pus

Vestibulum congue tempus

 

Please add pretext here

 

Cover Page Please Add
Title Here

Please add subheading here

 

Table of 

Contents

Cover Letter 3

Background 4

Includovate’s Understanding 5

Our Approach and Methodology 6

Methodology 6

Deliverables [example – to be adapted according to the ToR requirement] 11

Analytical Framework 13

Timeline 14

Budget 15

Assumptions 15

Proposed Team 16

Team Organisation 17

Appendix x: More about Includovate 19

Quality Assurance 20

Ethics and Safeguarding 20

Project Experience 21

Risk Assessment 25

Appendix 1: Risk assessment matrix 27

Appendix 2: CVs 28

 

Cover Letter 

[the highlighted part of this letter are to be edited in every submission] [1 page maximum]

Includovate is a research incubator and social enterprise that designs solutions to tackle inequality and exclusion across a range of thematic areas by decolonising research for development. Includovate was established to address an identified gap in the market: namely, the need for effective, participatory and innovative methodologies to understand the root causes of social exclusion and to develop change processes, to support organisations, sectors and communities to tackle these challenges. Includovate specialises in capacity building and participatory methods. Includovate has carried out a number of assignments in the Asia and the Pacific region, including for UNIDO Cambodia, UNICEF Thailand, UNICEF Maldives, UNICEF East Asia, Plan International APEC, UNICEF’s Pacific Regional Office, Laos and WorldFish Myanmar. 

Includovate contributes to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to fulfilling the Agenda 2030’s universal pledge to leave no one behind by ensuring marginalised groups participate in the monitoring, evaluation and research associated with international development. Includovate believes in designing interventions and using evidence to reshape the social, political, economic, and environmental systems that perpetuate injustice. We are 100% female owned and operated. We are a networked organisation that includes a wide spectrum of groups and individuals: persons with disabilities, new to the workforce and those with decades of experience – because we believe that knowledge creation in needs to be locally-led and involve diverse people from low-income countries to make the solutions more sustainable (see Annex 1 for Includovate’s profile). We have a pool of researchers around the world, which is key to making interactions with clients over different time zones.

Includovate believes in South-South collaboration, inclusion and capacity building and our team mirrors these values. Our team leader and quality controller, Dr Kristie, was DFAT’s gender adviser for the Pacific Branch and is Includovate’s founder. She is an expert on feminist research and leadership with extensive experience working with a variety of civil society representatives and populations, including diverse groups of women. She holds a masters degree in participatory approaches and a PhD in social inclusion. Our assistant team leader, Dr Sujata,  is based in India and has led studies on women’s leadership and empowerment and developed materials and guides on gender equality and social inclusion (GESI). Our feminist youth research assistant, Ethiopia Lemma, is based in Ethiopia and has delivered participatory training workshops on gender equality for UNICEF and has demonstrated experience in young women’s leadership and civil society engagement. Our partnerships and communications associate, Ms Loudia, is based in Indonesia and has experience working in the international development sector, developing communications materials, campaigns and visually appealing reports and working with different online platforms and the latest communication technologies. 

As a feminist social research enterprise that specialises in gender, disability and youth, we are in a terrific position to effectively respond to the needs of this assignment and are excited to begin. Includovate has extensive experience developing toolkits, action plans and methodologies/ strategies as well as undertaking gender research. We are highly skilled in carrying out vast literature reviews for different purposes, including triangulating empirical data, developing strategies, toolkits, etc., virtual data gathering and conducting workshops while engaging participants. We have vast experiences in producing concise policy and thematic briefs as well as visually appealing infographic summaries and video animations. We welcome the opportunity to support World YWCA in strengthening allyship and the environment to support Young Women Leaders in the Rise Up! Phase IV in Asia and the Pacific by producing an Evidence-Based Intergenerational Leadership Guide/Tool – a topic that aligns with our passion, experience and expertise. 

 

Required skills and experiences with examples of previous research/report 

[An example to be adapted]

Category	Required experiences  [based on the required experiences in the ToR]	Sample projects and experiences
Thematic and sectoral	Proven, solid experience and competency (submit at least three previous evaluation reports in application) in leading and conducting project/programme evaluations in this thematic area, including final evaluations, in complex and sensitive environments	Evaluation of the Single Parent and Foster Care Social Protection Schemes in the Maldives to inform the progress made in implementing the Single Parent and Foster Care schemes; identify the challenges faced by children in the Maldives and how they can be addressed; assess how the programmes can be scaled up or coverage increased; and enhance partnerships and leverage more funding for child sensitive social protection.  UNIDO’s Policy Assessment for the Economic Empowerment of Women in Green Industry in Cambodia, Peru, Senegal and South Africa. Methods: The assessment included desk review (including feminist critical policy analysis), 103 online survey responses, 120 key informant interviews and 12 focus group discussions. UNICEF Thailand’s Strategic Positioning and Partnerships  evaluation. The programme looked at child and adolescent development and participation; child protection; inclusive social policy and child-sensitive social protection; and overall programme effectiveness. Methods: The evaluation included desk review (literature review and documentation analysis), stakeholder mapping/analysis, 59 online perception survey responses, 64 semi-structured interviews and 10 focus group discussions.
	Understanding of child rights and issues affecting vulnerable children and their families working experience in Ethiopia and Uganda	UNICEF Ethiopia To develop a standardised approach (including methodology and procedural guidance) for the rapid assessment of solutions (RAA) programmatically focusing on “learning to earning”, i.e. youth education, skills development, entrepreneurship, school-to-work transitions and employment/job creation to determine its merit and possibility for replication and scale up in Ethiopia, the Eastern and Southern African region and globally. Methods: The study used a Human-Centred Design Approach that included 34 interviews (Youth (3), Youth Influences (4), Community Stakeholders (8), The Government of Ethiopia (3) – regional reps, UNICEF/Multilateral partners (16)).  Mercy Corps Restoring Ecological Vitality in Vulnerable Ecosystems (REVIVE) project in Uganda to support the flow of finance, skills, and knowledge to allow small and medium farmer communities to become the stewards of their own ecosystems, to ensure commercial viability of these ecosystems and to design incentives that will work to restore and protect them at watershed/landscape levels. Methods: The study included 7 in-depth surveys, 10 key informant interviews, 4 focus group discussions. Additionally, 1 mobility map was also created.
Methodological	Experience with participatory research approaches	Plan International’s Production of a Regional Toolkit for Practitioners on Accelerating Efforts to Eliminate Child, Early and Forced Marriage in Asia Pacific employed feminist participatory action research to generate data for the production of toolkit for practitioners.  UNICEF’s Situational Analysis of Children and Young People with Disabilities in Tanzania consisted of planned participatory FGDs that included engaging children through drawing, using images to identify feelings about different places and people in their communities. UNICEF’s Rights, Education, Accessibility and Protection (REAP) II Evaluation used mentimeter to engage participants in identifying and classifying outcomes as part of Outcome Harvesting Methodology.  Mercy Corps’s Restoring Ecological Vitality in Vulnerable Ecosystems (REVIVE) project in Uganda, developed mobility maps with illiterate women to understand their safe places, their most frequented spaces and travelled routes. WorldFish’s Methodology and Collaborative Study to Understand Women’s Empowerment in Small-scale Fisheries Value Chains in Myanmar, we developed participatory market assessments through transact walks and community diagrams. ACDI/VOCA’s Gender, Youth, and Social Inclusion Analysis study in Mozambique, used ranking activities to understand preferences of women, youth and people with disabilities. The study informs current livelihood opportunities, constraints, risk of exclusion, and opportunities for empowerment for women, youth, and other marginalised social groups, including internally displaced populations and people with disabilities.  We often use liberating structures in workshops to engage all participants and flatten the power in the room.  For Light For the World and UNICEF we held theory of change and online workshops using miro boards and breakout rooms to get partners to critically engage with the findings and reflect on what was learnt.
	Experience in designing data collection tools with a particular focus on children and young people in low-and-middle-income countries	Women Gaining Ground’s Baseline assessment of a programme focused on capacity building and the transformative political leadership of young women and girls and young women with disabilities in 5 countries – India, Bangladesh, Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda. Methods: The assessment included desk review, 86 online survey responses, 25 key informant interviews and 25 focus group discussions. See project experience table below for more details.  Includovate offers rigorous and strict quality standards and quality assurance mechanism with peer review, outstanding quality supervisors, to make sure that each of the deliverables before presented to clients will be reviewed and edited.
	Experience with mixed-methods data collection and analysis, incl. coding and report writing (including editing, proofreading and referencing)
Project management	Strong experience in project management including data collection in different contexts	In terms of programme management and quality control, Includovate has competent and enthusiastic programme managers responsible for coordinating and managing the implementation of projects from inception to close – out. To optimise efficiency and effectiveness, we use monday.com and have a range of templates and quality checks, including auditing and internal control, together with up – to – date financial policies.
Ethics	Strong understanding of safeguarding and research ethics	Includovate ensures research quality, as well as the safety of our researchers and respondents. We have an Institutional Review Board (IRB) with a mix of disciplines and nationalities that clear all our research. For our ethical and data safe data collection, we also implement a confidential information protection process. We always use informed consent. Includovate also takes safeguarding seriously. For more details, see section on Ethics and Safeguarding.  To recruit children for the study, Includovate will ensure to secure the consent of the families/carers and the assent of children. The country researchers, though already seasoned, will undergo pre-data collection training that will emphasise their obligation to fully adhere to research ethics and standards as well as safeguarding standards.

