Vision & Mission VISION Children of all socio-economic backgrounds are well prepared for success in the 21 st century. MISSION Dramatically accelerate educational achievement of all children from early childhood through early career through an aligned partnership of community stakeholders. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE Phase I: The partnership will focus on the cities of Saint Paul and Minneapolis Phase II: After demonstrating success in Phase I communities, expansion to additional communities will be considered.
A Holistic, Systemic Approach 3 rd GradeKindergarten8 th Grade12 th GradeCollege - Career Academic Student & Family Support
Preliminary Network Recommendations & Timing Family Engagement Teacher Excellence Early Literacy (Age 3 to Grade 3) College and Career Readiness PHASE I Feb/March 2013 PHASE II May/June 2013 Early Learning* (Birth – Age 3) PHASE III TBD STEM* College Success* * Additional Development Required PRE- LAUNCH Nov.2012- January 2013 Community Engagement Network Launch Planning 6
Alignment of Networks to Community Level Goals * Additional Development Required Launch Phase Network Kindergarten Readiness 3 rd Grade Reading Proficiency 8 th Grade Math Proficiency H. S. Graduation Post Secondary Completion I Early Literacy (Age 3 to Grade 3) I College and Career Readiness II Family Engagement II Teacher Excellence III Early Learning* (Birth – Age 3) III STEM* III College Success* 7
“Social innovation” is a powerful strategy rooted in our unparalleled tradition of citizen engagement that believes – The best solutions to many major problems come out of communities – not Washington DC Significant social impact can be generated by pro- actively growing the most promising solutions to critical problems with evidence of results. The federal government can be a catalyst to foster public-private collaborations and other leveraged strategies to make it happen. The Strategy
Producing desired outcomes Better economic, education and health outcomes for low- income communities More people served by most effective solutions Stronger intermediaries and nonprofit organizations More, stronger evidence about what works Generating important knowledge and learning How nonprofits can best increase scale, build evidence base How intermediaries can best support nonprofit organizations Influencing others to adopt aspects of the SIF model Governments: policies Intermediaries and nonprofit organizations: practices SIF Goals
11 Improve lives of people in need Grant Program Selection of intermediaries/ nonprofits Growth of capacity & impact Rigorous evaluation Grow impact of innovative solutions that work Leverage Strategy Influence federal agencies & nonprofit sector Share knowledge Support targeted initiatives Social Innovation Fund Theory of Change
Strive & Social Innovation Fund Kindergarten Readiness 3 rd Grade Reading 8 th Grade Math 8 th Grade Math High school Graduation Postsecondary Credential Improve Program QUALITY & Increase Child/Youth ACCESS Strive & Social Innovation Fund $5M federal 2012 – 2016 Twin Cities Grant Awards
The SIF model is distinguished by four key features: Innovative Model Evidence Committed Funders Scaling Knowledge Support Infrastructure 1.Reliance on experienced, knowledgeable grantmaking intermediaries to select and grow high-impact nonprofits 2.Emphasis on evidence-based decision- making and rigorous evaluations of program results 3.Requirement that each federal dollar be matched 1:1 from private and nonfederal sources by grantees and subgrantees 4.Commitment to capture, apply and share knowledge gained from the SIF experience
Role of Evidence in the SIF Valid evidence of results is essential to the SIF program: 1.All programs must demonstrate a minimum level of effectiveness to receive funding 2.All intermediaries must commit to evaluating their portfolio in ways that advance existing evidence of program effectiveness 3.Long term success of the SIF will mean proving it has contributed to increasing: –the number of nonprofits implementing evidence-based programs –the strength of evidence among funded programs
Increasing strength of evaluation data 17 SIF aims to invest in programs showing strong impact Output: direct product of program activities Outcome: change that is observed as a result of program implementation Impact: change that can be directly attributed to a specific program model or intervention
18 Preliminary Levels of Evidence Preliminary Must be based on a reasonable hypothesis; based on research findings Your program or a similar program Pre- and post-test that shows change in your outcome of interest No comparison or control group is used
19 Preliminary Levels of Evidence Example: Your school has used volunteers to support your reading program for a number of years. Those students behind grade level in reading receive additional time with volunteer tutors. Tracking student progress through periodic testing has shown that those kids who spend time with volunteer tutors are making large gains in reading proficiency. The curriculum used by the tutors utilizes best practices based on research findings addressing literacy development. You want to expand this effort so more kids have access to tutors and tutors are well trained.
