Leading Examples

The Michigan Department of Education’s Great Start Readiness Program requires grantees to use funds for Great Start Readiness programs which include the key features aligned with the Great Start Readiness evidence-base.

This state-funded, $135.3 million grant program exclusively funds evidence-based summer learning programs intended to prevent summer learning loss. Tennessee’s grant program: 1) Defines evidence by describing key features of summer learning programs that have been found to produce positive effects for participating children and incorporates these key features in guidance throughout their summer learning program guidance (pages 31, 37; and 2) Prioritizes evidence by requiring grantees’ programs to align with the key features described throughout the summer learning guidance, unless they receive a waiver (page 32). Tennessee's program also requires grantees to implement performance management (page 36). 

The Oakland Unified School District’s Youth Development Enrichment Program: Expanded Learning requires applicants to administer expanding learning programs that adhere to the key features of the expanded learning component of evidence-based Full Service Community Schools (page 7-8, 10). External providers must agree to participate in program evaluation (page 24) and Finally, external providers must speak to their experience working with and serving the community intended to to be served by this program (page 19). 

The New York City Administration for Children Services’ (ACS) School-Based Early Support Program requires applicants to select from a model of evidence-based programs identified by the agency (page 20-21). Additionally, ACS scores proposals based on providers' capacity to use data for performance management and continuous improvement (page 28). 

Uplift Education’s Grades 3-13 Virtual Tutoring Program defines evidence using key characteristics of evidence-based high-impact tutoring and requires applicants to implement programs aligned with that definition (page 17). Uplift Education uses outcomes-based contracting and defines the outcomes that vendors must meet in order to earn performance-based funding (page 24-25).

In 2022, Duval County Public Schools (FL) released an RFP for high-impact tutoring programs using an outcomes-based contracting model. Duval County required applicants to implement programs aligned with the key characteristics of evidence-based high-impact tutoring (page 6-7, 16). Outcomes-based contracting requires LEA leaders to define outcomes (page 15). This case study includes steps for implementing this contract and the “rate card” Duval used for pricing outcomes.

This federally funded, $200 million grant program services to address the impacts of learning loss experienced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevada’s grant program: 1) Define evidence by citing the definition used by the federal State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) program and includes a description of “strong” and “moderate” evidence in their request for proposals (Appendix C); 2) Prioritizes evidence through an Evidence Preference by awarding up to 5 points for proposals for evidence-based strategies (page 15); 3) Establishes a foundation for performance management and building evidence by awarding up to 5 points for proposals that adequately identify performance measures and anticipated outcomes, and describe how the grantee will monitor and evaluate progress and evaluate their project (page 16). 4) Advances equity by awarding up to 5 points for applicants’ description of how they will demonstrate the impact of equitable outcomes with the use of the funds (page 17).

This federally funded $15.4 million grant program funds services to improve child literacy. Colorado’s grant program: 1) Defines evidence by referencing the Colorado READ Act, which includes a definition of evidence-based and which requires the department to create a list of approved evidence-based programs (page 8); 2) Prioritizes evidence by requiring grantees to include evidence-based strategies in their local literacy plans (page 8) and demonstrate curricula are aligned with the Science of Reading and evidence-based practices (page 6); 3) Builds evidence by maintaining the right to engage an external evaluator to study the impact of the grant program and requiring grantees to participate in any such evaluation (page 10) and by listing the “evaluation of existing structures, practices, and instructional materials across birth through grade 12 to ensure they are evidence-based” as an allowable use (page 8); and 4) Advances equity by requiring that applicants must specifically demonstrate how they will meet the needs of underserved students (page 6, Section D).

This federally funded, $27.0 million grant program exclusively funds the implementation and strengthening of evidence-based high-dosage, low-ratio tutoring programs for students. Tennessee’s grant program: 1) Defines evidence by identifying the key features of high-dosage tutoring that have been found to produce positive effects for participating children (page 10); and 2) Prioritizes evidence by requiring grantees to adhere to the key design features of evidence-based high-dosage tutoring (page 10).

This federally funded, $5 million grant program exclusively funds the implementation and expansion of evidence-based full-service community schools. Minnesota’s grant program: 1) Defines evidence by describing the key features of the Full-Service Community Schools program that have been found to produce positive effects for participating children (page 8); 2) Prioritizes evidence by requiring grantees to adhere to the design features that make a full-service community school model evidence-based (page 1); 3) Builds evidence by requiring that both startup and expansion grantees collaborate with the department in creating and implementing an evaluation plan (page 5); and 4) Advances equity by awarding bonus points to applicants serving students of color, American Indian students, students eligible for free or reduced-price meals, students receiving special education services, or English learners (page 4).

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

This federally funded, $20 million grant program funds services to improve child literacy. California’s grant program demonstrates: 1) Defining evidence by citing and describing ESSA (page 12); and 2) Prioritizing evidence by requiring grantees to implement evidence-based strategies at the strong or moderate levels (pages 12, 20).