Background

Add intro here

<ADD INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSAL> Add text here.“We incubate solutions for measuring, studying and changing discriminatory norms”

This is a heading of 14 Point:

• Fact Number One:

Add text here

• Fact Number Two:

Add text here

• Fact Number Three:

Add text here

 

Includovate’s Understanding

 

Our Approach and Methodology

<ADD DETAILED APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY> Add text here

 

Methodology

The main purpose of the <ADD INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSAL> Add text here. 

 

Includovate will adopt [mixed research methods (qualitative and quantitative)] for its data collection and analysis. This will help to [triangulate the data collected] and to ensure that reliable research findings can be obtained. Methodological rigour and report quality will be ensured by paying close attention to detail and design, and through our peer review process which includes the IRB review and an in-house editor. A detailed methodology will be developed in consultation with the [client] during the inception phase. For now, the below is a preliminary overview of our proposed methodology which utilises multiple and high-quality data collection and analysis methods with a range of stakeholders in order to facilitate the triangulation of data.

[From the ToR if required – The evaluation will be conducted in line with UNEG Norms and Standards and Ethical Guidelines, as well as to the UNICEF’s Evaluation Policy, the UNEG Guidance on Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation, the UN SWAP Evaluation Performance Indicator, and the UNICEF Procedure for Ethical Standards in Research, Evaluation and Data Collection and Analysis and UNICEF’s Evaluation Reporting Standards.]

Geographical scope: [from the ToR].

Phase 1 Inception 

Includovate will work closely with the client to finalise the research design, tools, consent forms, and analytical framework. In this inception phase, Includovate will involve various stakeholders to ensure a participatory and consultative process. This inception phase will also include reviewing and refining the evaluation question in the ToR with the client. 

 

A one hour online Kick-off workshop will be conducted using powerpoint to get some preliminary feedback on the approach, understand the local context and challenges faced and some of the key issues of concern to the client. 

Box 1: Participatory approach Throughout any workshops or group discussions, Includovate will employ participatory techniques in which the learning derives from the participants themselves rather than from an instructor. Liberating structures are designed to maximise participation, inclusion and co-creation and are suitable for this assignment and Includovate has experience using these approaches in workshops. Includovate loves working with participatory research methods because they help participants to reflect on their world with new eyes; build empathy, agency and confidence; and set their own pace and direction for change. These approaches can help in creating an atmosphere of trust, belongingness (ownership), and growth that facilitates institutions and individuals to reflect on their roles as key actors, power holders and duty bearers within the systems that they operate; sustainability, facilitating buy in, and further use of the evaluation recommendations.

 

Desk review: [what will be achieved?] [How will the desk review be done?] [what will be the selection criteria?].

Criteria will be developed for the type of sources to be included in the desk-based research and will guide the selection of key documents to be included in the review. Exhaustive selection criteria will be developed as part of an initial kick-off meeting with the [client] to select and assess the documents.

The information from the desk review will be used to: (1) understand the target population of the study; (2) understand the project context in which the study is taking place; (3) gather data to shape the focus of the data collection so that it does not repeat what is already known, but instead digs deeper into issues, patterns, and activities; (4) assist in framing and triangulating the data collected. 

 

Inception report: The inception report (with feedback matrix) will be (10-15 pages without annexes) based on the ADA Guidelines for Programme and Project Evaluations (Annex 5). The inception report will follow Includovate’s IRB application template detailing the objective and purpose of the evaluation, research design, ethics protocols, tools, and consent forms. The document will need to be reviewed and approved by the client before it is submitted to the IRB for clearance. The data collection will commence only after ethics clearance. 

 

Table 1: Activities in the inception phase

Activity

Kick-off workshop

Desk review

Draft inception report

Inclusion of comments in inception report and submission of final inception report/IRB clearance

 

Phase 2 Data collection and analysis

Tool translation and testing: To begin with, Includovate will ensure the translated tools are communicated back into English to ensure robust translation and consistent meaning. Any words that require cultural nuance will be discussed and examples included (if necessary) for comprehension. There is always a risk that slight interpretation can creep into the data collection in the way questions are asked and the examples given, along with probing questions. We will pilot and test the translated tools to ensure local comprehension and then collectively agree to adapt/finalise the tools based on testing. 

 

Tool training: Includovate will train the research team on research ethics, the difference between probing and leading questions, gender, youth and disability inclusion, ways to build rapport and ensure power and bias do not enter the study. We will then train the enumerators on the data collection tools and study purpose. The research team will also go through ethics and safeguarding training. 

 

Recruitment of participants:  Purposive sampling will be used. National or location level staff (SOS) will be available at site to help organise the interviews including contacting SOS, announcement and local preparation of evaluation, linking to community duty bearers and national authorities. To maintain independence, Includovate will get a long list of potential respondents from SoS and will then set inclusion and exclusion criteria to develop a short list. This will consider intersectional categories and ensure diversity of respondents. The data collection will ensure that male and female, and all respondents in all their diversity get equal opportunity to voice their views and that the settings will be designed to create safe spaces to encourage women, men, boys and girls, people with disabilities, and of all origins to respond freely. Additionally, snowball sampling will be used to ask the respondents to help identify other knowledgeable individuals for an interview. 

 

Primary data collection: a) Interviews with Key informants and research participants from  [from the ToR]; b) Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with research participants  [from the ToR]; and c) An online anonymous quantitative survey addressed to a [from the ToR]. 

[Who the respondents will be for each method?] [How many participants will be interviewed?] [What objective will these different methods serve to attain the overall objective of the ToR?]

FGDs are a way to enable time for reflection and real-time feedback/discussion. The FGDs will be participatory and will use ranking exercises to ensure everyone participates. These will enable reflection and discussion on the pros and cons/merits of different aspects of the programme. These will not be held to reach a consensus, but rather will be used to gather rich data on why certain programme aspects were more successful than others. As children are involved, we will use drawing activities, pictures and puppets which we found enabled Children and Young People with Disabilities to open up in Tanzania.

The key informant interviews and FGDs will be conducted online using Zoom or Google Meet depending on the convenience of the participants. Prior consent will be obtained from the participants regarding the interviews as well as to audio record the interviews. The interviews (key informant interviews, FGDs) will later be transcribed. NVivo software will be used to analyse the qualitative data if necessary.

SoGoSurvey platform will be used for the online quantitative survey and high response rate will be ensured by continuous follow-up with the survey respondents. The questionnaire will be kept short with dichotomous or multiple-choice questions engaging the respondents for not more than 30 minutes. The data will be analysed using STATA. If required, the data can be shared with the client in Excel format.

[What will be Includovate’s USP in terms of research approaches?] [How will we ensure an inclusive approach in our research design?]

[other methods may include (but not limited to) outcome harvesting, stakeholder analysis/mapping, perception survey, KAP survey, situation analysis, barrier analysis, power analysis, discourse analysis, develop case studies, ToC workshop etc.]

Compensation: No financial incentives or payments will be made to participants in exchange for their time or participation in the study. We normally don’t compensate (beyond covering any associated costs). This will be included in the consent forms and will be further explained to the participants before the interviews (during the scheduling process). However, reasonable accommodations (interpreters, transport cost, small stipend) will be provided for those with disabilities. 

