This document discusses fostering research for policy and practitioners through cohort and longitudinal studies. It provides an overview of CIFF's mission and strategic priority areas. CIFF seeks transformational impact through a systematic approach across sectors like education, nutrition, health, and climate change. CIFF currently has a portfolio of 57 investments totaling $560 million spread across innovation, pilot programs, delivery at scale, and systems change. The document discusses challenges in achieving scale and uptake of research findings, and how CIFF is approaching these challenges through clear theories of change, cost evaluations, communication of evidence, and partnerships.

1. ciff.org
Fostering research for policy and practitioners:
Lessons and Opportunities
Symposium on Cohort and Longitudinal Studies
October 14, 2014

2. Our mission: To demonstrably improve the lives of children in developing
countries by achieving large-scale, sustainable impact
Education Nutrition Climate Change
Urbanisation
Energy
transformation
HFCs
Pre-primary
Education
School-based
Deworming
Stunting and
wasting
Strategic
Priority Areas
(SPA)
Land Use
Evidence,
Measurement,
Evaluation
Strategy and
Partnerships
Finance and
Operations
Health
Perinatal mortality
PMTCT
Adolescent
Reproductive Health
SECTORS
BUSINESS
SUPPORT
CIFF seeks to achieve transformational impact at the SPA/ Sector level. We are currently developing
a framework that will allow us to assess collective impact at the organisational level.

3. Transformation involves a ssyysstteemmiicc aapppprrooaacchh llooookkiinngg aaccrroossss tthhee vvaalluuee cchhaaiinn
Changing the paradigm @
global level? @ regional
level? @ national level?
TIME
Policy and advocacy
evaluation
Capacity building
assessment
All elements of the value chain will need to be covered but
not necessarily by CIFF
IMPACT
RReesseeaarcrchh
PProroggrarammmmee e evvaaluluaatitoionn
• Creating an
enabling
environment via
policy change,
advocacy for
evidence, resources
political commitment
Policy and advocacy
evaluation
Capacity building
assessment

4. 1. We embed measurement throughout the lifecycle of an investment, with a clear (but
flexible) plan on when and how data will be generated to inform key decisions
2. We have a fit for purpose approach to evaluation such that the purpose determines
design and methods used
3. We ensure complementarity of monitoring and evaluation data to increase relevance
and efficiency in data generation, using (and often strengthening) national data systems
4. We ensure independence of our evaluations, to increase objectivity and credibility of our
evaluation findings both internally and with the broader development community
5. We engage with data throughout implementation so that we not only invest where there
is greatest potential for impact but that the data is used to optimise our ability to deliver
maximum impact
Simple but critical questions that guide our measurement
•What do we want to know? (prioritisation of inquiry)
•How will we know? (methodology, source)
•When will we know? (timelines for decisions)
•For whom is the information? (audience/s)
Simple but critical questions that guide our measurement
•What do we want to know? (prioritisation of inquiry)
•How will we know? (methodology, source)
•When will we know? (timelines for decisions)
•For whom is the information? (audience/s)
CCIIFFFF’’ss aapppprrooaacchh ttoo eevvaalluuaattiioonnss

5. Portfolio of 57 investments totalling $560mln
Portfolio spread by value chain:
Innovation/ design/ evidence: 8 investments
Pilot /model development: 8 investments
Delivery at scale: 21 investments
Systems change: 20 investments
Our portfolio indicates that we directly support a
vast number of independent evaluations where
data is/ will be used to achieve
implementation at scale or achieve systems
change, often through influencing policy
change, advocacy for more financial resources
and political commitment.
CCuurrrreenntt ppoorrttffoolliioo sspprreeaadd:: BByy vvaalluuee cchhaaiinn
$78.2
14%
$48.3
9%
$411.2
73%
$22.4
4%
Systems change Scale Pilots Innovation

6. Factors that have enhanced uptake of research/ evaluation findings into the
policy space, and which have led to implementation at scale
A quick review of 71 investments (current and closed) indicate that we have
achieved some form of policy change or scale up in a few investments
Factors that have enhanced uptake of research/ evaluation findings into the
policy space, and which have led to implementation at scale
Where successful:
•Political commitment existed to a large extent
•Financial resources were already planned for
or CIFF provided ‘seed’ funding and/ or co-ordinated
funding from other partners
•Independent evaluation data provided further
impetus
•Implementing partners had credibility to
influence change and communicate
evidence
Where we have failed:
•Political commitment was uncertain (topic was
not of sufficient priority to stakeholders)
•Data was not robust enough to influence
discussions
•Context shifted during implementation (burden
of disease, political environment or newer
evidence)
•No upfront thinking on how to achieve scale up,
should intervention prove impactful

