Opportunity Information: Apply for CNCS 03 18 16
Apply for CNCS 03 18 16
- The CNCS in the education, employment, labor and training, food and nutrition, health, housing, income security and social services, law, justice and legal services sector is offering a public funding opportunity titled "FY 2016 Social Innovation Fund Classic Cooperative Agreements" and is now available to receive applicants.
- Interested and eligible applicants and submit their applications by referencing the CFDA number(s): 94.019.
- This funding opportunity was created on Mar 18, 2016 and posted on Mar 18, 2016.
- Applicants must submit their applications by May 10, 2016. (Agency may still review applications by suitable applicants for the remaining/unused allocated funding in 2026.)
- Each selected applicant is eligible to receive up to $10,000,000.00 in funding.
- The number of recipients for this funding is limited to 10 candidate(s).
- Eligible applicants include: Native American tribal governments (Federally recognized), Native American tribal organizations (other than Federally recognized tribal governments), Nonprofits having a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education, Private institutions of higher education.
[Watch] Creating a grant proposal using the step-by-step wizard inside the applicant portal:
Opportunity Summary:
The FY 2016 Social Innovation Fund Classic Cooperative Agreements opportunity (Funding Opportunity Number CNCS 03 18 16) was a discretionary federal grant competition administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) under CFDA 94.019. It was posted on March 18, 2016, created the same day, and had an application deadline of May 10, 2016. Awards were issued as cooperative agreements, which generally indicates CNCS expected to have an ongoing role in working with awardees during implementation rather than providing a hands-off grant.
The program was built around a two-tier funding model. CNCS did not primarily fund direct service providers; instead, it funded grantmaking institutions known as intermediaries. These intermediaries were responsible for running competitive subgrant processes, selecting high-performing community-based nonprofit organizations, and then providing those subrecipients with both funding and support. Support typically includes capacity-building, performance management assistance, and help strengthening evidence and evaluation practices so that funded interventions can demonstrate measurable results and be positioned for broader replication or scaling.
Program activities were focused on evidence-based interventions across three core issue areas: healthy futures, economic opportunity, and youth development. In practice, this means applicants were expected to identify programs with a credible evidence base, implement them with fidelity, and track outcomes that align with the chosen domain. The funding activity categories associated with the opportunity were broad and cross-cutting, spanning education, employment and training, food and nutrition, health, housing, income security and social services, and law/justice-related services, reflecting the program's intent to support comprehensive solutions that address multiple drivers of community outcomes.
A central requirement of the Social Innovation Fund model was the one-to-one cash match from non-federal sources. Both the intermediaries and the nonprofit subgrantees had to match the federal funds they received dollar-for-dollar using cash (not in-kind) and from non-federal sources. This match requirement is a major design feature of the program because it is meant to leverage private, philanthropic, and local investments alongside federal dollars, increasing total resources available for proven community interventions and signaling broad stakeholder commitment.
Eligibility for applicants included federally recognized Native American tribal governments, other tribal organizations, nonprofit organizations with IRS 501(c)(3) status (excluding institutions of higher education in that specific nonprofit category), and private institutions of higher education. CNCS anticipated making about 10 awards, with an award ceiling of $10,000,000 per award, suggesting a small number of relatively large intermediary grants intended to support sizable subgrant portfolios and robust technical assistance and evaluation capacity.
Overall, this opportunity aimed to fund intermediaries capable of finding strong nonprofit operators, channeling resources to them through a competitive process, and helping them deliver and measure evidence-based programs in key social outcome areas, while also bringing significant non-federal cash to the table to at least double the total investment at both the intermediary and subgrantee levels.
FY 2016 Social Innovation Fund Classic Cooperative Agreements (CNCS 03 18 16) FAQs
What is this grant opportunity?
This opportunity was the FY 2016 Social Innovation Fund (SIF) Classic Cooperative Agreements competition (Funding Opportunity Number CNCS 03 18 16), a discretionary federal grant competition administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) under CFDA 94.019.
When was the opportunity posted and when were applications due?
The opportunity was posted on March 18, 2016 (and created the same day). The application deadline was May 10, 2016.
What type of award was offered?
Awards were issued as cooperative agreements. This generally indicates CNCS expected to have an ongoing role in working with awardees during implementation, rather than providing a hands-off grant.
How did the Social Innovation Fund Classic funding model work?
The program was structured as a two-tier funding model. CNCS primarily funded intermediaries (grantmaking institutions) rather than funding direct service providers directly. Intermediaries were responsible for conducting competitive subgrant processes to select high-performing community-based nonprofit organizations as subrecipients.