Ethics: Includovate takes safeguarding seriously. We pride ourselves on upholding the highest regard for ethics throughout our projects. Further, we have a data privacy policy which can be found on our website. The evaluation design will also follow ethical guidelines (e.g. UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluations) and ensure that measures are in place to fulfil data protection and privacy. Includovate has an agile, responsive and hands-on Safeguarding Committee that oversees Includovate’s efforts aimed at ensuring that those working for, or otherwise coming into contact with, the organisation are not harmed in any way. Regular check-ins by the team leader will be performed to ensure the team can raise any concerns. Includovate will not be biased and have any reason for conflict of interests; respect participating communities’ culture, social norms, values and behaviour; maintain appropriate relationships with participants in this evaluation and keep private information about beneficiaries, acquired during the evaluation, strictly confidential.  

 

Videos/Photo consent forms: Enumerators will take pictures of the interview process. The team will seek verbal consent to take pictures of the participants and explain that their pictures might appear in a publication but it will only be their back side where no one will be able to recognise their face. If there is a need for the faces to appear, then the participants have to sign a separate written consent allowing their pictures to be used in the report.

 

Data analysis: Includovate will undertake a thorough synthesis and analysis of all the qualitative and quantitative data/information gathered from documentation and desk review. Insights collected will be organised in a spreadsheet to map the evidence for each result area. Specifically, the analysis will aim ​​to establish the level of achievement of specific objectives, results and outcomes/outputs as per Logframe taking into account the specific purpose, objectives, core thematic areas and prioritised OECD/DAC criteria, including the specific evaluation questions. 

 

Descriptive Analysis for the online survey components. The quantitative data will come from the online survey which has a low sample size, and with only one or two variables needing to be compared at a time. Consequently, descriptive analysis will be used (Mean: numerical average of a set of values. Median: midpoint of a set of numerical values. Mode: most common value among a set of values. Percentage: used to express how a value or group of respondents within the data relates to a larger group of respondents. Frequency: the number of times a value is found. Range: the highest and lowest value in a set of values). These forms of analysis can be generated through the SoGoSurvey software reporting function. However, if other forms of analysis will be needed to make sense of the results, the data can be analysed using STATA.

Data triangulation: The multiple lines and levels of evidence will be used to triangulate the results. Group calls will be held with all researchers, as well as a separate weekly/monthly calls between the core evaluation team (these will serve an analytical purpose as well as a quality control). Information from the surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, case studies and community change workshops will be compared with the programme documents/desk review to triangulate findings across data sources and identify gaps and assess the strength of the evidence using rubrics. This will enable the reader to form their own opinion on whether the evidence is strong enough to support the claims made.

 

Table 2: Sample distribution [example – to be adapted according to the ToR requirement]

	Key informant interviews		Focus group discussions		Online quantitative survey
Categories	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men
Jordan	10	5	2	2	35	35
Lebanon	10	5	2	2	35	35
Occupied Palestinian territories	10	5	2	2	35	35
Tunisia	10	5	2	2	35	35

 

Table 2a: Sample distribution [example – to be adapted according to the ToR requirement]

	Key informant interviews		Focus group discussions		Online survey
	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men
Young	4	2	1	1	14	14
Older	4	2	1	1	14	14
Government	4	2	1	1	14	14
Civil society	4	2	1	1	14	14
Private sector	4	2	1	1	14	14
Implementing partners	4	2	1	1	14	14
General Assembly	4	2			14	14
Steering committee	4	2			14	14
Women’s Rights Organisations	4	2	2	1	14	14
Others (Ad hoc /Think tanks)	4	2		1	14	14
Total	40	20	8 (40)	8 (40)	140	140

 

Table 3: Summary of data collection plan [example – to be adapted according to the ToR requirement]

 

Categories	Research participants	Sample selection	Sample size
Key informant interviews	Interviews with key stakeholders including young women, government offices, civil societies, private sector representatives, etc. local implementing partners and others.  General Assembly, Steering Committee, Ad hoc Technical Think tanks and the Partner Organisations (40 Women’s Rights Organisations) will be ensured to be interviewed as well.	In consultation with the consortium, we will prepare an inventory and will approach the relevant stakeholders through the consortium. Relevant selection criteria developed in consultation with the consortium will be used to select the research participants from the inventory.   Consent will be sought from all participants.	60
Focus group discussions			16
Online quantitative survey			280

 

[Try not to keep large sample size unless and until required]

 

Table 4: Methodological limitations [example – to be adapted according to the ToR requirement]

 

Method	Limitation	Mitigation
Key informant interviews	Conducting remotely via digital means can reduce reliability of the data.	Use varied methods and triangulate the data where possible. Employ Arabic  speakers to ensure local language skills.
Focus group discussions	Social distancing measures in place.	Hold mini FGDs online to gather rich quotes.
Remote interviews using technological means (in general)	The safeguarding risk and ethics of not being able to control who else is in the room.	Always use informed consent statements and ask the respondent to move to a private room for the interview, if possible.
Online quantitative survey	Challenging  to obtain a high participation rate.	We will collect emails for direct targeting, send auto reminders and ask the client to help remind people to complete. The survey will be translated into local languages to encourage participation.

 

Table 5: Baseline information to be collected on the following indicators [example – to be adapted according to the ToR requirement]

 

Indicator	Data Source	Collection methods	Analysis procedure
# of laws, policies and strategies blocked, adopted or improved to promote WER, WEE.	Secondary data to identify the laws, policies and strategies but primary data may be needed to understand if blocked and why	Literature/document review.  FGDs with women’s rights organisations.	A coding tree for the literature will be developed and the document will be coded in Nvivo or in Excel.
# of times that young women and WRO succeed in creating space for WRO demands and positions on women’s  economic rights, empowerment and entrepreneurship, through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or  movement building.	Primary data collection and existing movements/ mechanisms mapped.	KIIs, FGDs and online quantitative surveys.	As there are multiple components included in one indicator – demand, women’s  economic rights, entrepreneurship – agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or movement building; these components will be explored in detail to understand the pathway individually and collectively.
Significant changes of young women and WROs reflect increased sense of well-being and security that contribute  to mobilization and advocacy agenda setting.	Primary data collection.	FGDs. KIIs (for case studies) and online quantitative surveys.	Decode ‘changes’, ‘well-being’ and ‘security’.  This indicator will also consider the barriers and opportunities contributing to the changes.  Develop case studies.
Significant changes within Technical Think Tanks, General Assembly, networks and WROs on innovative and  inclusive leadership and advocacy strategies / missions.	Primary data collection.	KIIs and online quantitative surveys.	This indicator will also consider the barriers and opportunities contributing to the changes in addition to understanding the systemic discrimination.  Institutional case studies.
# of young women and WROs that have increased capacity to monitor gendered resistance, advocate strategically  for E/GBV and mobilise communities and alliances.	Primary data collection.	FGDs and online quantitative surveys.	A bottom-up-approach to understand how the indicator was achieved and to what extent.
# of gender-responsive accountability mechanisms established among targeted duty-bearers and private sector and on-going.	Primary data collection.	KIIs and online quantitative surveys.	This indicator will be graphically presented to understand the gender-responsive accountability mechanisms – considering the time frame, responsibilities, type of partner etc.  Gender power relations will also be explored.

 

Table 6: Activities in data collection phase

Activity

Research, ethics and safeguarding training of data collection teams

Tool training

Tool translation and testing

Data collection

Transcribe and translate data

Data analysis including developing case studies

 

Phase 3 Report Write Up

Findings of the study will be documented in a written report highlighting the main findings of the assignment, the methodology used, data sources, limitations, references, and any other information that will be necessary to substantiate the validity and quality of the findings. The report will identify successes and challenges, gaps and good practices, lessons and recommendations that can inform quality improvement and scale up, especially of the innovation incubator. The report will provide strong evidence of achievement against the key evaluation questions, and identify problems and opportunities in the GREEN+ project in Uganda and Ethiopia and the Umbrella component. The recommendations will be written to maximise learning and inform the next phase of the project considering the core thematic interests of GREEN+ green economy, gender equality, child protection, innovation incubator for Green economy and youth empowerment and capacity building. The evaluation report (about 25-30 pages without annexes) will be in line with the respective quality check-lists included in the Guidelines (Annex 6). The ADA Results Assessment Form (RAF) for this evaluation (Annex 9, ADA Guidelines for Programme and Project Evaluations) will be completed and submitted together with the draft evaluation report.  The final evaluation report will be submitted with a feedback matrix.

