Evidence-Based Grantmaking Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 7025
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-01-13: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-04T04:11:37Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The Evidence-Based Grantmaking Act (H.R. 7025) aims to improve the effectiveness of certain federal grants by requiring federal agencies to prioritize and implement practices supported by evidence. This ensures that grant funds are used to achieve clearly defined outcomes, leading to more accountable and impactful public services.
Key Provisions
- Scope and Definitions:
- Applies to "covered agencies," which include major departments like Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Justice, and others (15 agencies total), plus the Environmental Protection Agency and Small Business Administration.
- Targets "covered grants," defined as federal grants awarded to provide services to the public or specific communities.
- "Evidence-based" practices are those backed by reliable data or research showing they work; agencies must define this term with flexibility based on their mission, guided by federal evaluation standards (standards from a 2020 Office of Management and Budget memo implementing the 2018 Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act).
- Requirements for Agencies:
- Include a clear purpose and intended outcomes in all funding announcements or proposals for covered grants.
- Prioritize grants to applicants who:
- Use evidence-based practices and show how funds will achieve the grant's goals.
- Address community needs and represent or are located in the served community.
- Comply with existing federal grant regulations (e.g., 2 CFR 200.202 on peer review).
- Mandate that grant recipients use evidence-based practices when delivering services.
- Require periodic evaluations by the agency's Evaluation Officer during the grant term to assess if funds are used effectively; evaluations must follow federal standards (e.g., impact, outcome, or process reviews) and results must be public and used to shape future grants.
- Provide optional technical assistance to grant recipients.
- Submit annual reports to Congress on implementation.
- Guidance and Implementation Timeline:
- The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director must issue guidance within 1 year of enactment on defining "evidence-based."
- Each covered agency must define the term, publish a proposed definition for 60 days of public comment, and create a framework to identify evidence-based applicants—all within 1 year after OMB guidance.
- Full implementation of the applicant identification framework begins 5 years after enactment.
- The new requirements apply to covered grants starting 180 days after an agency finalizes its definition, where practical.
- Reporting Requirements:
- Agencies submit initial implementation plans to OMB, including a list of affected grants.
- OMB submits annual progress reports to Congress for 5 years, covering definitions, implementation, and alignment across agencies, with recommendations for streamlining.
- After implementation, OMB reports annually on grant awards using the framework, including numbers and examples.
- Agencies submit reports to OMB on best practices and improvements for future grant evaluations within 1 year of starting implementation.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Amends title 5 of the U.S. Code (which covers government organization and employees) by adding a new section 316 under subchapter II of chapter 3, introducing mandatory evidence-based requirements for grantmaking.
- Builds on the 2018 Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act by enforcing evaluation standards but adds specific grant award priorities, community responsiveness, and public transparency not previously required for these grants.
- No changes to grant eligibility or funding levels, but shifts focus from traditional applications to evidence of effectiveness and community fit.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Increases administrative workload for evaluations, reporting, and defining terms, potentially requiring new staff or processes; however, it could lead to more efficient use of funds and better program outcomes over time. Technical assistance may help smaller agencies.
- On Citizens and Communities: Could result in more effective public services (e.g., in health, education, or housing) by funding proven approaches tailored to local needs, benefiting underserved groups through improved grant results.
- On International Relations: No direct impacts mentioned; the bill focuses on domestic grantmaking.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Covered Federal Agencies: Must overhaul grant processes, conduct evaluations, and report regularly; largest burden on departments like Health and Human Services or Justice with high grant volumes.
- Grant Applicants and Recipients: Primarily non-profit organizations, community groups, and local providers of public services; they must demonstrate evidence-based practices and community ties to compete, potentially favoring established or research-backed entities.
- Congress and OMB: Gain oversight through reports, enabling better monitoring of federal spending.
- The Public: Benefits from transparent evaluations and more impactful services; can comment on agency definitions.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Reinforces federal evaluation standards without creating new enforcement penalties; relies on existing regulatory frameworks, reducing litigation risk. Public comment periods ensure procedural fairness under the Administrative Procedure Act.
- Constitutional: No apparent conflicts; aligns with Congress's spending power (Article I, Section 8) to direct how federal funds are used, promoting accountability without infringing on executive discretion.
- Political: Bipartisan sponsorship (introduced by Rep. Yakym with cosponsors from both parties) suggests broad support for evidence-based governance. Could influence future budgets by highlighting effective programs, but divergent agency definitions might lead to calls for standardization. Emphasizes community engagement, potentially addressing equity concerns in grant distribution.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (7)
Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2], Rep. Pettersen, Brittany [D-CO-7], Rep. Timmons, William R. [R-SC-4], Rep. Ross, Deborah K. [D-NC-2], Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1], Rep. Landsman, Greg [D-OH-1], Rep. Miller, Max L. [R-OH-7]
Recent Actions
- 2026-01-13: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- 2026-01-13: Introduced in House
- 2026-01-13: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Evidence-Based Grantmaking Act — issued 2026-01-13 — PDF (12 pages)