You must be signed 

into your SAM.gov account to view the 

entity record. The UEID must be entered 

in the block with the applicant’s name 

and address on the cover page of the 

application, block 8c on the Form SF 

424, Application for Federal Assistance. 

The name and address in the 

application must be exactly as given for 

the UEID number. 

4. Submission Date, Time, and Address 

Applications must be submitted 

between 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time on 

February 12, 2024 and 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on April 15, 2024. 

Applications must be submitted 

electronically through Grants.gov. Mail, 

email, telegram, or facsimile (FAX) 

submissions will not be accepted. 

5. Intergovernmental Review 

This funding opportunity is subject to 

Executive Order 12372, 

‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs,’’ as amended by Executive 

Order 12416. Some States require that 

applicants contact their State’s Single 

Point of Contact (SPOC) to comply with 

the State’s SPOC process established 

pursuant to Executive Order 12372. 

Names and addresses of the SPOCs are 

listed on the Office of Management and 

Budget’s homepage at https://

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2020/04/SPOC-4-13-20.pdf. 

Applications from federally-recognized 

Indian tribes are not subject to 

intergovernmental review. 

6. Funding Restrictions 

Grants will only be awarded to those 

entities and for those projects that are 

eligible as described in Section C. 

Eligibility Information. As discussed 

above in Section A.3.d Directly Benefit 

Children, the Act provides that not less 

than 50 percent of all federal payments 

made to carry out social impact 

partnership project agreements shall be 

used for initiatives that directly benefit 

children. According to the Act, projects 

may only be awarded if they produce 

savings to the federal, State, or local 

government, as defined in Section A.5 

Outcome Valuation Methodology. For 

this NOFA, Treasury will only consider 

applications that have a positive 

Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA), as 

explained in Section A.5 Outcome 

Valuation Methodology. Treasury is 

placing an upper limit on the amount of 

each project award—not including the 

associated independent evaluation—of 

$10 million. The federal government 

will fund up to 15 percent of the 

amount of the estimated project award 

for an independent evaluation of the 

project.29 Federal awards will not allow 

reimbursement of pre-Federal award 

costs. 

7. Ethical Conduct of Funded Projects 

Federal award recipients bear primary 

responsibility for prevention and 

detection of research misconduct. They 

must foster an atmosphere conducive to 

research integrity and maintain and 

effectively communicate and train their 

staff regarding policies and procedures. 

In the event an application to Treasury 

results in a SIPPRA program award, the 

State or local government must 

designate an Authorized Representative 

(AR) who is a paid employee of the 

State or local government. The AR 

assures, through acceptance of the 

award, that the recipient will comply 

with these requirements. An award 

recipient must, upon request, make 

available to Treasury the policies, 

procedures, and documentation that 

support the training provided to its staff 

and providers. 

Treasury recognizes that data sharing 

may be complicated or limited, in some 

cases, by organizational policies, local 

Institutional Review Board (IRB) rules, 

and local, State, and federal laws, and 

regulations. The rights and privacy of 

individuals and beneficiaries who 

participate in the implementation of this 

intervention project must be protected 

at all times. This includes human 

subjects assurance statements that the 

project has been reviewed and approved 

by an IRB or determined exempt from 

review. Data intended for broader use 

must be free of identifiers that would 

permit linkages to other data on project 

research participants and variables that 

could lead to deductive disclosure of 

the identity of individual participants 

and beneficiaries. 

8. Privacy and Confidentiality 

The Act establishes the Commission 

on Social Impact Partnerships 

(Commission) whose principal 

obligation is to make recommendations 

to Treasury regarding the funding of 

SIPPRA demonstration project and 

feasibility studies.30 The Commission is 

subject to the provisions of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which 

generally requires that documents made 

available to the Commission be made 

available for public inspection and 

copying.31 Treasury may provide to the 

Commission all complete applications 

received under this NOFA from eligible 

applicants and expects to make these 

applications available for public 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
83632 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 

32See id.; 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). 

33See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(c), 1397n–1(d). 

34See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–2(b). 

35See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–2(b)(4), (5). 

36See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–2(b)(5). 

37See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(b); 42 U.S.C 1397n– 

5(a)(8). 

38See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–2(c)(1)(B). 

inspection and copying. However, 

FACA also provides that trade secrets 

and commercial or financial information 

that is privileged or confidential under 

the Freedom of Information Act 

(confidential business information) need 

not be made publicly available.32 In 

order to comply with FACA’s public 

disclosure requirements while 

protecting confidential business 

information in accordance with FACA, 

each applicant may submit a package of 

proposed redactions of confidential 

business information. The Applicant 

may omit pages for which it does not 

propose any redactions in this package. 

Proposed redactions must be 

highlighted in a way that leaves the 

material proposed to be redacted visible 

to Treasury staff. Treasury will review 

the redactions proposed by each 

applicant. The Applicant should notify 

Treasury staff at SIPPRA@treasury.gov if 

they intend to submit any redactions. 

E. Application Review Information 

1. Criteria 

The panel assigned to an application 

will score that application in 

accordance with the criteria set forth in 

the scoring rubric below, which reflects 

the application content requirements 

under the Act,33 and the considerations 

that Treasury, in consultation with the 

Interagency Council and the head of the 

relevant federal agency, is required by 

the Act to consider when granting 

awards.34 The scores will serve as a 

reference in subsequent phases of 

review, discussed below. Treasury is not 

required to make awards in rank order. 

The panel scores will not be binding 

with respect to subsequent phases of 

review. Furthermore, Treasury may 

reject applications that show significant 

deficiencies with respect to any one 

component that is critical to the success 

of the project under the pay for results 

model, e.g., an application that does not 

identify an evaluator that is 

independent from the other project 

participants, regardless of the 

applicant’s total score. 

SUBJECT MATTER REVIEW SCORING RUBRIC

i. Value and Savings ............................................................................................................................................................................. 30 points. 

I. Savings to federal, state, and local government ............................................................................................. 10 points.

II. Value to the federal government ..................................................................................................................... 20 points.

ii. Likelihood of Achieving Outcomes .................................................................................................................................................... 40 points. 

I. Evidence demonstrating intervention can be expected to achieve desired outcome ..................................... 15 points.

II. Project budget and service delivery plan ........................................................................................................ 15 points.

III. Project partners .............................................................................................................................................. 10 points.

iii. Quality of Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................................................ 25 points. 

I. Evaluation design and metrics ......................................................................................................................... 15 points.

II. Evaluator independence and experience ........................................................................................................ 10 points.

iv. Capacity and Commitment to Sustain the Intervention ................................................................................................................... 5 points. 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 100 points. 

i. Value and Savings 

This section has two components: 

savings to the federal, State, and local 

governments and value to the federal 

government. The magnitude of the 

estimated savings or value will not be a 

factor in the overall score of the 

application. 

I. Savings to Federal, State, and Local 

Governments 

The Act requires Treasury to take into 

consideration the savings to the federal, 

State and local governments.35 The term 

‘‘savings’’ refers to reduced outlays, 

whether by the federal or State or local 

government, as applicable, as a result of 

the project.36 There must be savings to 

the State or local government, or to the 

federal government, for a project to be 

funded through the SIPPRA program.37

Increased revenues as a result of the 

intervention are not considered savings. 