 

Validation workshop: The validation workshop will be conducted online with all key stakeholders. It provides an opportunity for key stakeholders to validate the main findings and provide strategic advice on the final deliverable. This workshop will focus on country level plus high level across country findings. The findings and recommendations will be ranked by those in the workshop according to their agreement. This ranking will be put into an annex in the final report.

 

Table 7: Activities in report writeup phase

Activity

Draft Evaluation Report

Presentation of the evaluation’s preliminary findings at a Validation Workshop

The ADA Results Assessment Form

Final Evaluation report with the feedback matrix

Deliverables [example – to be adapted according to the ToR requirement]

Deliverable #1 Inception report 

An inception report will be prepared which responds to the scope of work by adding any further detail or clarification regarding the study approach, method, or implementation arrangements as per the ToR. This will be a detailed description of the baseline assessment, including the overall design, sampling framework, data collection tools, data sources, data analysis plan, quality assurance criteria, limitations, and a work plan for the implementation of the assessment.

 

Deliverable #2 Research report 

Findings of the baseline assessment will be documented in a written report highlighting the main findings of the assessment, the methodology used, data sources, limitations, references, and any other information that will be necessary to substantiate the validity and quality of the baseline findings. The findings and recommendations will also be broken down and be specific to the countries targeted by the data collection in addition to providing a regional perspective. 

 

Report will be around 40 pages in length, excluding annexes. The draft report will go through one round of feedback from the client. 

Deliverable #3 Summary of the final report

Summary of the final report in an accessible and inclusive language (max 5 pages) targeting stakeholders from different backgrounds (simple and straightforward).

 

Deliverable #4 Workshop

2 hours online workshop to present the baseline to the Consortium stakeholders (max 20 pax). 

 

List of Deliverables	Description	Payment Associated	Delivery Date
Deliverable #1	Sample	30%	01 / 05 / 2020
Deliverable #2	Sample	20%	13 / 05 / 2020
Deliverable #3	Sample	30%	20 / 05 / 2020
Deliverable #4	Sample		09 / 06 / 2020
Final Deliverable	Sample	20%	28 / 08 / 2020

 

Visuals (editable documents) 

[DELETE AFTER SELECTING THE ONES YOU NEED]

List of diagrams are also available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c47uSFdDatzTB2TKOdcW64ezkmk9aePAFpkzHcIAvFU/edit?usp=sharing 

Clients work

• Overlapping core values UNICEF and Includovate
• Opportunity Cost versus Direct cost children with disabilities WGG
• SVRI Research Grant infographics
• Infographic SitAn Malawi
• Responsive caregiving
• Inclusive education, training, hiring and consumer markets – flow
• 4 outcomes tied together
• Objective, Scope Evaluation and Research Questions
• Quality child protection service
• Cover Uganda Country Report WGG
• Opportunity Cost
• Extra cost of disability WGG
• IDENTIFICATION by self, community or family
• The Constitution of the FDRE
• WoWCY case flow
• Lifecycle approach flow
• Inputs, inmediate and longerm outcomes
• TaRL teams and Classroom
• Crosscutting issues

Comms work

• Human-Rights based approach, circles
• Human Rights Based Approach, columns
• Social norms investigation flow
• IRB Research Application flow
• Catalysing growth in SGBs
• Adapt, Respond, Adopt, Expand
• Qualities of an individual (religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.)
• Holistic social protection system
• Safeguarding, whistleblowing, risk management, etc.
• Twin-track approach
• Theory of Change, Flow
• How/In order to: build the capacity of researchers that live in low-income countries 
• Design/outcome the harvest, flow
• Structural, relational, transformative change
• Create with Includovate, 2D animated video proposal
• Assessment, case review, case planning and implementation _ flow
• Intellectual Property Rights. Template
• Create with Includovate, Infographics template for pricing
• Theory of Change flow, Includovate
• Identify main indicators for analysis:_ flow
• Exploration, interpretation, communication phase
• Early childhood, school age, youth, working age and old age: visual
• Infographic Systematic Literature Review
• social media: what is Includovate
• Cover for manual for Gender-Inclusive Language, Canva edit
• Lead for equality and transformation
• Gender outcome goal
• Empower + Advocate
• Gender equality versus Equity
• HRBA principles circles small
• The global evaluation ecosystem
• Challenges of conventional evaluation paradigms
• Number of people included in shaping next steps
• ToC Flow Includovate
• Rights of children and youth
• How ToC works with outcome harvesting. Diagram
• ToC March 29th Includovate
• Duty-bearers
• Relevance, coherence, sustainability, efficiency, effectiveness
• Human Rights Instruments, Intersectional lens
• Template for Thank You certificate
• Visuals core values Includovate
• Capacity Wheel JB
• New version Capacity Wheel Includovate
• Design Thinking
• Problem framing
• Start of template Annual Report
• social media post product: IRB
• Social media post product: animated videos

Timeline

*this is only a sample timeline, please feel free to copy paste from excel template

TASK	Number of days						Week beginning
	x	y	z	a	b	c
Kick-off meeting	0.50	0.50	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Fortnightly meetings	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	0.00
Finalise plan	1.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.00	0.00			▼
Literature review	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.00
Finalse framework	0.50	0.00	0.00	3.00	0.00	1.00									▼
Finalise Data collection	1.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	0.00
IRB clearance	3.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00											▼
Online survey open period	0.00	1.00	2.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Conducting Interviews	1.00	4.50	3.00	1.50	4.50	0.00																		▼

Budget

*this is only a sample budget, please feel free to copy paste from excel template

Item	Unit	Unit price(USD)	No. Units	No. of people(if relevant)	Sub total(USD)
Team 1	Per day	$245.00	17.5	1	$ 4,287.50
Team 2	Per day	$245.00	22.0	1	$ 5,390.00
				Sub total	$ 9,677.50
Management Fee	Percentage	10%	N/A	N/A	$   448.04
Value Added Tax(TAX)	Percentage	15.0%	N/A	N/A	$  1,560.67
				Grand total (USD)	USD 11,965.15
				Grand Total(ETB)	ETB 440,556.89
				Grand Total(EUR)	EUR 10,170.38

Assumptions

Proposed Team

 

Marc Jacobs

Group Head – Research Division

There are many variations of passages of Lorem Ipsum available, but the majority have suffered alteration in some form, by injected humour, or randomised words which don’t look even slightly believable.

Projects:

• Fifth Curabitur a urna ac quam dictum ultrices
• Interdum et malesada fames ac ante ipsum primis
• Nullam sodales magna interdum dignissim justo
• Praesent vulputate non massa
• Nam facilisis eros quis ex porttitor metus aliquam
• Faucibus nullam sodales magna interdum 
• Eusmod nisl id dignissim est tempus id a justo

 

Katherine Newmann

Group Head – Strategic Development

There are many variations of passages of Lorem Ipsum available, but the majority have suffered alteration in some form.

Projects:

• Fifth Curabitur a urna ac quam dictum ultrices
• Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis
• Nullam sodales magna interdum dignissim justo
• Praesent vulputate non massa

 

Team Organisation

Please add structure by double clicking below. Please note all diagrams in this document are editable. Make sure you include a description of the duties/responsibilities of each team member below.

The Team Leader (TL): will provide overall leadership for the evaluation and will finalise the evaluation design, including the development of all tools/instruments. She will lead the preparation and presentation of the key evaluation findings and recommendations and will train all the in-country researchers to ensure they are well versed with the instruments and overall purpose of each phase of the project. The TL will ensure adherence to ethical standards (e.g., confidentiality of data) during all phases of the evaluation. The TL will consolidate individual input from team members, and coordinate the process of assembling the final findings and recommendations into a high-quality document and will co-presenting findings at workshops.

The Assistant Team Leader (ATL): Will support the TL as needed and ensure all team members understand their tasks. The ATL will develop data management procedures and tools (e.g., database) and will ensure the coding, entering, cleaning and analysing of data is done robustly and consistently. The ATL will quality check all reports before the TL reviews and will assist in co-presenting findings at workshops.

The in-country researchers: Interview programme staff and participants, conducting focus groups and workshops, observe service delivery activities, develop case studies, coding, entering, cleaning and analysing data, review final reports for cultural nuances and to remove any biases and assist in co-presenting findings at workshops.

Programme manager (PM): is the glue that ensures the evaluation runs according to plan and meets the deliverables on time and budget. They lead the administrative responsibilities (e.g. coordinate activities, arrange periodic meetings, set interview appointments, arrange transport and venue) and helps with problem-solving where needed. The PM ensures that all members of the evaluation team have access to all relevant project documents and stakeholders involved in the evaluation. 