20 Moderate Levels of Evidence Moderate Support causal conclusions Studies conducted in limited settings or with limited variation in program participation Methods used limit the ability to attribute resulting changes in outcomes to the intervention Example approaches: regression/discontinuity analysis, propensity score matching, time-series analysis, non- equivalent comparison groups
21 Moderate Levels of Evidence Example: Your program provides tutoring to students not at grade level in an after school setting. The program is full to capacity, yet additional students qualify. Students in the program and a comparison group of program eligible students not in the program receive pre- and post-testing to determine change in proficiency level before and after the time students were (or would have been) in the program. Differences in pre- and post-testing are compared.
22 Strong Levels of Evidence Strong Support causal conclusions Randomized control group used Studies conducted in a range of setting with a range of participants (supporting assumptions that scaling the program to a greater level will be successful)
23 Strong Levels of Evidence Example: A multi-site randomized control trial is conducted with center-based early childhood centers implementing a parent-child engagement intervention. Eligible families are randomly placed into receiving the intervention or receiving early childhood care in the existing care setting. Parents in the intervention group attend additional parent-focused skill development classes. Consistency of delivery of the intervention is tightly monitored and children in both groups are assessed throughout the intervention for changes in developmental precursors to literacy development. precursors of literacy development
24 Levels of Evidence Upload documents describing all research studies undertaken RFP review process will include evaluation experts Reviewers will use a rubric which takes into account methodology used and quality of the studies completed
26 Key Characteristics of Organizations with Highly Effective Financial Management Written and followed policies and procedures Qualified and trained financial staff Effective communications Succession planning and cross-training Self-assessment and continuous improvement Active, knowledgeable and informed Board and finance committee
27 Efficient Accounting System Accounting System must be capable of: Distinguishing between grant vs. non-grant related expenditures Identifying costs by program year Identifying costs by budget category Differentiating between direct and indirect costs (administrative costs) Accounting for each award/grant separately
28 Basics of OMB Circulars Cost Principles CFR 220 (formerly A-21) CFR 230 (formerly A-122) Allowable & Unallowable Costs Administrative Requirements CFR 215 (formerly A-110) Accounting System Documentation requirements A-133 requirements An organization is subject to an A-133 audit it if expends more than $500,000 of Federal funds in its fiscal year.
29 Minimum award: $100,000 Budget categories All amounts must be explained No subgranting allowed All costs must be allowable under Federal rules and regulations Evaluation component Criminal background checks FBI finger-print based check State criminal history registry check National Sex Offender Public Registry check http://www.nationalserviceresources.org/national-service-criminal-history-check-resources Budget Considerations
30 Match requirement: 1:1 Cash match only Must be new funding or reserves No previously obligated/committed funds No in-kind match allowed Match Requirements
31 Monthly invoicing and financial reporting Reimbursement basis Appropriate supporting documentation required All costs must be allowable under federal rules and regulations (allocable, reasonable, consistently applied and necessary) Time and effort reporting required Separate reporting of expenses against the subgrant share vs the subgrant match share Grants Management
Online Grant Application Overview Training: December 3, 2012: 9AM-12 PM December 4, 2012: 1-4 PM Applications due January 11, 2013 12 NOON www.unitedwaytwincities.org/sif www.unitedwaytwincities.org/sif
Resources PowerPoint Overview of the New Grant System Online Instructions for Grant Applicants Service Level Agreement (for technical assistance) SIF materials: www.unitedwaytwincities.org/sifwww.unitedwaytwincities.org/sif Help Desk email: firstname.lastname@example.org@unitedwaytwincities.org Help Desk phone: 612-340-7534
Service Level Agreement: The Basics Hours of support: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm CST Monday-Friday Priority Level 1: Emergencies and Maintenance Priority Level 2: Urgent Items Priority Level 3: Non-Urgent Items & Requests for New Features Email: email@example.com@unitedwaytwincities.org Phone: 612-340-7534
RFP and Application Review Action ItemDate/Deadline Release RFP to national audience through multiple channels December 3, 2012 Subgrantee OrientationNovember/December 2012 Applications dueJanuary 11, 2013 Proposal review and scoringJanuary/February 2013 Site visits with potential subgranteesFebruary 2013 Final scoring and recommendations by review committee February/March 2013 Final approval by Executive CommitteeMarch 2013 Funding beginsApril 1, 2013