The panels will ensure that the 

Applicant meets the threshold 

requirement of the presence of federal, 

State, or local savings. Then, they will 

assess the quality of the methodology 

used by the Applicant to arrive at the 

estimates, how likely the Applicant is to 

achieve these savings, and 

comprehensiveness of the estimated 

savings. 

Applicants must include in the 

application the estimated total savings, 

estimated savings per project 

participant, and estimated savings per 

dollar spent on the intervention. 

Applicants must also provide the 

estimated total savings over the period 

of performance. 

II. Value to the Federal Government 

The federal payment to the State or 

local government for each specified 

outcome achieved as a result of the 

intervention must be less than or equal 

to the value of the outcome to the 

federal government over a period not 

exceeding ten years from the date 

implementation commences.38

Value calculated for the purpose of 

this NOFA is discussed in Section A.5.a 

Federal Value for the SIPPRA Program 

and includes social benefits as well as 

savings through the BCA. The federal 

payment to the State or local 

government for each specified outcome 

achieved as a result of the intervention 

will be limited to the value of the 

outcome to the federal government, 

which is the net benefit derived from 

the BCA. 

The panel will determine how likely 

the project is to achieve the value 

determined through the BCA, how 

accurate the justification is that the 

proposed intervention will produce the 

value proposed by the Applicant, and 

the comprehensiveness of the 

Applicant’s estimate. The panel will 

also review the data and approach to 

ensure it can easily be replicated, and 

that the data were sufficient for the 

analysis. The panel will take into 

account the extent to which the benefits 

exceed costs. 

Applicants must include in the 

application the estimated total value, 

estimated value per project participant, 

estimated value per dollar spent on the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I 

I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 83633 

39See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–2(b)(3). 

40See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(c)(1), (2), (4), (14). 

41See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(c)(8). 

42See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(c)(3), 1397n–2(c)(1)(D). 

43See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(c)(18). 

44See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(c)(6), (16), (17). 

45See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(c)(11). 

46See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(c)(12), (d)(8). 

47See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(c)(10), (13), (23). 

48See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(d). 

49See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–2(b)(7). 

50See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–1(c)(24). 

intervention, and the ratio of benefits to 

costs. 

ii. Likelihood of Achieving Outcomes 

SIPPRA requires Treasury to take into 

consideration the likelihood, based on 

evidence provided in the application 

and other evidence, that the State or 

local government in collaboration with 

the intermediary and the service 

providers will achieve the specified 

outcomes.39 Projects showing a greater 

likelihood of achieving outcomes will 

receive more points from the panels, as 

detailed below. 

I. Evidence 

The panels will review the applicant’s 

identified target population, outcome 

goals, proposed intervention(s), and 

description of the unmet need in the 

area where the intervention will be 

delivered or among the target 

population that will receive the 

intervention.40 41 In connection with this 

consideration, panels will assess 

Applicants’ compliance with the 

statutory requirement to provide 

evidence demonstrating that the 

intervention can be expected to produce 

the proposed outcomes.42 More points 

will be given for applications providing 

strong evidence in support of the 

likelihood of achieving the outcomes; in 

particular, points will be awarded for 

evidence based on previous 

interventions or interventions similar to 

the proposed intervention that were 

shown to produce the desired outcomes 

as a direct result of the intervention and 

not as a result of other factors. See 

Section A.6.d Evidence for greater detail 

on evidence standards. 

II. Service Delivery Plan, Project Budget, 

and Partnership Agreement 

The likelihood of success of a SIPPRA 

program project is in part determined by 

whether the project is designed, 

structured, and implemented in a way 

that will foster success. To this end, the 

panels will assess the thoroughness and 

comprehensiveness of the applicant’s 

service delivery plan for delivering the 

intervention. Panels will review the 

criteria used to determine the eligibility 

of an individual for the project, 

including how the target population 

will be identified, how individuals will 

be referred to the project, and how they 

will be enrolled in it.43 Applications 

will be assessed based on the soundness 

of the methodology for identifying the 

target population and the thoroughness 

of the applicant’s plan for referring and 

enrolling individuals, including 

assurances that the process avoids 

targeting easier-to-serve individuals 

from the target population for 

enrollment. The panel will consider 

whether, to the extent applicable, the 

Applicant has demonstrated that 

members of the target population are not 

being unfairly discriminated against in 

the selection, referral, and enrollment 

process. (See Section F.2.b, Nondiscrimination laws and regulations). 

Panelists will also review the extent to 

which the target population and related 

community will be engaged in the 

development and implementation of the 

project and evaluation. 

The panels will also assess the 

Applicant’s project budget, including 

projected costs, and the project 

timeline.44 The panels will assess the 

strength of the partnership agreement to 

the extent not covered under other 

components of the panel’s scoring 

criteria. Applications will be assessed 

with respect to the thoroughness of the 

budget, timeline, and partnership 

agreement and the extent to which the 

intervention is achievable under the 

budget, service delivery plan, timeline, 

and partnership agreement. To the 

extent the Applicant intends to use 

investors and has not already identified 

and received commitments from them, 

the panel will consider the experience 

of the State or local government, 

intermediary, or service provider in 

raising private and philanthropic capital 

to fund social service investments.45

III. Project Partners 

Because the likelihood of success is 

also determined by the capabilities of 

the project partners, the panels will 

assess the assigned responsibilities and 

the qualifications of the partners. This 

will include an assessment of the 

applicant’s description of the roles and 

responsibilities of each entity involved 

in the project, including, to the extent 

applicable, any State or local 

government entity, intermediary, service 

provider, investor, or other 

stakeholder.46 The panel will also assess 

the relevance and depth of expertise of 

each service provider and capacity of 

each service provider to deliver the 

intervention, as described by the 

applicant.47 Likewise, the panel will 

review the relevance and depth of 

experience of any project intermediary 

and the capacity of the intermediary to 

fill the roles assigned to it.48

iii. Quality of Evaluation 

I. Evaluation Design and Metrics 

The Act requires Treasury to consider 

the expected quality of the evaluation of 

the proposed intervention that the 

independent evaluator will conduct. 

The panels will assess the project’s 

evaluation design including the rigor 

and strength of the design, its capacity 

to determine that the outcomes were as 

a result of the intervention, feasibility of 

implementing the evaluation, the 

quality and availability of the required 

data, and the Applicant’s explanation of 

how the metrics used in the evaluation 

are independent, objective indicators of 

impact. 