Research assistants: help with coding, transcription and using software for analysis.

Appendix x: More about Includovate

 

Includovate is a research incubator that designs solutions for inequality and exclusion. As a social enterprise, Includovate invests most of its profits in independent research and capacity building. We are self-sustaining as we use funds from the consulting arm of the business to build the capacity of local researchers (Fig 1). We believe that knowledge creation in developing countries needs to be locally led and involve people from low-income countries in the design, data collection, analysis, and publication. Our model involves pairing researchers from the Global North to researchers from the Global South for knowledge exchange. Includovate builds the capacity of local researchers to lead, publish, and improve the quality of research carried out in developing countries. 

 

Figure 1. Includovate’s approach

 

Includovate’s global approach is a departure from the systems that perpetuate inequality and discrimination. Includovate believes in designing interventions and using research to reshape the social, political, economic, and environmental systems that create injustice. We deliver robust research, conduct evaluations, and build capacity for gender equality and social inclusion research and practice. We are also experienced in literature reviews and the collection of ethically sound data. Includovate leads the way in using emerging methodologies and innovative practices.

 

Quality Assurance

Includovate maintains a high standard in every aspect of our work. We can assure high quality deliverables since all reports and written submissions go through in-house editorial review,  peer review, and quality control checks before deliverables have been  finalised. Consistency and continuity are ensured by our dedicated staff.

 

We have an organisational structure in which all our researchers have someone to refer to for questions or doubts and use an internal system to share thoughts and reach out to a variety of experts if a staff member needs particular assistance. This creates a collaborative environment, strengthening the work of our researchers. We also have a global network who can assist if projects have been delayed. We are able to adapt to challenging situations. For example, we have conducted online validation workshops with real-time polling and feedback from the audience. We are also able to continue collecting data during the COVID-19 pandemic using remote and technologically sophisticated means of data collection. Thus, we can guarantee quality solutions and innovative alternatives when needed.

 

Ethics and Safeguarding 

Includovate ensures research quality, as well as the safety of our researchers and respondents. We have an Institutional Ethical Review Board with a mix of disciplines and nationalities that clear all our research. For our ethical and safe data collection, we also implement a confidential data storage process. We upload documents to a cloud for easy access for stakeholders in various geographies, and then only share the folder with the necessary researchers for data coding and analysis. We always use informed consent.

 

Includovate takes safeguarding seriously. All our researchers are trained in child protection, as well as sexual abuse and exploitation, and sign our policies for compliance. Our data privacy policy can be found on our website. Includovate has an agile, responsive and hands-on Safeguarding Committee that oversees Includovate’s efforts aimed at ensuring that those working for, or otherwise coming into contact with, the organisation are not harmed in any way. This includes providing tailored and hands-on guidance and support to Programme Managers and researchers in relation to safeguarding, including but not limited to field research and in the engagement of subcontractors. Moreover, we do not involve ourselves with fossil fuels or industries that produce unhealthy products, such as junk food and tobacco.

Project Experience

*remove the projects that are not relevant to your ToR/RFP. Only have max 6 examples – should not go over 1 page

 

