Who we work with

We have worked with a number of commissioners during the research period and since our launch in April 2016, you’ll find information about some of our studies below, and feedback from a few different commissioners on their experiences and how they used the results.

“The more I read about QuIP, the more I thought it would really fit with what we were looking for. It promised a rigorous approach to qualitative work for practitioners whose programming just doesn’t lend itself to quantitative assessment. I liked that QuIP bridged the gap between certain quantitative methodologies and the more qualitative lens we needed to use for this programme. QuIP offered an interesting combination of some of those principles, by adding in both attribution analysis and blindfolding, which added a unique and robust dimension to a qualitative approach. Another piece of QuIP that was compelling for us and helped our internal conversation around adopting the methodology was QuIP’s approach to reporting on findings. In QuIP, the findings of the study are intended to serve as the starting point for conversations within the organisation around recommendations and how those findings will be used. QuIP provides the methodology and the findings, but then it’s up to us as an organisation to figure out what it means for us and what we want to do with the information. The QuIP approach really worked well for us to see both impact and a more general sense of the landscape in which we work… I really appreciated the QuIP’s approach that no value judgements are placed on findings. A QuIP report really is a ‘report of findings’, leaving us as a team to think about what exactly it tells us, what is surprising, and how we will translate findings into programmatic actions.”

I was floored by the results and the changes QuIP was able to pick up on and document, as per testimonials from the community. I was floored. Especially as I would say my expectations were quite low in terms of what impact we could hope to see, given inconsistencies in the design and implementation of the project.”

“At the start of the process they [local partners] were a bit unsure, but they really bought in by the end, and contributed a lot during the workshop. I think they were really pleased with how the study went, and really understood afterwards why we’d done it the way we did. We really want this kind of buy-in from our partners, because we don’t want the learning to stay with us, we want it to be with them. It’s about our partners thinking about what they can learn from this research, what are they going to do differently.’’

I visited each community, firstly to thank them for taking part in the research. Then the main thing was to share the findings and celebrate their success, reinforcing the message that ‘you have done this, not us.’ I told them we’d been a bit reticent about doing it in a way where we weren’t telling them who the research was for, because people might feel we were deceiving them, but we wanted people to feel completely free to tell us about their whole wellbeing. However, people were understanding. They said ‘yes, that makes sense, because this way we could be more honest with you.’ They really understood why we’d done the interviews blindfolded, so that was good. I facilitated mini workshops where we talked about the findings from QuIP and dug a little deeper. For example, sometimes participants had mentioned things we didn’t know about, like a small local NGO; and we wanted to verify those kinds of things. So we got some really good stories, which were helpful in understanding some of the results. People shed a bit more light on things that had come up in the interviews, and it was nice to go deeper where we were unsure of some of the results. Going back to the communities and doing the unblindfolding was great. We’ll definitely be doing that again.”

 

SHA, Malawi: Evaluation of a groundnut value chain project for Self Help Africa in Central Malawi. Two separate QuIP studies conducted in 2014 and 2015as part of the ART project. You can view the full report here.

SHA, Malawi: Evaluation of a climate change resilience project for Self Help Africa in Central Malawi. Two separate QuIP studies conducted in 2014 and 2015 as part of the ART project.

SHA, Ethiopia: Evaluation of a malt barley value chain project for Self Help Africa in Southern Ethiopia. Two separate QuIP studies conducted in 2014 and 2015 as part of the ART project. You can view the full report here.

SHA, Kenya: Post project QuIP impact study of the Gorta Self-Help Africa Community Based Seed Systems Project in Western Kenya. 24 interviews and 4 focus group discussions across six farmer’s groups and two counties. Carried out by BSDR between February-April 2016.

SHA, Zambia: Evaluation of the Irish Aid Local Development Programme in Zambia. 48 interviews and 8 focus groups across various farmer’s groups in two districts. Carried out by BSDR between May-June 2017.

SHA, Burkina Faso: Evaluation of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation project, ‘Realising Agricultural Productivity Gains’. 24 interviews and 4 focus groups. Carried out by BSDR between October-December 2017.

Farm Africa, Ethiopia: Evaluation of a climate change resilient livelihoods project for Farm Africa in Northern Ethiopia. Two separate QuIP studies conducted in 2014 and 2015 as part of the ART project.

Oxfam GB, Ethiopia: Post-project QuIP study assessing the impact of the Coffee Value Chain project on women’s empowerment in Jimmu Zone, Oromia Region – complementing a quasi-experimental impact assessment. 48 interviews and 8 focus group discussions across six coffee cooperative groups. Carried out by BSDR between April-July 2016. Read their review of the two evaluations here.

Diageo, Ethiopia: ‘Deep dive’ impact study of Meta Brewery’s programme to support smallholder barley producers in two Zones of Oromia Region. 48 interviews and 8 focus groups across two farmer’s groups in each Zone. Carried out by BSDR between July-Sep 2016. Diageo have shared their summary of the report.

Acumen, India: Development of a ‘Lean’ approach to the QuIP using telephone interviews to assess the impact of a social impact investment project with a dairy company in Kerala. Carried out by BSDR in Oct 2016.

Tearfund, Uganda: Evaluation of Tearfund’s Church & Community Mobilisation programme in two districts in Uganda. 48 interviews and 8 focus groups. Carried out by BSDR between Nov 2016 – Jan 2017. Tearfund published their own summary report which you can read here.

Tree Aid, Ghana: Evaluation of Tree Aid’s Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP) project on the livelihoods and wellbeing of intended beneficiaries at the household level. 24 interviews and 4 focus groups. Carried out by BSDR between January – February 2017.

C&A Foundation, Mexico: Evaluation of the YQYP Programme to improve the working conditions and wellbeing of textile and apparel factories in Central Mexico. Impact assessment and process evaluation. 32 interviews, 4 focus groups and 2 case studies across six textile factories in two states of Mexico. Carried out by BSDR between October 2016 – March 2017.  You can view the full report here.

Habitat for Humanity International, India: Housing microfinance impact evaluation of MBIND MFI financial products and services in Southern India. Impact assessment and institutional assessment. 72 interviews and 8 focus groups across two microfinance institutions in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, India. Carried out by BSDR and M-CRIL between September 2016 – April 2017.

Save the Children, Tanzania: Evaluation of an agriculture and nutrition project aimed at babies and young children in the south of Tanzania. 30 interviews, 4 focus groups and 5 key stakeholder interviews/focus groups with key CSOs. March-May 2017.

Save the Children, Ethiopia: Evaluation of an early action intervention to mitigate impacts of predicted poor rains on a drought-affected community in the Somaliland region. 24 interviews, 4 focus groups. Carried out by BSDR between August-November 2017.

Seed Global Health, Uganda, Tanzania and Malawi: Evaluation of the Global Health Service Programme, a US Peace Corps programme which supplies health worker volunteers to medical and nursing colleges in Africa. A three country study including 30 interviews and focus groups with leadership team, clinical and faculty staff and students in each country. June-September 2017.

 

 

Rutgers International, Kenya: Evaluation of a sexual and reproductive health rights education programme with young people between 15-24 years old. 24 interviews, 4 focus groups. Carried out by BSDR between April-June 2018.

Voscur, Bristol UK: Evaluation of the services Voscur provide to Bristol’s voluntary, community and social enterprise sector (VCSE) and the wider context affecting their work. Read more here.