II. Evaluator Independence and 

Experience 

Panels will review the independence 

of the evaluator from the other entities 

involved in the project and the 

evaluator’s experience in conducting 

rigorous evaluations of program 

effectiveness. Types of experience that 

will be reviewed include experience 

with the chosen evaluation design 

method on the intervention or similar 

interventions, the datasets the project 

expects to use, conducting 

implementation and causal impact 

analyses, managing similar evaluation 

protocols, and dealing with unforeseen 

data or implementation issues in other 

program evaluations. The qualifications 

of the individuals designing and 

overseeing the evaluation and ensuring 

its quality, including their education or 

training and type and years of 

experience, will also be taken into 

account. 

iv. Capacity and Commitment To 

Sustain the Intervention 

Finally, the Act requires Treasury to 

take into consideration the capacity and 

commitment of the State or local 

government to sustain the intervention, 

if appropriate and timely, and if the 

intervention is successful, beyond the 

period of the social impact 

partnership.49 Panels will consider 

applicants’ submissions with respect to 

State or local government and service 

providers’ plans to sustain the 

intervention.50 Although the primary 

focus will be on the project period, 

panels will provide additional points to 

applications that demonstrate a 

commitment from the State or local 

government and service providers and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
83634 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 

51As noted above, an applicant may discuss the 

commitment to scalability and building capacity or 

plans to maintain project benefits and/or continue 

the intervention beyond the project period in the 

event the intervention successfully addresses the 

needs of the target population. An applicant may 

include plans to make adaptations within its 

environment to strengthen or expand its proposed 

intervention beyond the period of performance. 

52 Department of Treasury, SIPPRA- Pay for 

Results, https://home.treasury.gov/services/socialimpact-partnerships/sippra-pay-for-results. 53See 42 U.S.C. 1397n-6. 

54See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–5. 

55See 42 U.S.C. 1397n–5(a)(8). 

the availability of sufficient funding to 

extend the project, if appropriate, 

beyond the project period.51

2. Review and Selection Process 

The following is the review process 

for determining the award recipients. 

Each step is explained in greater detail 

below. 

• Phase 1: Completeness and Eligibility 

Review 

• Phase 2: Subject Matter Expert Panel 

Review 

• Phase 3: Consistency Review and 

Commission Recommendations 

• Phase 4: Interagency Council 

Certification and Treasury 

Determination 

• Phase 5: Review of Federal Awardee 

Performance and Integrity Information 

System Information Data and Risk 

Evaluation 

a. Phase 1: Completeness and Eligibility 

Review 

In the first review phase, Treasury 

will review all applications to 

determine eligibility and completeness, 

which will consist of a technical review 

to determine whether the applicant is a 

State or local government; whether the 

proposed project can qualify as a pay for 

results project as set forth in Section 

A.4.a The Pay for Results Model; 

whether the proposed project qualifies 

as an eligible project as set forth in 

Section A.4.b Outcomes; and whether 

each of the application content 

requirements set forth in Section D.2 

Content and Form of Application 

Submission, has been satisfied. 

Prospective applicants are encouraged 

to consult the SIPPRA FAQs on 

Treasury’s SIPPRA website page to help 

them determine if their proposed project 

is suitable under the pay for results 

model.52 An application received from 

an ineligible entity or for an ineligible 

project will be rejected. Applicants are 

required to establish that the proposed 

project is an eligible project. Incomplete 

applications may, at Treasury’s 

discretion, receive further 

consideration. Treasury expects to 

afford applicants a reasonable 

opportunity to fix any such issues, as 

appropriate. 

b. Phase 2: Subject Matter Expert Panel 

Review 

Treasury will assign complete 

applications submitted by eligible 

applicants to a panel of subject matter 

experts who will be selected based on 

their knowledge of the social benefit(s) 

or problem(s), technical expertise in the 

type of intervention, experience 

working with the target population that 

is the subject of the application, or other 

considerations. Review panelists will be 

selected from relevant federal agencies. 

Reviewers will be screened for conflicts 

of interest. 

The panel will review the 

applications based on the criteria laid 

out above. 

c. Phase 3: Consistency Review and 

Commission Recommendations 

Following the panel review, Treasury 

will review application scores for 

consistency among subject matter 

experts on each panel and across panels 

and rank the applications. The Act 

establishes the Commission on Social 

Impact Partnerships (‘‘the 

Commission’’) whose principal 

obligation is to make recommendations 

to Treasury regarding the funding of 

SIPPRA program projects and feasibility 

studies. The nine-member advisory 

commission established by the Act 

consists of a non-federal Chair 

appointed by the President and eight 

non-federal members chosen by 

congressional leaders.53 The members of 

the Commission are required to (1) be 

experienced in finance, economics, pay 

for performance, or program evaluation; 

(2) have relevant professional or 

personal experience in a field related to 

one or more of the outcomes listed in 

this division; or (3) be qualified to 

review applications for social impact 

partnership projects to determine 

whether the proposed metrics and 

evaluation methodologies are 

appropriately rigorous and reliant upon 

independent data and evidence-based 

research. The Commission will review 

the applications and make 

recommendations to Treasury. 

d. Phase 4: Interagency Council 

Certification and Treasury 

Determination 

The Act establishes the Federal 

Interagency Council on Social Impact 

Partnerships (‘‘the Interagency 

Council’’). This eleven-member body is 

chaired by the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget and its other 

members are representatives from the 

Departments of Labor, Health and 

Human Services, Agriculture, Justice, 

Housing and Urban Development, 

Education, Veterans Affairs, and 

Treasury; the Social Security 

Administration; and the Corporation for 

National and Community Service. The 

Interagency Council has 10 enumerated 

responsibilities including certifying 

Federal savings, providing subjectmatter expertise, and advising the 

Secretary of the Treasury.54

The Interagency Council is required to 

certify that applications contain 

rigorous, independent data and reliable, 

evidence-based research methodologies 

to support the conclusion that the 

project will yield savings to the State or 

local government or the federal 

government if the project outcomes are 

achieved before Treasury makes its 

award decision,55 and accordingly, will 

determine which applications warrant 

certification based on these criteria. 

Treasury, in consultation with the 

Interagency Council and the head of any 

federal agency (or their designee) 

administering a similar intervention or 

serving a population similar to that 

served by the project, will review the 

applications, taking into account the 

statutory considerations referenced 

above as well as the recommendations 

made by the Commission and the 

Interagency Council certification (or 

absence thereof). Depending on the 

number of meritorious applications, 

Treasury may consider how the 

intervention would foster innovation in 

social policy, yield a diversity of target 

populations and grantees, advance 

racial equity and support for 

underserved communities as described 

in Executive Order 13985, or any other 

non-monetary benefits that could not be 

included in the BCA. 

e. Phase 5: Review of Federal Awardee 

Performance and Integrity Information 

System Information Data and Risk 

Evaluation 

As required by the Uniform Guidance, 

Treasury will review and consider any 

information about an applicant that is in 

the Federal Awardee Performance and 

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) 

before making any award in excess of 

the simplified acquisition threshold 

(currently $250,000) over the period of 

performance. Each applicant may 

review information in the designated 

integrity and performance systems 

accessible through SAM and comment 

on any information about itself that a 

federal awarding agency previously 

entered and is currently in the 

designated integrity and performance 

system accessible through SAM. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 83635 

56See 2 CFR 200.205. 

57See 2 CFR part 200, appendix XII. 