Client	Study description	Location
ACDI VOCA	Title: Gender Youth and Social Inclusion (GYSI) Analysis in Mozambique.  Budget: US$56,791 Methods: 11 focus group discussions, 11 semi-structured interviews, 5 in-depth interviews per district. 7 districts completed across two provinces.	Mozambique
Africa Action	Title: Feasibility study for the multi-country project on inclusive, equitable and quality education. Budget: US$29,300 Methods: 44 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) (14 KIIs in Ethiopia, 15 in Burkina Faso, 11 in Niger and four in Head Quarter ). 11 SWOT analysis with implementing partners at all levels (3 in Ethiopia, 5 in Burkina Faso, and 2 in Niger) and 2 in Head Quarters; and 33 stakeholder mapping (20 in Ethiopia, 6 in Burkina Faso, and 7 in Niger). Reference: Martin Agsten, project officer, [email protected]	Burkina Faso, Ethiopia and Niger
Austrian Development Agency (ADA)	Title: Disability Inclusive Social Protection Response to COVID-19 Crisis: Data Collection and Compilation Report Budget: ​​US$12,968 Methods: A total of 62 relevant documents were identified and coded as a part of the study. 24 key informant interviews were conducted with different stakeholders at the federal, regional and woreda levels as well as with NGOs and OPDs. Primary data was collected through KIIs, observations and a structured questionnaire. National documents and resources on social protection and COVID, including policies, strategic documents, published literature and online sources were reviewed. Data from all sources were thematically analysed to support in-depth analysis. Reference: Shitaye Astawes, Programme Manager, [email protected]	Ethiopia
Better Cotton Initiative (BCI)	Title: Measuring Behaviour Change – Approaches and Evaluation Methods Budget: US$19,859 Methods: Includovate developed quantitative and qualitative methods for the BCI MEL team to measure farmers’ knowledge and attitudes regarding BCI principles and criteria, the extent to which farmers adopt, promoted environmental, social and economic behaviours, and to identify critical barriers that intervene in farmers’ behaviour change. Reference: Hayley Morgan, Senior Global Programme Coordinator, [email protected]	Global
Better Cotton Initiative (BCI)	Title: Women Field Staff needs assessment and baseline empowerment Study.  Budget: US$47,565 ​​​​Methods: Desk Review, 35 key informant interviews, 13 focus group discussions, – Online survey – 198	India, Pakistan, Mali
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation	Title: Assessment of Women’s Financial Inclusion in Ethiopia  Budget US$125,026 Methods: Documentation review, quantitative secondary data analysis, 132 key informant interviews, 60 focus group discussions in 10 regions of Ethiopia.The outcome was a practical list of initiatives and a detailed implementation plan to address supply and demand-side barriers to women’s financial inclusion in Ethiopia. Reference: Nancy Kiarie, Digital Payments and Gender Specialist <[email protected]> & Shirley Mburu <[email protected]>	Ethiopia
BRAC International	Title: Country landscape analysis for scaling extreme poverty programmes and policies Budget: US$12,817 Methods: Literature review, 2 virtual focus group discussions, 16 virtual key informant interviews, political analysis, policy analysis	Ethiopia
CARE and DFID	Title: Review of the national women’s policy in Ethiopia. Budget: US$686,583 Conducted nationwide qualitative consultation, literature review and two political economy analysis. Consultations with government and gender budget analysis. Researchers used 4 methods to collect data in 68 woredas, across 10 regional states and two city administrations. Key informant interviews (KIIs) with institutional representatives, in-depth individual interviews (IDIs) with community members, small group discussions (SGDs), including both single-sex and mixed-sex groups, with community members, and, case studies of projects and programmes targeting women and girls and addressing gender inequality to showcase successful local initiatives and highlight promising practices that could be replicated. Methods: 637 key informant interviews, 717 focus group discussion, 1697 in-depth interviews, 6 community conversations.  Published reports: CONSOLIDATED REPORT – REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL POLICY ON ETHIOPIAN WOMEN Reference: Misrach Mekonnen, Project Manager, [email protected]	Ethiopia
DAI Europe Ltd.	Women’s livelihood in refugee communities research. Budget US$ 2052.75 As a part of the Strengthening Host and Refugee Populations in Ethiopia (SHARPE) programme, conducted research on gender dynamics of the local livelihood sectors: crop production, horticulture and poultry, livestock, fisheries plus access to finance and gender dimensions of the jobs/labour market in Gambella.	Ethiopia
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Australia (DFAT)	Market system programme research and advise to DFAT for the Market Systems Development Facility	Sri Lanka, Fiji, PNG
Digital Opportunity Trust (DOT)	Includovate provided research in technical expertise for conceptualising the needs assessment, gender analysis, and baseline for a study with unemployed or underemployed youth. Budget: US$18,677 Mixed methods (Baseline primarily quantitative, Needs assessment primarily qualitative, Gender analysis qualitative) – no sample as only tool development Reference: Meaghan Anderson, Gender and Safeguarding Specialist,[email protected].	Jordan, Lebanon, Malawi, Zambia, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, and Ghana
Disability Rights Fund and Disability Rights Advocacy Fund (DRF/DRAF)	Conducted the 2022 annual grantee survey Budget: US$19,072 Administer grantee survey questionnaire, analyse responses received, ensure there is more than 55% response from grantees. Measure grantee knowledge regarding Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Sustainable Development Goals (SD​​Gs), human rights, and their engagement with the disability rights movement	Remote
Global Business Coalition for Education (GBC-E)	Disability Inclusion Report.  Budget: US$12,600 Method: literature and 12 key informant interviews with task force members. Reference: Dan Boyer, Consultant with GBC, [email protected]	Global
Global Water Partnership (GWP)	A gender assessment for strengthening water security and climate resilience across five countries.   Budget: US$85,700 The gender analysis used a mixed methods approach to investigate and understand a wide range of critical factors across five study countries. ASogo online capacity needs assessment survey was used to probe beliefs, norms, power dynamics, knowledge, attitudes etc. to better understand the critical issues preventing gender equality. Survey data were analysed using SPSS. Multi-sectoral literature review of policies, programmes and plans from global, Pan-African and country levels were used to develop annotated reviews, feminist policy analysis and categorisation of each according to a gender continuum.) FGD were conducted as a learning event to probe more deeply into thematic findings from the online survey. KIIs were conducted with individuals with specialised or specific knowledge related to the avenues of exploration in the study. Reference: Dr Liza Debevec, TechnicalAdvisor for GWP Water, Climate and Development Programme (WACDEP), [email protected] Publication: GWP Mediteranian – Tunisia Result Programme AIP WACDEP-G article	Benin, Cameroon, Tunisia, Uganda and Zambia
GOAL	Evaluation of GOAL’s Covid- 19 Response. Budget: US$20703 Methods: 12 key informant interviews, 3 focus group discussions, a desk review	Global
ILO	Mid-term evaluation of The Accelerating Action for The Elimination of Child Labour In Supply Chains In Africa Project. Budget: US$76,064.80 Methods: 10 key informant interviews, 2 focus group discussions per country, a desk review, and a series of validation workshops.	Cote D’ivoire, Egypt, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Uganda
International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)	Indicators and Tracking Mechanisms for Gender-Related Policies on Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security Helped CCAFS (Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security) projects on policies and priorities for climate-smart agriculture, but also in other flagships that have a policy-related component, track their progress toward the CCAFS sub-IDOs (Intermediate Development Outcomes) that relate to gender-sensitive policies.	Global
International Development Research centre (IDRC)	Policy mapping: women’s economic empowerment in Eastern Africa. Budget: US$16,000 Method: desk review. Reference: Paul Okwi, Senior Programme Officer, [email protected]	Eastern Africa
International Labour Organisation (ILO)	Skill- up Ethiopia project studies on core skill and the curriculum framework  Budget :US$ 18,804.80 Investigated core skill requirements in the textile and garment sector in Ethiopia. Publication:  Core Skills Report (link)  Reference : Alemayehu Zewdie and Belinda Smith	Ethiopia
International Labour Organisation (ILO)	Final evaluation of the project addressing the root causes of migration in Ethiopia. Budget: US$16,580 The evaluation used a mixed methods methodology relying mainly on qualitative approaches, combining a desk review of secondary qualitative and quantitative data with qualitative field data.  Method: virtual and in-persons key informant  interviews, focus group discussions Reference: Ricardo Furman Wolf, Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, [email protected]	Ethiopia
International Livestock Research Institute	Title: Gender study into the community-based breeding programmes (CBBP) across Ethiopia. Budget: US$57,100 Methods: 12 focus group discussions, 36 key informant interviews, and purposive sampling	Ethiopia
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) CRP	Gender Capacity Development Budget: US$5,000 Reference: Baltenweck, Isabelle (ILRI) <[email protected]>
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) CRP	ILRI-contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBBP): Qualitative Gender Study Project Training modules. The project focused on revising existing gender training modules based on feedback from ILRI and delivering a revised, clean version of the training modules. Budget: US$5,000
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) CRP	CBBP Evaluation. This was the first time a gendered assessment of the contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBBP) programme, was undertaken, to ensure gender considerations are taken into account in the next programme design/phase of ILRI. The objective of the study was to perform a gendered impact assessment of the CBBPs, by looking at the constraints/barriers to participation in, and benefits from, CBBPs: impacts of participation in the CBBPs. Budget: US$ 57,100
International Rice Research Institution (IRRI)	Literature review, workshop and strategy development for youth engagement in rice	Global
International Water Management Institution (IWMI)	Feminist ecology literature review and book chapter	Global
Light for the World	Outcome evaluation of the Light for the World country programmes in Bolivia and North-East India 2005-2020. Budget US$63,749 Methods: Outcome harvesting methodology, desk-based document review, initial key informant interviews. Conducted 115 key informant interviews, 28 focus group discussions, and 11 case studies in Bolivia.  Reference: Klaus Minihuber <[email protected]> Programme Manager, Light for the World	Bolivia and India
Light for the World (LFTW) Gender Eye Sensitive	Final Evaluation of a Gender-sensitive Eye Health Programme. Budget: US$​​28,481.1 Methods: 9 KIIs per country, 5 FGDs per country, 1 case study per country, sensemaking workshop, 1 workshop per country.	Ethiopia, Mozambique, Burkina Faso
Mercy Corp – CSSF RESET Literature Review	Gender and Social Inclusion Consultant Kenya Somalia borderlands. Budget: US$1,925 Literature review.	Uganda, Kenya
Plan International	Production of a regional toolkit for practitioners on accelerating efforts to eliminate child, early and forced marriage in Asia-Pacific. Budget: US$40,056.8 Methods: desk mapping & literature review, 10-11 KIIs. Online surveys, desk review, and qualitative analysis. Reference:  Rasa Sekulovic: [email protected];  Wilasinee Sittisomboon: [email protected] Publication:  Time to Act! – Toolkit for Practitioners. Gender-Transformative Programme Strategies for Addressing Child, Early and Forced Marriage and Unions in Asia-Pacific PLAN CEFM Toolkit	Throughout Asia and Pacific countries