7. LLiviviningg G Gooooddss – – R Reedduucciningg u unnddeerr 5 5 m moorrttaaliltityy i nin U Uggaannddaa
Proof-of-concept investment designed to reduce under-5 mortality by 15% and build a financially
viable model that can be sustained over time. Livings Goods and BRAC hired, trained and deployed over
1000 Community Health Promoters (CHPs) to go door-to-door to over 100,000 households to diagnose,
refer and treat under-5 cases of malaria, diarrhoea and pneumonia as well as offer pre-natal and post-natal
counselling, care and referrals to pregnant women.
The investment was impactful and delivered on the transformational proposition. A cluster-based RCT
showed that mortality went down by 25% in intervention areas compared to the control. We are finalising
the cost-effectiveness calculations. Data shows that branches are able to recover 70% of their costs,
paving a promising path towards sustainability. CHPs’ income has averaged $10-20 per month.
Significant interest in CIFF and other Foundations to scale up model. Model is already being scaled up by
Living Goods in parts of Kenya,
Factors contributing to scale-up potential:
•Robust evaluation data that tested both impact and
financial viability
•Investment provided a possible solution to increase health
access - sustainable community health delivery
•Implementing partner (LG) has the capacity, networks and
financial resources to catalyse scale up

8. Catching up on basic skills: Catching up on basic skills: T Thhee r reemmeeddiaial le edduuccaattioionn e exxppeerrieiennccee i nin G Ghhaannaa
hree government agencies, with support from a technical team, tested different approaches to remedial
education using assistants to assess whether education impacts can be achieved with government led
implementation. Project was evaluated using a RCT.
esults show that (1) teaching assistants make a positive impact on learning outcomes; (2) impact is
enhanced when using a differentiated approach; (3) effects accrue to higher grades; (4) differences in
impact come from variability in implementation more than from programme design; and (5) Where
implementation overcame systemic challenges, effects sizes were higher. Cost-effectiveness analyses are
bPeroinggr afimnamliese hda.s not been scaled up yet, despite significant findings
using robust evaluation methodology. Possible reasons:
•Shift in political context
•No financial stake by government – does this reduce incentive?
•No clear-cut, scale-able solution – probably needs some more
testing to determine which regions it is most suited for
•Contextual factors undermine solution (e.g., assistant
absenteeism, lack of school infrastructure, low teacher compliance,
insufficient monitoring and support)
Above lessons are being applied in Kenya, where we are doing implementation research to understand
how to scale up a remedial programme, with Government putting in significant financial resources

9. CChhaalllelennggeess
• How do we define scale? How much attention to ‘quality’? What should come first?
• Evidence is necessary but not sufficient to influence policy (evidence-based policy or
policy-based evidence?)
• Policy influence does not necessarily imply implementation, let alone with quality
standards – what influences each of these target audiences (policy makers and
practitioners) varies
• There exists a tendency for research to pay insufficient attention to costs or scalability in
their inquiry or analyses
• Fundamentally, there is lack of ‘demand’ for research and evaluations in many of the
contexts we work in
([Evaluation] is not a field where Say’s Law obtains: evaluation supply does not generate its own demand

10. HHooww a arree w wee a apppprrooaacchhiningg t thheessee c chhaalllelennggeess a att C CIFIFFF??
• Be purposeful about research and evaluations we support – have a clear ‘theory of
change’ from data through to policy and/ or implementation that can be tracked routinely
“The value of evaluation (and research?) must ultimately be judged by its usefulness in helping to improve outcomes
for target beneficiaries”
• Include an objective in our research and evaluations that will evaluate costs (this may
require expertise of a different organisation)
• Twin research proposals with ongoing/ planned investments that can apply the evidence
• Learning from other disciplines/ sectors on achieving policy change or implementation
through evidence
• Investing more in communicating evidence from our own research/ evaluations to wider
audiences – throughout an investment lifecycle
• Partner with others as we certainly cannot achieve transformation alone
“Partnerships are critical, because it will take the combined efforts of the many to successfully tackle big challenges:
such as preventing child and maternal deaths and removing climate changing carbon from the atmosphere.”