Treasury will consider any comments 

by the applicant, in addition to other 

information in FAPIIS in making a 

judgment about the applicant’s integrity, 

business ethics, and record of 

performance under federal awards when 

completing the review of risk posed by 

applicants as described in the Uniform 

Guidance.56

Further, as required by Appendix XII 

of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal 

entities (NFEs) are required to disclose 

in FAPIIS any information about 

criminal, civil, and administrative 

proceedings, or affirm that there is no 

new information to provide.57 This 

applies to NFEs for which the total 

value of active grants, cooperative 

agreements, and procurement contracts 

received from all federal awarding 

agencies exceeds $10,000,000 for any 

period of time during the period of 

performance of an award or project. 

This means that Treasury may reject an 

application based on the information 

contained in FAPIIS even if the 

applicant otherwise achieves a high 

score under the 100-point scoring rubric 

discussed in Section E.1 Criteria, above. 

3. Application Clarification and 

Feedback 

During the course of the review 

process and risk assessment evaluation, 

Treasury may ask some applicants to 

provide confirming or clarifying 

information. Treasury staff uses such 

information to inform funding 

recommendations. A request for 

confirmation or clarification does not 

guarantee a grant award. If an applicant 

does not respond by the deadline to a 

request for information, Treasury may 

remove its application from 

consideration. Upon request, Treasury 

expects to provide feedback to 

unsuccessful applicants after grant 

awards have been announced. 

4. Anticipated Announcement and 

Federal Award Dates 

The deadline for submitting projects 

under this NOFA is April 15, 2024. 

Treasury will begin its review following 

this deadline. Review will not be 

conducted on a rolling basis. Treasury 

anticipates notifying the Applicant of 

the award decision six months after the 

application deadline. 

F. Federal Award Administration 

Information 

1. Federal Award Notices 

Before a grant is awarded, Treasury 

may enter into negotiations with the 

applicant regarding program 

components, staffing and funding levels, 

and/or administrative systems in place 

to support grant implementation. If the 

negotiations do not result in a mutually 

acceptable submission, Treasury 

reserves the right to terminate the 

negotiations and decline to fund the 

award. 

Treasury expects to announce the 

results of this competition by Q1 FY 

2025. Treasury will provide successful 

applicants with a Notice of Award 

(NoA) that will set forth the amount of 

the award and other pertinent 

information. The NoA is the legal 

document issued to notify an applicant 

that an award has been made. Treasury 

expects that the NoA will also include 

standard Terms and Conditions and any 

Special Award Conditions related to 

participation in the SIPPRA program. A 

copy will also be sent to the electronic 

mail address listed on the SF–424. The 

applicant’s signature on the SF–424, 

including electronic signature via EAuthentication on http://

www.grants.gov, constitutes a binding 

offer by the applicant. 

Note that any communication 

between Treasury and applicants prior 

to the issuance of the NoA and prior to 

the execution of any award agreement is 

not authorization to begin performance 

on the project. 

Unsuccessful applicants will be 

notified of their status by electronic 

mail to the applicant listed on the SF– 

424. Unsuccessful applicants may apply 

under subsequent NOFAs, if any. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements 

Successful applicants selected for 

awards must agree to comply with 

additional applicable legal requirements 

upon acceptance of an award. All grants 

are subject to the Office of Management 

and Budget’s (OMB’s) regulatory 

requirements for grants codified in the 

Uniform Guidance. Grantees must agree, 

as part of their award agreement, to 

comply with all requirements under 2 

CFR part 200, as applicable. Subpart E 

of 2 CFR part 200 is not applicable to 

the project award, but federal funding 

for the independent evaluator is subject 

to subpart E of 2 CFR part 200. 

a. Administrative Program 

Requirements 

Awards under this NOFA are subject 

to federal laws, regulations, and policies 

concerning grants. Below is a nonexhaustive list of requirements with 

which the applicant will need to 

comply: 

i. Lobbying Restrictions at 31 CFR part 

21. 

ii. Government-wide Debarment and 

Suspension Requirements at 31 CFR 

part 19. 

iii. Government-wide Requirements for 

Drug-Free Workplace at 31 CFR part 

20. 

iv. Award Term for Trafficking in 

Persons at 2 CFR part 175. 

v. Environmental Requirements 

Treasury approval of financial 

assistance is subject to compliance with 

applicable federal and State 

environmental requirements. As 

discussed under Section D.2.a(g)8 (pg. 

22) Legal Compliance, the Applicant 

must identify the State and federal 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies that may apply to the project 

and the environmental documents that 

may be required under State and federal 

laws. Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA), project applications 

will be evaluated in accordance with 

Treasury’s NEPA procedures and 

categorical exclusions. Grantees whose 

projects do not fall within Treasury’s 

categorical exclusions will be required 

to assist Treasury in conducting an 

Environmental Analysis and an 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

project, as applicable. 

b. Non-Discrimination Laws and 

Regulations 

All grantees, partners, and subrecipients, if applicable, must comply 

with applicable non-discrimination 

statutes and regulations. These include 

but are not limited to: (a) title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 

2000–2000d7), which prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of race, 

color of national origin, and Treasury’s 

implementing regulations, 31 CFR part 

22; (b) title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 

U.S.C. 1681–1683, and 1685–1686), 

which prohibits discrimination on the 

basis of sex, and Treasury’s 

implementing regulation 31 CFR part 

28; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 

794), which prohibits discrimination on 

the basis of disability; (d) the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1400 et 

seq.); (e) the Age Discrimination Act of 

1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101– 

6107), which prohibits discrimination 

on the basis of age, and Treasury’s 

implementing regulations, 31 CFR part 

23; (f) the Drug Abuse Office and 

Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92–255), as 

amended, relating to nondiscrimination 

on the basis of drug abuse; (g) the 

Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and 

Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and 

Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (P.L. 91–616), 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
83636 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 

as amended, relating to 

nondiscrimination on the basis of 

alcohol abuse or alcoholism; (h) Section 

523 and 527 of the Public Health 

Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 290dd-3 

and 290ee-3), as amended, relating to 

confidentiality of alcohol and drug 

abuse patient records; and (i) Title VIII 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 

U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), as amended, 

relating to nondiscrimination in the 

sale, rental or financing of housing. 

c. Transparency Act Requirements 

Applicants must ensure that they 

have the necessary processes and 

systems in place to comply with the 

reporting requirements of the Federal 

Funding Accountability and 

Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109– 

282, as amended by § 6202 of Pub. L. 