Ravenstone Consult/ Save the Children	Review trends, factors and risks of unaccompanied child migration from Ethiopia through the East migration routes. Budget: US$11,220 Methods: 20 FGDs and 83 KIIs Reference: Chris Horwood, Ravenstone Consulting, [email protected]  Publication:  Research Report (link)	Ethiopia
Save the Children	National and Regional Child Migrant Protection Policy Assessment in East and the Horn of Africa. Budget: US$28,292.51 Methods: Desk reviews, 15 KIIs, 9 FGDs.	Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan
Save the Children South Sudan	TeamUp Go project Evaluation. Budget: US$28,292 The evaluation focused on three objectives: 1) providing insights on the innovation process and partnerships; 2) demonstrating credible evidence that the innovation is effective; and 3) addressing the project’s scaling journey and providing relevant recommendations.  Methods: Desk reviews, 15 KIIs, 9 FGDs.	South Sudan
Save the Children: Policy Mapping	East Africa Migration Route Policy Mapping.  Budget: US$36,400 The project undertook a benchmarking assessment to build a stronger understanding of the main policy gaps, both in formulation and implementation that prevented the governments of Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt from effectively meeting the objectives of key international and regional policy frameworks around the protection of children on the move, including in case management processes.Desk-based document review (policy review); purposive sampling; 10 KIIs per country.	Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia
SightSavers	Programmatic Assessment of Disability Inclusive Disability (DID) Programme. Budget US$48,118 The study was primarily based on document analysis deriving from project data and documentation. The document analysis findings were triangulated with focus group discussion data. The research team conducted 5 focus group discussions with DID programme consortium members (ADD, PENDA, IDS, SDD helpdesk and IDA). Reference: Susan Pieri, Associate Programme Director, [email protected]	Global
Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI)	Strategic plan mid-term evaluation. Budget US$42,375 Methods: Review of secondary data, online survey to SVRI partners, 16 virtual key informant interviews, 2 virtual 5-9 persons focus group discussions. Publication: SVRI Strategic Plan Mid-Term Evaluation	Remote
Tanager	Gender and food environment analysis. Budget: US$43,397 Methods: The research study used a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative and quantitative data collection. The research was conducted in four phases:  Desk review and initial policy review;  feminist critical policy analysis;  qualitative data collection in the form of key informant interviews and focus group discussions; and  quantitative data collection in the form of an online survey with women working as entrepreneurs.  The study resulted in a synthesis report and four country reports. Reference: Romain Kenfack [email protected]	Burkina Faso
UNDP	Study of the elements and economic costs of disability for children with disabilities and persons with physical disabilities in South Africa. Budget US$79,316 Methods: secondary data review, survey, key informant interviews, focus group discussions (reaching saturation point), 4 participatory workshops, Includovate wrote report, and created model costings.	South Africa
UNFPA	Developing the inception phase of the UN joint programme on the rights of persons with disabilities in Tanzania. Budget US$57,876 Methods: Collaborative co-development of the UNPRPD MPTF programme with UN, Organisations of Persons with Disabilities, government and other national and local stakeholders. 10 focus group discussions and 14 key informant interviews with rights holders and duty bearers in relation to disability inclusion. Participatory workshops for induction, validation, and proposal development. The mix of remote and in-person data collection and workshops. Publication: Disability Inclusion article	Tanzania
UNICEF	In collaboration with Development Pathways evaluated the single-parent and foster children’s cash transfer programmes in the Maldives. Reference: Yosi Burckhardt, Reports and Child Protection Officer, [email protected]	Maldives
UNICEF	Rights, Education, Accessibility and Protection (REAP) II Evaluation. Budget: US$73,423 Methods: The methodology drew upon secondary data and documentation analysis; an online survey tailored to government partners, civil society organisations (CSOs), and other partners and stakeholders; UNICEF staff from REAP II countries as well as non-demonstration countries; and remote key informant interviews (because of COVID-19 all interviews were held via the phone or internet). The key informants included current and former UNICEF staff from the EAPRO, members of the Reference Group for this evaluation, government and CSO partners, and parents of children with disabilities and young persons with disabilities. One ToC workshop was held remotely for each demonstration country in addition to one initial workshop with the Evaluation Reference Group.  Furthermore, a documentation analysis of UNICEF internal documents was conducted that included a specific analysis of UNICEF outputs and helped with the triangulation of the findings.  Reference: Lieve Sabbe, Programme Specialist, [email protected]	PNG, Fiji, Vanuatu,  Vietnam
UNICEF	Situational Analysis of Children and Young People with Disabilities in Tanzania. Budget US$54,440 Methods: 19 key informant interviews, 9 focus groups discussions, secondary quantitative data analysis of national survey data, mix of in-person and remote data collection, participatory methods with children and youth with disabilities Reference:  Maud Droogleever Fortuyn – Chief Child Protection- [email protected]  Montserrat Pejuan – Social Policy Specialist – [email protected]	Tanzania
UNICEF	UNICEF Thailand’s strategic positioning and partnerships evaluation.  Budget US$86,635.10 The programme looked at child and adolescent development and participation; child protection; inclusive social policy and child-sensitive social protection; and overall programme effectiveness.  Methods: key informant interviews, focus group discussions, quantitative online survey, stakeholder analysis, desk review). Sample size 59 (20 UNICEF, 39 external) Reference: Oscar HuertasEvaluation Specialist [email protected] Publication:  UNICEF Thailand 2017-2021 Strategic positioning and partnership evaluation explained (Thai ver.) Evaluation Report (link)	Thailand
UNICEF	An evaluation assessment, learning and evidence generation of the Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) initiative in Borno State. Northeast Nigeria for Replications /Scale-Up. Budget US$41,357 Methods: 15 surveys, 6 FGDs, 10 KIIs, 2 case studies, 12 SSIs.	Nigeria
UNICEF	Formative evaluation of the UNICEF “Love and Care for Every Child” programme. Budget US$94,354 Methods: stakeholder mapping/analysis, KIIs (52), FGDs (80), Household surveys (80), case studies.  Publication: Formative evaluation of the UNICEF Love and Care for Every Child project – Laos PDR	Laos
UNICEF	Developing bilingual (English/Laotian) communications products, including an infographic and an animated video on the learnings from an evaluation carried out by UNICEF Laos.	Laos
UNICEF	Develop a standardised rapid assessment approach for learning and earning solutions. Budget: US$91,052 Methods: Human-Centered Design Approach, User tests, 34 mixed 1:1 interviews (Youth (3), Youth Influences (4), Community Stakeholders (8), The Government of Ethiopia (3) – regional reps, UNICEF/Multilateral partners(16) Publication: Final Report	Ethiopia
UNICEF	Gender equality training for country office staff. Budget US$55,965 Methods: KAP survey, desk review and training delivery. Reference: Ellen Alem, Gender Specialist  [email protected]	Ethiopia
UNICEF	Developing a learning agenda for the Joint Investment Mechanisms (JIM) grant. Budget US$42,011 Methods: Desk Review, 37 KIIs, 3 FGDs.	Kenya
UNICEF	Empowering children with disabilities and their legal representatives for effectively claiming their rights. Budget US$99,845 Methods: 12 KIIs, 10 FGDs and 12 IDIs, stock taking report, regional workshop, two country case studies and knowledge material generation.	East Asia and Pacific Region
UNICEF Ethiopia	Consultancy Service to Develop a standardised Rapid Assessment Approach (RAA) for learning to earning solutions The project created a Rapid Assessment Approach (RAA) to evaluate solutions for youth education, skill development, entrepreneurship, and employment for people aged 10 to 24. The RAA can assess past and current projects and can be applied globally. Methods: Human-Centered Design Approach, User tests, 34 mixed 1:1 interviews (Youth (3), Youth Influences (4), Community Stakeholders (8), The Government of Ethiopia (3) – regional reps, UNICEF/Multilateral partners (16) Budget: U$91,052.08	Ethiopia,
UNICEF Ethiopia Gender and Inclusion training	Gender TOT (Face to face) for field office gender focal points. Budget: US$22,514 Complete training the trainer in Addis of UNICEF Ethiopia gender focal staff and then deliver the training in a 2-day format in the field offices. Training included the development of a  slide deck	Ethiopia
UNICEF Ethiopia: Gender Equality for ECO Staff	Gender Training for the UNICEF Ethiopia Office. Budget: US$61,845 Includovate conducted an online training for the UNICEF Ethiopian Country Office, which included a KAP survey to tailor the content. The training was divided into separate sessions for leadership, operations staff, and programme staff. Includovate then provided a report outlining the content and survey findings after the training.KAP survey, desk review and training delivery and summary report. Reference: Ellen Alem, Gender Specialist  [email protected]	Ethiopia
UNICEF Ghana: SitAn	Situation Analysis of Children, Adolescents and Women in Ghana. Budget: US$49,335 The Situation Analysis aimed to provide updated evidence of the situation of children, adolescents, and women in Ghana by conducting a rights-based analysis of deprivations and their causes. The report will inform decision-making, policy advocacy, and partnership efforts and track progress towards realising the rights of these groups in Ghana.Desk review, Trend analysis, 5KIIs	Ghana
UNIDO	Women’s empowerment in green industries. Budget US$97,000 The research study used a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative and quantitative data collection. The research was conducted in four phases: (1) Desk review and initial policy review; (2) feminist critical policy analysis; (3) qualitative data collection in the form of Key Informant Individual Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs); and (4) quantitative data collection in the form of an online survey with women working as entrepreneurs. The study resulted in a synthesis report and four countries’ reports. Reference: Eliana Gutierrez-Amo, Chief Technical Advisor – Gender, [email protected]	Cambodia, South Africa, Senegal and Peru
Women Gaining Ground	Baseline assessment of a programme focused on capacity building and the transformative leadership of young women and girls and women with disabilities. Budget US$71,630 Mixed methods, including KII, FGD, online survey, interview, desk review. Sample = 5 FGDs, 5 KIIs, 10 interviews per country + target 100 sample size for online survey. Publication: Women Gaining Ground: Synthesis report	Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda
World Vision	Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) review for design, monitoring and evaluation toolkit and training manual. Desk review and Qualitative data collection (10 FGDs). Reference: Jacqueline Ogega,Director Gender Equality and Social Inclusion,  [email protected]	Global
WorldFish	Developed and tested a bespoke methodology to measure women’s empowerment in the fisheries sector and piloted the methodology in Myanmar. Budget US$59,085 Reference: Cynthia McDougall, Worldfish, [email protected] Publication: Exploring Women’s Empowerment in Fisheries (EWEF) A Methods Pack for a Collaborative Study on Women’s Empowerment in Small-scale Fisheries.	Myanmar
WorldFish	Review to identify related gender risks, social risks, and opportunities to use inexpensive local ingredients for fish feeds in specific settings.	Developing countries