Who were the primary recipients CNCS intended to fund?
CNCS intended to fund intermediaries that would then make subgrants to community-based nonprofit organizations through a competitive process.
Were direct service providers funded directly by CNCS under this opportunity?
Not primarily. The model emphasized funding intermediaries, which then funded direct service providers (subrecipients) through subgrants.
What responsibilities did intermediaries have under this opportunity?
Intermediaries were expected to run competitive subgrant processes, select high-performing community-based nonprofit organizations, and provide both funding and support to subrecipients. Support typically included capacity-building, performance management assistance, and help strengthening evidence and evaluation practices.
What kinds of support were intermediaries expected to provide to subgrantees?
Intermediaries typically provided capacity-building support, performance management assistance, and support to strengthen evidence and evaluation practices so interventions could demonstrate measurable results and be positioned for broader replication or scaling.
What issue areas did the opportunity focus on?
Program activities focused on evidence-based interventions across three core issue areas: healthy futures, economic opportunity, and youth development.
What did "evidence-based interventions" mean in this context?
Applicants were expected to identify programs with a credible evidence base, implement them with fidelity, and track outcomes aligned with the selected issue area (healthy futures, economic opportunity, or youth development).
What kinds of activities or service categories were associated with the funding?
The funding activity categories were broad and cross-cutting, including education, employment and training, food and nutrition, health, housing, income security and social services, and law/justice-related services.
What was the match requirement?
A central requirement was a one-to-one cash match from non-federal sources. Both intermediaries and nonprofit subgrantees were required to match the federal funds they received dollar-for-dollar using cash (not in-kind) and from non-federal sources.
Did the match have to be cash, or could it be in-kind?
The match had to be cash. In-kind contributions did not meet the stated requirement.
Did the match have to come from non-federal sources?
Yes. The match was required to come from non-federal sources.
Who had to provide the match: only the intermediary or also the subgrantees?
Both levels had to provide a dollar-for-dollar cash match: the intermediaries for the federal funds they received, and the nonprofit subgrantees for the federal funds they received through subgrants.
Why was the match requirement a major feature of the program?
The match requirement was intended to leverage private, philanthropic, and local investments alongside federal dollars, increasing total resources available for proven community interventions and signaling broad stakeholder commitment.
Who was eligible to apply as an applicant under this opportunity?
Eligibility included federally recognized Native American tribal governments, other tribal organizations, nonprofit organizations with IRS 501(c)(3) status (excluding institutions of higher education in that specific nonprofit category), and private institutions of higher education.
How many awards did CNCS anticipate making?
CNCS anticipated making about 10 awards.
What was the maximum award size?
The award ceiling was $10,000,000 per award.
What does the number and size of awards suggest about the program's design?
With about 10 anticipated awards and a $10,000,000 ceiling, the competition suggested a small number of relatively large intermediary grants intended to support sizable subgrant portfolios and robust technical assistance and evaluation capacity.
What was the overall goal of the opportunity?
The opportunity aimed to fund intermediaries capable of identifying strong nonprofit operators, channeling resources to them through a competitive subgrant process, and helping them deliver and measure evidence-based programs in key social outcome areas, while also bringing significant non-federal cash to the table to at least double the total investment at both intermediary and subgrantee levels.
Browse more opportunities from the same category: Education, Employment, Labor and Training, Food and Nutrition, Health, Housing, Income Security and Social Services, Law, Justice and Legal Services
Next opportunity: 15.608 Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance
Previous opportunity: Next Generation Social Science (NGS2)
USGrants.org Applicant Portal:
Are you interested in learning about about how to apply for this government funding opportunity? You can create a free applicant account and receive instant access to our applicant portal that many business owners like you have benefited from.
Apply for CNCS 03 18 16
[Watch] how do funding administrators access proposals?
Grant application guides and resources
It is always free to apply for government grants. However the process may be very complex depending on the funding opportunity you are applying for. Let us help you!
Apply for Grants
Premium leads for funding administrators, grant writers, and loan issuers
Thousands of people visit our website for their funding needs every day. When a user creates a grant proposal and files for submission, we pass the information on to funding administrators, grant writers, and government loan issuers.
If you manage government grant programs, provide grant writing services, or issue personal or government loans, we can help you reach your audience.
Subscribe to Leads
Request more information:
Would you like to learn more about this funding opportunity, similar opportunities to "CNCS 03 18 16", eligibility, application service, and/or application tips? Submit an inquiry below:
Don't forget to subscribe to our grant alerts mailing list to receive weekly alerts on new and updated grant funding opportunities like this one in your email.