110–252) (Transparency Act). All 

Applicants, except for those excepted 

from the Transparency Act, must ensure 

that they have the necessary processes 

and systems in place to comply with the 

sub-award and executive total 

compensation reporting requirements of 

the Transparency Act, should they 

receive funding. Upon award, 

Applicants will receive detailed 

information on the reporting 

requirements of the Transparency Act, 

as described in 2 CFR part 170, 

appendix A. No sub-award of an award 

made under this NOFA may be made to 

a sub-recipient that is subject to the 

terms of the Transparency Act unless 

that potential sub-recipient acquires and 

provides a Unique Entity Identifier. 

d. Access to Records/Oversight 

By accepting a project award under 

this NOFA, the Awardee agrees to make 

available to Treasury, the Comptroller 

General, agency Inspectors General, the 

administering agency, or any of their 

authorized representatives, all data and 

documents that might be needed, 

including contracts and agreements, 

regardless of whether outcomes are 

achieved and payment is received, in 

the Awardee’s possession or available to 

the grantee. Awardees must also agree to 

provide timely and reasonable access to 

program operating personnel, project 

partners, and participants. This 

evaluation may make use of program 

management information system data, 

local administrative data, financial data, 

and program progress reports. It is 

critical that Awardees keep this 

information up to date and accurate for 

performance measurement, evaluation, 

and auditing purposes. Awardees may 

be required to: (1) provide access to 

pertinent documents; (2) host site visits; 

(3) facilitate interviews with grantee 

staff, partners and the independent 

evaluator; (4) attend grantee meetings; 

and (5) provide additional data. By 

accepting a project award under this 

NOFA, the Awardee also agrees to 

participate in a national cross-site 

evaluation in the event that the federal 

government conducts one. 

e. Intellectual Property Rights 

Intellectual property rights relating to 

the activities of the Awardee and all 

partners in the project, including the 

evaluator, intermediary, and service 

provider(s) are subject to 2 CFR 200.315. 

f. Record Retention 

Applicants must follow federal 

guidelines on record retention, which 

require Awardees to maintain all 

records pertaining to grant activities for 

a period of not less than three years 

from the time of final grant close-out. 

g. Requirements Applicable to 

Construction and Real Property 

Acquisition 

Additional requirements may apply to 

projects involving construction or the 

acquisition of real property. Applicants 

should discuss such projects with 

Treasury staff prior to submitting an 

application. 

h. Other Requirements 

Awardees must comply with existing 

laws and regulations governing the 

subject area of the project and the 

relevant federal agency administering 

the project. If the intervention design 

requires exceptions to any such existing 

laws and regulations, the applicant must 

obtain a waiver from the governing 

federal, State, or local agency. 

i. Special Program Requirements 

i. Evaluation Agreement 

For each social impact project grant 

approved by Treasury, the head of the 

relevant federal agency, as 

recommended by the Interagency 

Council and determined by Treasury, 

will enter into an agreement with the 

grant recipient to pay for all or part of 

the independent evaluation for the 

project up to 15 percent of the award 

amount. Under the Act, the head of the 

relevant federal agency may not enter 

into an agreement with a State or local 

government unless the head determines 

that the evaluator is independent of the 

other parties to the agreement and has 

demonstrated substantial experience in 

conducting rigorous evaluations of 

program effectiveness including, where 

available, well-implemented RCTs and 

quasi-experimental analyses on the 

intervention or similar interventions. 

ii. Federal Register Publication of 

Notice of Award 

The Act provides that not later than 

30 days after entering into an agreement 

for an award, Treasury must publish a 

notice in the Federal Register that 

includes the following information 

about the award. 

• The outcome goals of the project. 

• The target population that will be 

served by the project. 

• A description of each intervention 

in the project. 

• The expected social benefits to 

participants who receive the 

intervention and others who may be 

impacted. 

• The detailed roles, responsibilities, 

and purposes of each federal, State, or 

local government entity, intermediary, 

service provider, independent evaluator, 

investor, if any, or other stakeholder. 

• The payment terms, the 

methodology used to calculate outcome 

payments, the payment schedule, and 

performance thresholds. 

• The project budget. 

• The project timeline. 

• The project eligibility criteria. 

• The evaluation design. 

• The metrics that will be used in the 

evaluation to determine whether the 

outcomes have been achieved as a result 

of each intervention and how these 

metrics will be measured. 

• The estimate of the savings to the 

federal, State, and local government, on 

a program-by-program basis and in the 

aggregate, if the agreement is entered 

into and implemented and the outcomes 

are achieved as a result of each 

intervention. 

Additionally, the Act requires that 

this information, along with progress 

reports and final reports relating to each 

project, be posted on a website 

established and maintained by the 

Interagency Council. 

iii. Changes to the Statement of Work 

Upon grant of an award, the proposal 

will become the grant’s statement of 

work. Treasury discourages any postaward changes to the target population, 

outcome(s), intermediary, and 

independent evaluator. Under 

extenuating circumstances, Treasury 

and/or the relevant federal agency 

administering the grant at its sole 

discretion may approve revisions to the 

statement of work. Changes to the 

intervention strategy and source of upfront project funding may be made with 

prior written approval from Treasury or 

the administering federal agency. To 

start this process, the Awardee must 

timely notify Matthew Cook, SIPPRA 

Director, at SIPPRA@Treasury.gov of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 83637 

these changes as they occur and provide 

appropriate documentation to update 

the statement of work. 

3. Reporting 

Awardees must agree to meet the 

reporting requirements as listed below 

or as otherwise specified in the award 

agreement. Administrative reports must 

be submitted electronically to Treasury 

or to the relevant federal agency, as 

specified in the award agreement. 

a. Performance Report 

An Annual Performance Report form 

must be submitted within 90 days of the 

end of each calendar year of the award 

period of performance. A final 

performance report is due 90 calendar 

days after the period of performance end 

date. Each report must summarize 

project activities, including the current 

stage of program implementation; 

progress towards achieving the outcome 

goals, including number of people 

served; significant milestones of the 

Awardee, intermediary, investors, if 

any, and evaluator; and related results 

of the project. It must thoroughly 

document the partnership activities and 

decision-making structure used to 

implement the pay for results model. 

These reports may be made publicly 

available. Upon award, Treasury or the 

administering federal agency will 

provide detailed formal guidance about 

the data and other information that is 

required to be collected and reported on 

either a regular basis or special request 

basis. 

b. Evaluation Progress Reports 

Not later than two years after a project 

has been approved and biannually 

thereafter, the independent evaluator 

must submit a written report to the head 

of the relevant federal agency and the 

Interagency Council summarizing the 

progress that has been made in 

achieving each outcome specified in the 

award agreement. Data in evaluation 

progress reports and final reports will be 

made available to all federal agencies 

represented on the Interagency Council, 

and data content requirements will be 

specified in the agreement between the 

grantee and the head of the relevant 

federal agency. 

When an Awardee’s intervention has 

achieved one or more outcomes, predefined outcome target(s) have been 

met, and the grantee wishes to receive 

an outcome payment in accordance with 

the outcome payment structure 

originally proposed, the independent 

evaluator must submit to the head of the 

relevant federal agency and the 

Interagency Council a written report 

that includes the results of the 

evaluation conducted to determine 

whether an outcome payment must be 

made. 

The report must include information 

on the unique factors that contributed to 

achieving or failing to achieve the 

outcome in the context of the 

intervention. This must include, but is 

not limited to, any major change in 

policy or law that may have affected the 

project intervention and the challenges 

faced in attempting to achieve the 

outcome. The report may also include 

information on what was learned during 

the evaluation including how to 

improve future service delivery or 

implementation. 