 

Current projects 

 

Project Name	Details	Country
American Jewish World Service (AJWS)	Title: Causes of child, early, and forced marriage and unions  /CEFMU/ Evaluation 2022-2023 – AJWS.  Budget: US$58,490 Methods: Maximum of 29 Key Informant Interviews and 20 Focus Group Discussions, 750 survey participants  in five states of India.	India
UNICEF	Title: Assessment on the availability of community-based services for children with disabilities in Viet Nam. Budget: US$59,956 Methods: Policy and legal review, a literature review using secondary data, stakeholder mapping, 230 online quantitative surveys, 50 KIIs, 11 FGDs, and 7 case studies.	Viet Nam
DW Akademie	Title: Qualitative Comparative Study in East Africa, funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Budget US$23,915.82 Methods: Desk review, 5 FGDs per country- offline, 2 KIIs per country- online.	Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia
Mercy Corps	Title: Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) analysis for Mercy Corps Restoring Ecological Vitality in Vulnerable Ecosystems (REVIVE) project. Budget: US$19,457.05 Methods: 8 IDIs, 11 KIIs, 4 FGDs, and 1 Mobility Map per data location. There are 8 data locations (6 districts).	Uganda
World Fish	Title: Development and Scaling of Sustainable Feeds for Resilient Aquatic Food Systems in Africa (FASA) Budget: 56,023 US$ Methods: Develop and conduct mixed methods gender and social assessments in the 3 project countries (Nigeria, Zambia, and Kenya) using a context-sensitive approach and compiling sex-disaggregated data.  30 key informant interviews, 500 survey participants.	Nigeria, Zambia and Kenya
Horizont 3000	Title: Final Evaluation of the East Africa Programme  2019- 2022 Budget: 84,887 US$ Methods: 91 KIIs, 38 FGDs, 178 online surveys and direct observations	Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Regional level
ASMAE Association	Asmae Evaluation: External Evaluation of Youth for Change Programme – Phase 1 (2021-2023) The general objective of the final evaluation is to draw up a consolidated assessment of the programme’s results, analysing in particular the level of progress of the indicators and the changes to which the programme has contributed (including at the level of head office actions). It will also assess the quality of the intervention implemented by Asmae and its partners, in terms of services and support offered to young people and the effects on their power to act; or to evaluate the quality of the support provided to CSO and institutional partners. The evaluation will report on the findings, lessons to be learned and propose recommendations for phase 2 (bearing in mind the prospect of phase 3) and, through a participatory and constructive approach, will ensure that the various stakeholders take ownership of it. The evaluation will also cover the cross-cutting axes (gender, participation, CRBA) and thus integrate a precise analysis of the intervention under these prisms. The evaluation will be gender sensitive and participatory. Budget:  EUROS 42,000	The Philippines, Lebanon, Madagascar, Egypt, Burkina Faso
Save the Children – Mozambique	Title: Save the Children – The Mozambique -Scope of Work for a Youth-Inclusive Needs Assessment for the Save the Children Mozambique Okhokelamo ni Solha Resilience Food Security Activity (RFSA) The YNA will serve two core purposes: to provide important community level information to inform any changes or adaptations to Okhokelamo’s ToC and interventions, and; to inform Okhokelamo’s Youth Engagement Strategy as well as other cross-cutting program strategies. Budget: 69,118	Mozambique
SOS Green plus evaluation	SOS – Kinderdorf – Final evaluation of Green + project – Socio-economic Empowerment of Vulnerable Children and youth as well as their families with special focus on green economy The main objective of the evaluation is to assess and present the main results (keeping a lens on the core thematic interests of GREEN+ namely, green economy, innovation incubator for Green economy, gender equality, child protection, and youth empowerment and capacity building) achieved by the Strategic Partnership GREEN+ (2019-2023) in Uganda and Ethiopia to facilitate learning as well as to receive recommendations for a potential subsequent phase 2024-2028. To determine the extent to which the project interventions addressed the target beneficiaries and stakeholders‘ needs (Relevance). To assess to what extent the objectives defined in the six result areas have been achieved (Effectiveness) (outcome level/results). To identify facilitating and hindering factors for sustainability and based on this develop recommendations, how to increase the potential for sustainability in future, with a particular focus on gender equality and green economy interventions (Sustainability). Methodology – 16 KII, 24 FGDs, 4 change workshops, 4 transect walks, 8 MSC, 36 online surveys.  Budget: Euros 47,400	Uganda and Ethiopia Ethiopia: Samples from Hawassa town in two sub-cities Addis Ketema sub city (Daka and philadelphia kebele) and Haik Dar sub city (Haik dar Kebele); Tigray and Mekelle.  Uganda: Samples from Entebbe and Fort Portal will be from communities of Kisubi, Nalugala and Nkumba (in Wakiso District/Entebbe) plus 3 sub-counties of Karangura, Kichwamba, and Mugusu respectively (in Kabarole District/Fort Portal).
WFP – UNICEF Ethiopia	Title: School feeding programme in Ethiopia To assess school feeding programme contribution towards addressing gender gaps in selected geographic locations (to what extent school feeding programmes contribute to closing gender gaps related to access, agency, participation and power dynamics). And To identify key approaches/pathways to changes on how the school feeding programme can be further refined to better address gender gaps in future programming. Methodology: 24 KIIs, 18 FGDs, 6 change workshops, 3 MSC case study reviews Budget: US $ – 44,000	Ethiopia

 

Risk Assessment

Below is an outline of anticipated risks and mitigations for this project. Regular communication between Includovate’s team and[AGRA] will ensure assessment of issues as they arise. Having identified possible mitigation options at this stage increases the likelihood of staying within project timelines (See Appendix 2 for definition of terms).

RISK	LIKELIHOOD	IMPACT	RISK RATING	MITIGATION
Inability of team member to complete project	UNLIKELY	MINOR	LOW	In the scenario where a team member falls ill or for any reason cannot complete the required tasks, Includovate has a growing database of consultants (currently over 1200 researchers), who could assist in completing the project. Includovate will discuss the alternative options with [AGRA]. Although this will cause a small disruption and delay, we are confident that from the wide variety of options in our database we would be able to find a suitable replacement.
Internet access difficulties	POSSIBLE	MINOR	MEDIUM	Internet and power connectivity can be an issue in some of the countries our researchers are based and in the field site. If there are problems with connectivity, we have the capacity to rent co-working spaces where there is continuous electricity.
Key stakeholders unavailable	POSSIBLE	MAJOR	HIGH	We will identify stakeholders and schedule meetings ASAP to avoid missing the opportunity to interview a stakeholder. Includovate will keep up to date on innovative solutions to ensure the best approach with the greatest reach and access.
Disregard for ethics and vulnerable stakeholder safeguarding	UNLIKELY	SIGNIFICANT	MEDIUM	We have put together a highly experienced team who can draw on past projects to ensure the correct practice is maintained. We have many policies in place and provide education on these issues to our staff to ensure the safety of our participants. We will ensure all team members are adequately trained before they conduct any research.
Data collection/ analysis software complications	POSSIBLE	MODERATE	MEDIUM	Online issues can occur based upon many factors. Relying on software can cause delays if there are technical issues. We use tools that our researchers have experience with to avoid any delays or complications.

 

 

Appendix 1: Risk assessment matrix 

 

RATING	RISK DESCRIPTOR	REQUIRED ACTION
LOW	Acceptable risk that, if it occurs, does not require specific application of resources.	Manage with routine controls, monitor and review.
MEDIUM	Acceptable risk that, if it occurs, will not cause damage and or threaten project success.	Develop specific control and mitigation procedures, specify management responsibility, monitor and review.
HIGH	Not acceptable risk that, if it occurs, will cause some damage or disruption to progress and threaten project success.	Develop specific control and mitigation procedures, specify senior management responsibility.
EXTREME	Never acceptable risk that, if it occurs, will cause severe damage and disruption to progress and seriously threaten project success.	Develop a detailed mitigation plan and specify senior management responsibility.

 

		IMPACT
		Insignificant	Minor	Moderate	Major	Significant
LIKELIHOOD	Almost Certain	MEDIUM	MEDIUM	HIGH	EXTREME	EXTREME
	Likely	LOW	MEDIUM	HIGH	HIGH	EXTREME
	Possible	LOW	MEDIUM	MEDIUM	HIGH	HIGH
	Unlikely	LOW	LOW	MEDIUM	MEDIUM	MEDIUM
	Rare	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	MEDIUM

 

Appendix 2: CVs

 

  Add CV’s in Includovate format – max 2 pages per CV

EACH SUBHEADING IN THE CV SHOULD NOT HAVE ‘HEADING’ FORMATTING AND MUST BE CHANGED TO ‘NORMAL TEXT’