The report must also assess the degree 

to which the project was delivered as 

intended, including a discussion of how 

closely the project’s theory and 

intended procedures aligned with actual 

project implementation. The report 

must include information related to the 

intervention model, including whether 

it has evolved and whether the 

intervention was delivered with fidelity 

to the plan. The report should detail 

how staffing, recruitment/identification 

and screening of participants, selection, 

and enrollment were different from 

what was expected at the outset. 

The progress report must include an 

assessment by the independent 

evaluator of the value to the federal 

government as discussed and defined in 

Section A.5.a Federal Value for the 

SIPPRA Program. In calculating the 

value to the federal government of the 

completed outcome(s), the independent 

evaluator may only take into 

consideration the benefits from the BCA 

achieved as a result of the outcome(s). 

The Interagency Council will submit 

these reports to Treasury and to each 

committee of jurisdiction in the House 

of Representatives and Senate within 30 

days of receipt. 

c. Final Evaluation Report 

Within six months of project 

completion, the independent evaluator 

must submit a final report to the head 

of the relevant federal agency and the 

Interagency Council. The report must 

assess the effects of the intervention and 

include a discussion of the findings and 

implications, as well as a definitive 

statement about whether the 

predetermined outcomes have been met 

and whether the State or local 

government has fulfilled each obligation 

of the agreement. This must include 

information on the unique factors that 

contributed to the achievement or 

failure to achieve outcomes, including 

but not limited to any major change in 

policy or law that may have affected the 

project intervention, a description of the 

research methods, e.g., randomization of 

treatment and control groups, if 

applicable, data, sample size and 

characteristics, measures, and other 

factors, as well as findings, including 

impacts—for exploratory and 

confirmatory, short and long-term, 

subgroup analyses, and other findings. 

The report must also assess whether, 

and the degree to which, the project was 

delivered as intended. This must 

include a discussion of how closely the 

project’s theory and intended 

procedures aligned with actual project 

implementation. This portion of the 

report must include information related 

to the intervention model, including 

whether it has evolved and whether the 

intervention was delivered with fidelity; 

staffing; recruitment/identification and 

screening of participants; selection and 

enrollment; and how the intervention 

was implemented. The report must also 

discuss information regarding the 

improved future delivery of this or 

similar interventions. 

The independent evaluator’s final 

report for a project must include an 

assessment of the value to the federal 

government as discussed and defined in 

in Section A.5.a Federal Value for the 

SIPPRA Program. In calculating the 

value to the federal government of the 

completed outcome(s), the independent 

evaluator may only take into 

consideration the benefits from the 

BCA. 

The Interagency Council will submit 

this final report to Treasury and to each 

committee of jurisdiction in the House 

of Representatives and Senate within 30 

days of receipt. This report will be made 

publicly available. 

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact 

For further information about this 

NOFA, please contact Matthew Cook, 

SIPPRA Director, at SIPPRA@

Treasury.gov. Applicants should email 

all technical questions to SIPPRA@

treasury.gov and must specifically 

reference NOFA/CFDA 21.017, and 

include a contact name and phone 

number. This NOFA is also available on 

Treasury’s SIPPRA website at https://

www.treasury.gov/SIPPRA and at http:// 

www.Grants.gov. 

H. Other Information 

Treasury has determined that this 

NOFA imposes new information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The 

information collection for the Project 

Narrative, Administrative Reporting, 

and Records Retention provisions 

contained in this NOFA has been 

approved under OMB control number 

1505–0260. Other information 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
83638 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 

58Autor, David H., Christopher J. Palmer, and 

Parag A. Pathak. Gentrification and the amenity 

value of crime reductions: Evidence from rent 

deregulation. No. w23914. National Bureau of 

Economic Research, 2017. https://www.nber.org/ 

system/files/working_papers/w23914/w23914.pdf. 

59Autor, David H., Christopher J. Palmer, and 

Parag A. Pathak. Gentrification and the amenity 

value of crime reductions: Evidence from rent 

deregulation. No. w23914. National Bureau of 

Economic Research, 2017. https://www.nber.org/ 

system/files/working_papers/w23914/w23914.pdf. 

These estimates are themselves based on Cohen, 

Mark A., and Alex R. Piquero. ‘‘New evidence on 

the monetary value of saving a high risk youth.’’ 

Journal of Quantitative Criminology 25 (2009): 25– 

49. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ 

s10940-008-9057-3. 

60All 2008 cost estimates are adjusted using CPI– 

U for all urban consumers. These cost estimates are 

based on a weighted average of the various crimes 

which constitute the category. The distribution of 

property and violent crimes in the hypothetical city 

in this example are assumed to be the same as 

Cambridge, Massachusetts, making a direct 

application of estimates from Table A2 of Autor et 

al. (2017) possible. 

requirements gathered via the SF–424 

family of forms have already been 

approved under the following OMB 

control numbers: Information for 

Federal Assistance covered under 4040– 

0004, Budget Information for NonConstruction Programs covered under 

4040–0006, Budget Information for 

Construction Programs covered under 

4040–0008, Disclosure of Lobbying 

Activities covered under 4040–0013, 

Assurance for Non-Construction 

Programs covered under 4040–0007, 

Assurance for Construction Programs 

covered under 4040–0009 and Key 

Contacts, Project Abstract and Project/ 

Performance Site Location covered 

under 4040–0010. 

I. Appendix I: Example of Outcome 

Valuation Process 

This example is meant to be a guide 

to the process of outcome valuation, not 

a specific recommendation of how to 

account for the costs and benefits of 

particular types of interventions. 

A city is setting up a program with the 

hopes of reducing property and violent 

crimes by building in time in the work 

schedules of police officers to build 

relationships with members of the 

community. This city is divided into 

100 police precincts, half of which are 

randomly assigned to participate in the 

program. The program will run for 10 

years. For each of the 50 participating 

precincts, the per year cost of the 

program is $50,000 in 2023 dollars. The 

expectation is that participation in the 

program will result in five fewer violent 

crimes and 40 fewer property crimes 

each year. For the sake of simplicity, it 

is assumed that the program’s effects are 

constant over time, and end 

immediately after ten years. Applying 

these estimates to average crime rates 

over the previous 10 years yields the 

estimates presented in the table below. 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 

Property Crime Reduction ......................... 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 

Violent Crime Reduction ........................... 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

Step 1—Demonstrate Savings to the 

Federal, State, or Local Government 

The program will incur additional 

outlays in the form of program costs but 

will lower outlays on criminal justice 

costs. The net result is a reduction in 

outlays. The program will cost $50,000 

each year. Reduced criminal activity 

results in lower costs to the city from 

criminal justice activity from reduced 

arrests and police costs, court costs, and 

the costs of incarceration. Drawing from 

Autor et al. (2017), the cost of criminal 

justice activity of each property crime is 

assumed to be $2,781 and the cost of 

each violent crime is assumed to be 

$19,519.58 It is assumed that there will 

be 40 fewer property crimes and 5 fewer 

violent crimes each year. Thus, the total 

savings are 10 * (2,781 * 40 + 19,519 * 

5¥50,000) = $1,588,350.00. 

SAVINGS BREAKDOWN

Federal Savings .................... $(500,000.00) 

State & Local Savings .......... 2,088,350.00 

Total Savings ................. 1,588,350.00 

Step 2—Assess Costs and Benefits From 

the Intervention’s Effect on the Target 

Population for Each Time Period 

The distribution of property and 

violent crimes in the hypothetical city 

in this example are assumed to be the 

same as Cambridge, Massachusetts from 

1992–2005, making a direct application 

of estimates from Table A2 of Autor et 

al. (2017) possible.59 There are two 

categories of benefits (prevented 

criminal costs) that accrue to the target 

population. The first is the benefit of 

reduced ‘‘victimization costs,’’—i.e., the 

monetary value of the disutility of being 

a victim of a crime. Based on estimates 

from Cohen and Piquero (2009), the 

victimization cost of a violent crime is 

$66,923 (in 2023 dollars) and the cost of 

a property crime is $1,830 (in 2023 

dollars).60 The second benefit is the 

reduced ‘‘offender productivity costs,’’ 

i.e., the opportunity costs resulting from 

incarceration. These are approximated 

using lost wages. For violent crimes, the 

reduced offender productivity costs are 

$9,644 per crime and for property 

crimes, the reduced offender 

productivity costs are $1,149 per crime. 

There are both costs and benefits that 

accrue to taxpayers as a result of the 

intervention. First, the program will cost 

$50,000 each year. Second, reduced 

criminal activity results in lower costs 

to the city from criminal justice activity. 

As stated above, drawing from Autor et 

al. (2017), the cost of criminal justice 

activity of each property crime is 

assumed to be $2,781 and the cost of 

each violent crime is assumed to be 

$19,519. These figures are all multiplied 

by 1.25, the Marginal Cost of Public 

Funds used in SIPPRA. 

Step 3—Assess External Costs and 

Benefits 

Crime imposes external costs on the 

community beyond the costs imposed 

on those directly affected. In other 

words, even if you are not directly the 

victim of a crime, there is still disutility 

from living in an area where others are 

victimized. However, there is little 

revealed-preference-based evidence on 

the willingness to pay to reduce 

criminal activity to prevent the 

disutility of crimes being committed 

against others. Thus, for this example, it 

is assumed that the external costs and 

benefits (other than criminal justice 

costs assessed in Step 3) are zero. 

Step 4—Sum Costs and Benefits by 

Time Period 

The table below gives the yearly costs 

($50,000 to run the program) and the 

benefits (victimization cost reduction, 

productivity cost reduction, and 

criminal justice cost reduction) of the 

program. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 83639 

Step 5 Appropriately Account for 

Inflation and Sum Across Time Periods 

Finally, all dollars are put in constant 

(year 10) dollars assuming inflation 

grows at the rate set out in the FY 2024 

Mid-Session Review of the Budget of the 

U.S. Government. Year 1 is 2024, and 

this example runs through 2033. 

J. Appendix II: Integration of Managed 

Care Information/Data 

For Applicants Who Plan To Use 

Savings From Medicaid or CHIP: 

Integration of Managed Care 

Information/Data 

Treasury anticipates that applicants 

may have projects affecting individuals 

who receive managed care services from 

Medicaid or CHIP. To ensure that the 

calculations of benefits from reduced 

health care spending in these contexts 

properly demonstrate that those benefits 

accrue to the federal government or 

other public payers rather than to 

managed care organizations, applicants 

proposing projects that include a 

managed health care component must 

include a section in their application 

entitled ‘‘Managed Health Care 

Information.’’ This section must 

include, at a minimum, answers to the 

following questions, as applicable: 

• To what degree will participants in 

the intervention be covered by 

comprehensive, risk-based managed 

care during the period of the 

demonstration? 

• For intervention participants 

covered by a managed care organization, 

how would savings accrue to the federal 

government rather than the entity taking 

on risk? 

• What services, if any, will be carved 

out of managed care for this population? 

• If multiple capitation rates are used, 

which rate cells (by eligibility group or 

other category) will be used for the 

SIPPRA program project participants? 

• With what frequency will capitation 

rates for the population covered by 

comprehensive, risk-based managed 

care be redetermined during the period 

of the SIPPRA program project? 

• How would this intervention lead 

to reduced capitation rates? 

• While the level of impact cost and 

utilization data will have on a capitation 

rate will vary, if the anticipated 

intervention effect is small and/or the 

population impacted by the intervention 

makes up a relatively small proportion 

of the rate cell (or grouping of Medicaid 

beneficiaries with similar characteristics 

for the purposes of determining a 

capitation rate), it may be unlikely that 

the effect will be large enough to change 

the capitation rate, even if the cost and 

utilization reductions occur. Is the 

impact of the intervention effect (or 

impacted population size) meaningful 

relative to size of the managed care 

program? 

• For the population covered by 

managed care, what proportion of 

individuals covered under the relevant 

rate cell(s) are participants in the 

intervention? 

• Is the proportion sufficient to 

trigger changes in the capitation rate 

under current procedures? If not, please 

be specific about how you will work 

with your State Medicaid Agency to 

ensure cost and utilization changes 

among this population due to the 

intervention are captured and 

incorporated into adjustments to the 

capitation rate. 

• Please clarify if you will have 

access to robust historical (e.g., at least 

2 years) data to ensure that the 

comparison group is matched as well as 

possible to the actual cost or claims data 

to accurately assess federal savings 

through the evaluation. 

• Please note that lags in realization 

of governmental savings in managed 

care contexts, relative to those in Fee for 

Service contexts, will not preclude 

consideration so long as the savings are 

realized within the ten-year time period 

and the BCA procedures discussed 

above are followed. 

K. Appendix III: Benefit-Cost Analysis 

Tools 

The value that individuals place on 

policies, goods, or other actions can be 

difficult to assess as changes in the 

welfare of individuals cannot be directly 

observed. Therefore, the BCA analyst 

must rely on individuals revealing their 

preferences through the choices they 

make. For example, if a person chooses 

to purchase car A over (equally priced) 

car B, it is reasonable to assume they 

prefer car A over car B. If a person 

chooses to not pursue further education 

when they are able to do so, it is 

reasonable to assume that they believe 

the costs of the next period of education 

exceed the benefits. 

BCA should rely on revealed 

preference, either within the target 

population, or based on careful research 

in other contexts. When possible, stated 

preference (for example, surveys of how 

much an individual values a particular 

good or service) should be avoided in 

arriving at any of the core assumptions 

of the BCA. 

Two examples of tools that highquality studies employ are: (1) 

‘‘willingness-to-pay,’’ a measure of the 

maximum amount individuals are 

willing to spend to obtain a given 

benefit; and (2) ‘‘willingness-to-accept,’’ 

the minimum amount individuals are 

willing to accept to relinquish or forego 

a given benefit. Market prices provide a 

valuable starting point for measuring 

willingness-to-pay and willingness-toaccept, but they can also be estimated 

through revealed preference or other 

methods. 

Revealed preference methods have the 

benefit of being based on observable 

behavior often involving market 

transactions. These methods can be 

particularly useful to establish values of 

certain benefits and costs that are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN30NO23.026</GPH> EN30NO23.027</GPH>

Marginal Cost/Benefit 

Yearl Year2 Year3 Year4 Years Year6 Year7 Years Year9 YearlO Formula 

Benefits 

Property Crime Victimization Cost $ 73,200.00 $ 73,200.00 $ 73,200.00 $ 73,200.00 $ 73,200.00 $ 73,200.00 $ 73,200.00 $ 73,200.00 $ 73,200.00 $ 73,200.00 $1,830X40 

Reduction Productivity Cost $ 45,960.00 $ 45,960.00 $ 45,960.00 $ 45,960.00 $ 45,960.00 $ 45,960.00 $ 45,960.00 $ 45,960.00 $ 45,960.00 $ 45,960.00 $1,149X40 

Criminal Justice $ 139,050.00 $ 139,050.00 $ 139,050.00 $ 139,050.00 $ 139,050.00 $ 139,050.00 $ 139,050.00 $ 139,050.00 $ 139,050.00 $ 139,050.00 $2,781X1.25X40 

Violent Crime Victimization Cost $ 334,615.00 $ 334,615.00 $ 334,615.00 $ 334,615.00 $ 334,615.00 $ 334,615.00 $ 334,615.00 $ 334,615.00 $ 334,615.00 $ 334,615.00 $66,923XS 

Reduction Productivity Cost $ 48,220.00 $ 48,220.00 $ 48,220.00 $ 48,220.00 $ 48,220.00 $ 48,220.00 $ 48,220.00 $ 48,220.00 $ 48,220.00 $ 48,220.00 $9,644XS 

Criminal Justice $ 121,993.75 $ 121,993.75 $ 121,993.75 $ 121,993.75 $ 121,993.75 $ 121,993.75 $ 121,993.75 $ 121,993.75 $ 121,993.75 $ 121,993.75 $19,519X1.25XS 

Costs 

Direct Cost $ 62,500.00 $ 62,500.00 $ 62,500.00 $ 62,500.00 $ 62,500.00 $ 62,500.00 $ 62,500.00 $ 62,500.00 $ 62,500.00 $ 62,500.00 $50,000X!.25 

Total Net Benefits $ 700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 

Net Benefits 

Net Benefits in 

Year 10 Dollars 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total 

$700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 $700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 $700,538.75 $ 700,538.75 $ 7,005,387.50 

$ 859,632.58 $ 840,305.55 $ 821,413.05 $ 802,945.31 $ 784,892.78 $767,246.11 $ 749,996.20 $ 733,134.12 $ 716,651.14 $ 700,538.75 $ 7,776,755.59 
83640 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Notices 

61Cohen, Peter, Robert Hahn, Jonathan Hall, 

Steven Levitt, and Robert Metcalfe. Using big data 

to estimate consumer surplus: The case of uber. No. 

w22627. National Bureau of Economic Research, 

2016. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_

papers/w22627/w22627.pdf. 62 Department of Transportation, Treatment of the 

Value of Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in 

Preparing Economic Analyses, 2021. https://

www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-03/

DOT%20VSL%20Guidance%20- 

%202021%20Update.pdf. 

reflected in observable tradeoffs that 

people actually make. For example, it is 

possible to ascertain willingness to pay 

by observing how much an individual 

purchases at different prices. Cohen et 

al. (2016) use a rich data set on Uber 

rides (a ride sharing app) to assess 

individuals’ willingness to pay for a ride 

by observing whether they go through 

with the purchase after observing the 

price. While such detailed data are 

rarely available in other contexts, 

willingness-to-pay calculations can 

often be made even for outcomes that 

are never directly priced, such as the 

value of a statistical life (VSL).61

Another example is an intervention may 

try to reduce teenage overdoses through 

an education program. The primary 

benefit of such a program would be 

reduced mortality, and thus the 

applicant would use existing estimates 

of the VSL to multiply by the estimated 

number of lives saved. Existing 

estimates of the VSL are often calculated 

by observing how much people are 

willing to spend to reduce their risk of 

death in certain contexts. For example, 

some studies use the additional amount 

that a firm must pay its employees to 

induce them to work a relatively riskier 

job (a compensating differential) to 

estimate the VSL. Other studies use 

willingness to pay for car features that 

will reduce the probability of death in 

certain types of accidents but cost more 

than equivalent cars without these 

features. For further guidance on using 

VSL estimates in BCA, consult the 

March 2021 Department of 

Transportation Guidance, March 2021.62

BCA may rely on revealed preference, 

either within the target population, or 

based on careful research in other 

contexts. 

Laura Feiveson, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Microeconomics. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26174 Filed 11–29–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AK–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

[OMB Control No. 2900–0098] 

Agency Information Collection Activity 

Under OMB Review: Dependents’ 

Application for VA Education Benefits 

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 

1995, this notice announces that the 

Veterans Benefits Administration 

(VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, 

will submit the collection of 

information abstracted below to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and comment. The 

PRA submission describes the nature of 

the information collection and its 

expected cost and burden, and it 

includes the actual data collection 

instrument. 

DATES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice by clicking on the following link: 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Select ‘‘Currently under Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’, then search the 

list for the information collection by 

Title or ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0098.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise 

and Integration, Data Governance 

Analytics (008), 810 Vermont Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20420, (202) 266–4688 

or email Maribel.aponte@va.gov. Please 

refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0098’’ 

in any correspondence. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3311 (as 

amended by Pub. L. 113–146, section 

701, effective August 7, 2014), 3513, 

3697A, 5113, 5101, 5102, and 5103; 38 

CFR 21.3030 and 21.9510. 

Title: Dependents’ Application for VA 

Education Benefits, VA Form 22–5490. 

OMB Control Number: 2900–0098. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Abstract: The VA’s Veterans Claims 

Examiners use the information from this 

collection to help determine whether a 

claimant qualifies for DEA or Fry 

Scholarship benefits. The information 

on the form can be obtained only from 

the claimant, and an eligibility 

determination cannot be made without 

the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The Federal Register 

Notice with a 60-day comment period 

soliciting comments on this collection 

of information was published at 88 FR 

67452 on Friday, September 29, 2023, 

Pages 67452–67453. 

Affected Public: Individuals and 

Households. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 48,983 

hours. 

Estimated Average Burden Time per 

Respondent: 45 and 25 min., (paper and 

electronic, respectively). 

Frequency of Response: Once. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

83,972. 

By direction of the Secretary. 

Maribel Aponte, 

VA PRA Clearance Officer, Office of 

Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance 

Analytics, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26369 Filed 11–29–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

Advisory Committee Charter Renewals 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee 

charter renewals. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA) and after consultation with the 

General Services Administration, the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs has 

determined that the following Federal 

advisory committee is vital to the 

mission of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) and renewing its charter 

would be in the public interest. 

Consequently, the charter for the 

following Federal advisory committee is 

renewed for a two-year period, 

beginning on the dates listed below: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES