Request for proposals: Process Evaluation of the DELTA Pilot Program Kisumu and Homa Bay Counties, Kenya

1. Background

Tiko is an African non-profit organization partnering with governments, health providers, and local community-based organizations to deliver integrated care for adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) aged 15-24 in six African countries. Tiko's model addresses the Triple Threat of unintended pregnancy, HIV incidence , and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), integrating platform-based service delivery with community-level peer support and, through the DELTA program, economic empowerment.

DELTA, an integrated health and livelihoods program for AGYW nested within the broader Tiko model, was launched in January 2026 in Kisumu and Homa Bay Counties, Kenya. The program brings together five interconnected components along a structured support pathway: (1) peer mobilization, through which AGYW are identified, informed, and supported to participate; (2) health access, connecting AGYW to SRH, HIV, and SGBV services; (3) skills development through training, covering entrepreneurship, financial literacy, digital, and vocational skills; (4) opportunity linkage, connecting AGYW to TVET institutions, business support, mentorship, and employment; and (5) longer-term outcomes, including income, education, confidence, and economic participation. The central hypothesis of DELTA is that addressing health and economic barriers through a connected support pathway, rather than separate interventions, generates greater and more durable change than either stream alone.

Based on program data and formative assessments to date, DELTA has achieved strong reach on health and peer mobilization dimensions and has linked approximately 7500 AGYW to livelihoods training. Two formative studies provide an initial picture of the participant journey; one explored participants’ training activity experience, and another examined what happened after training. Together, these studies identified that 85% of trained AGYW received no structured post-training linkage support, that only approximately 15% were linked to an economic opportunity, and that livelihood sustainability varied substantially by pathway type. Peer mobilisers were credited with 47% of successful livelihood linkages and were described as central to every stage of the DELTA journey.

These findings reflect both the DELTA model’s potential and implementation gaps that must be understood and addressed to inform scale-up decisions. Tiko now requires a focused process evaluation to assess implementation fidelity across the five-component pathway, understand and identify barriers and facilitators to moving from one component to the next at the community, household, partner, and structural levels, test whether the integration of health and livelihoods training reinforce each other or not, and generate actionable recommendations for model refinement and to inform potential scale-up decisions.

2. Purpose of the Assignment

The purpose of this consultancy is to design and conduct a pragmatic process evaluation of the DELTA pilot in Kisumu and Homa Bay Counties. The evaluation will assess how DELTA has been implemented in practice relative to its intended design, identify what is working and what challenges remain across the five-component pathway, and produce findings that can directly inform model adaptation and scale-up planning.

The evaluation will be grounded in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which organizes implementation determinants across five domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting (county and community context), inner setting (organizational and partner capacity), characteristics of individuals (peer mobilisers, CBO staff, livelihoods trainers, AGYW), and the implementation process itself. RE-AIM dimensions (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation fidelity, and Maintenance) will provide the organizing structure for communicating findings to program and scale-up audiences. Together, these frameworks will allow the evaluation to move from describing what happened to explaining why, and to identifying which factors can be modified within the current pilot and which require structural responses at scale.

Specifically, the evaluation should address the following questions:

• Fidelity: To what extent is the five-component DELTA pathway being implemented as designed, and where do implementation gaps occur?
• Pathway continuity: At which stages of the DELTA pathway do AGYW disengage, and what factors drive disengagement?
• Post-training linkage: What barriers and facilitators explain the gap between training completion and structured opportunity linkage, and what adaptations could reduce this gap?
• Peer mobiliser effectiveness: How is the peer mobiliser role being operationalized across different contexts, and what distinguishes high-performing mobilisers and teams from others?
• Partner adoption: To what extent are CBO, TVET, and employer partners adopting their intended roles in the pathway, and what factors shape their engagement?
• Contextual fit: How do county-level, community-level, and economic contextual factors enable or constrain DELTA implementation? And do AGYW perceive DELTA as acceptable and as addressing their needs?
• Scale-up readiness: Which DELTA components appear most scalable, which require adaptation, and what enabling conditions would be needed for sustainable scale?
• Cost: What resources/costs are required to fully implement one round of the five component pathways?

3. Evaluation Framework and Approach

The selected consultant will propose a pragmatic mixed-methods approach suitable for the available timeframe and resources. The evaluation should build on the findings from the completed formative studies to deepen understanding of implementation dynamics. The following methodological elements are expected:

3.1 Qualitative Methods

• Key informant interviews (KIIs) with a purposive sample of DELTA program staff, peer mobilisers, CBO partner staff, technical vocational education and training (TVET)/employer partners, and local government stakeholders, structured to identify CFIR-relevant implementation determinants across different levels of the delivery system.
• Focus group discussions (FGDs) or in-depth interviews (IDIs) with AGYW participants, purposively sampled to include those who completed training and accessed an opportunity, those who completed training but were not linked, and those who enrolled but did not complete training. This sampling design allows direct comparison of experience across pathway stages.
• Where feasible, brief structured observation of training sessions or peer mobiliser activities to assess fidelity to model design.

3.2 Quantitative Methods

• A brief survey assessing key variables and measures, including vulnerability and agency measures, employment status, and sociodemographic indicators, of a representative sample.
• Secondary analysis of existing DELTA program data (enrolment, training completion, linkage, service uptake records) to establish a quantitative baseline against which qualitative findings can be contextualized.

3.3 Analytic Approach

Quantitative data will be largely descriptive and also assess key outcomes (e.g., employment status, vulnerability scales) to contextualize qualitative data. Qualitative data will be analyzed using a framework analysis approach, applying CFIR domains as a deductive structure while remaining open to inductive themes. RE-AIM dimensions will be used to organize and communicate findings. The consultant should propose a clear analysis plan in the inception report, including the proposed survey quantitative questions, codebook structure, analyst roles, and approach to inter-rater reliability or member checking.

4. Scope of Work

The selected consultant will be responsible for end-to-end delivery of the evaluation, including:

4.1 Co-design and Protocol Development

• Co-design the evaluation approach with Tiko Kenya program staff and the Tiko Impact team, incorporating program knowledge and operational constraints into the evaluation design.
• Develop a concise evaluation protocol for submission to the relevant ethics review bodies (an accredited national IRB and NACOSTI), including participant information sheets and consent/assent forms appropriate for AGYW participants aged 15-24.

4.2 Tool Development

• Develop a brief quantitative survey tool to collect measures for the study components.
• Develop KII guides, FGD/IDI guides, and any structured tools, tailored to each respondent group and to the CFIR evaluation framework.
• Ensure tools are appropriate for local context, language, and cultural setting; engage Tiko Kenya staff in tool review prior to finalization. Where appropriate, program tools using KoboToolbox for electronic data capture.
• a separate secondary data capture matrix that identifies all relevant indicators for each component of the analysis.

4.3 Data Collection

• Implement data collection across selected communities in Kisumu and Homa Bay Counties, covering at minimum the AGYW participant groups, peer mobilisers, and CBO/TVET/employer partners specified in Section 5.
• Apply appropriate safeguarding and ethical procedures for all participants (ages 18 - 24 years).
• Maintain secure data management, field quality assurance, and timely data transfer throughout the collection period.

4.4 Analysis and Reporting

• Proposed analysis package aligned with the CFIR and RE-AIM framework components before starting the analysis
• Analyze data using framework or other appropriate analysis methods (qualitative) and descriptive/ comparative secondary analysis (quantitative), structured around CFIR domains and RE-AIM dimensions.
• Produce clear, actionable findings that identify specific implementation adaptations within Tiko's control, as well as structural or contextual factors that would need to be addressed at greater scale.
• Translate findings into practical program recommendations with explicit linkage to evidence, distinguishing between near-term adaptations (within current pilot) and scale-up considerations.

5. Study Population and Sampling

The study population encompasses the full range of actors involved in or affected by DELTA implementation. The evaluation should prioritize depth over breadth; the consultant should propose a purposive sampling strategy that achieves representative quantitative measures and conceptual saturation within key evaluation domains. For the qualitative component, proposed respondent groups are as follows:

Respondent Group: AGYW who completed training and accessed an economic opportunity - Rationale: Understand enabling factors for successful pathway completion - Indicative N: 12-16 (IDIs or small FGDs)

Respondent Group: AGYW who completed training but were not linked to an opportunity - Rationale: Directly address the post-training linkage gap - Indicative N: 12-16 (IDIs or small FGDs)

Respondent Group: AGYW who enrolled but did not complete training - Rationale: Understand early disengagement and barriers to retention - Indicative N: 8-12 (IDIs)

Respondent Group: Peer mobilisers (high and low performing) - Rationale: Understand role operationalization, motivation, and contextual enablers - Indicative N: 12-16 (KIIs or small FGD)

Respondent Group: CBO partner staff - Rationale: Assess partner adoption, capacity, and barriers to engagement - Indicative N: 6-10 (KIIs)

Respondent Group: TVET, employer, or business support partners - Rationale: Assess adoption of linkage role and structural barriers - Indicative N: 4-8 (KIIs)

Respondent Group: Tiko program and field staff - Rationale: Implementation fidelity assessment and inner-setting factors - Indicative N: 6-10 (KIIs)

Respondent Group: County-level stakeholders (health, education, or economic development) - Rationale: Outer-setting context and policy environment - Indicative N: 4-6 (KIIs)

The consultant must propose explicit sampling criteria and a recruitment strategy for each group. For AGYW participants, sampling should be stratified by pathway stage (completed/linked, completed/not linked, enrolled/not completed), county (Kisumu and Homa Bay), and age cohort (18-19 and 20-24) where feasible.

6. Geographic Scope

The evaluation will be implemented across Kisumu and Homa Bay Counties in Kenya, covering sub-counties or wards that reflect the geographic and implementation diversity of the DELTA pilot. The consultant should propose a site selection strategy that captures variation in implementation context (e.g., urban vs. peri-urban, high vs. low livelihoods linkage achievement, variation in partner ecosystem) to support comparative analysis. Tiko will provide sub-county and ward-level program data to support site selection and sampling frame construction.

7. Deliverables and Timeline

The assignment is expected to run for approximately four months. Findings and recommendations are needed no later than the end of the third month to inform any model adaptations before the next program cycle. The consultant should propose a detailed work plan in the inception report.

Activity: Co-design and protocol development - Deliverable: Concise evaluation protocol, participant information sheets, and consent/assent forms; submitted for NACOSTI and IRB review - Timeline: Month 1

Activity: Ethics approval - Deliverable: NACOSTI approval and any required institutional ethics approval letters - Timeline: Month 1-2

Activity: Tool development - Deliverable: Final KII guides, FGD/IDI guides, and any structured tools; KoboToolbox scripts where applicable - Timeline: Month 2

Activity: Data collection - Deliverable: Completed raw and cleaned qualitative and quantitative datasets; field implementation and supervision report - Timeline: Months 2

Activity: Analysis and draft report - Deliverable: Draft analytical report with CFIR-structured findings, RE-AIM summary, and actionable program recommendations; Word format for Tiko review - Timeline: Month 3

Activity: Revised final report - Deliverable: Final analytical report incorporating Tiko feedback; Word and PDF versions - Timeline: Month 3

Activity: Dissemination - Deliverable: PowerPoint presentation of findings for Tiko Kenya, Programmes, and Impact Teams, and partner stakeholders; participation in one dissemination session - Timeline: Month 4

Activity: Final datasets - Deliverable: Cleaned datasets, qualitative codebook, and analysis code or syntax; delivered with documented ownership and access terms - Timeline: Month 4

8. Requirements and Team Composition

Interested firms and individual consultants must demonstrate the capacity to design and implement a pragmatic process evaluation in Kenya. Applicants should clearly demonstrate the following:

• Strong technical expertise in implementation science, including demonstrated experience applying CFIR, RE-AIM, or comparable frameworks in program evaluations.
• Experience conducting mixed-methods research with AGYW or similar populations in urban and peri-urban settings in sub-Saharan Africa, including familiarity with appropriate safeguarding protocols for adolescent participants.
• Experience in livelihoods, economic empowerment, SRHR, or integrated program evaluation; experience in the Kenya health or social protection context is an advantage.
• Technical capability in qualitative data collection and analysis (Atlas.ti, MAXQDA, NVivo, or equivalent) and digital data collection (KoboToolbox or equivalent).
• Demonstrated capacity to produce high-quality, practical analytical reports with clear program recommendations.
• Strong project management capacity, including planning, coordination, and delivery within agreed timelines and budgets.
• Experience in knowledge translation and dissemination, including presentation to program and policy audiences.
• At least three contactable references from similar assignments conducted in the last three years, with contact details.
• Excellent written and verbal communication in English; proficiency in Kiswahili or other languages spoken in Kisumu and Homa Bay is an added advantage.

The proposed team should include at minimum:

• A Team Lead with a postgraduate degree in public health, social sciences, epidemiology, economics, or a related field, and demonstrated experience leading mixed-methods implementation science evaluations.
• A Senior Researcher or specialist with expertise in SRHR, livelihoods, or adolescent health, and experience conducting qualitative research with AGYW and the accompanying analysis.
• Field coordination capacity in both Kisumu and Homa Bay Counties.

9. Evaluation Criteria

1. Description: Experience, Skills, and Ability - Weight: 35% - Evaluation Guidance: Relevance of past assignments, demonstrated experience in implementation science and process evaluations, experience with AGYW and livelihoods programs, and qualifications of proposed key personnel.

2. Description: Technical and Organizational Capacity - Weight: 35% - Evaluation Guidance: Quality and appropriateness of proposed evaluation approach, sampling strategy, and analytic methods; capacity to apply CFIR/RE-AIM in a pragmatic, resource-appropriate manner; experience working with program data and diverse partner types.

3. Description: Financial Evaluation - Weight: 20% - Evaluation Guidance: Proposals must include a detailed breakdown of all professional fees and direct implementation costs. Budgets should reflect the pragmatic, focused scope of the evaluation.

4. Description: References and Past Performance - Weight: 10% - Evaluation Guidance: Quality and relevance of at least three contactable references and the strength of submitted samples of similar work.

   Total Weighting - 100%

Firms and individual consultants are invited to submit proposals for this assignment. Proposals should not exceed 10 pages, excluding annexes (budget and CVs of proposed personnel), and should include: - Cover Page: Name of the firm or consultant, contact details, proposed team lead, and total proposed budget. - Capacity Statement: A brief statement outlining relevant experience and why the proposed team is well positioned to undertake this assignment. - Proposed Approach and Methodology: A clear description of the evaluation design, sampling strategy, data collection methods, and analytic approach, with explicit reference to how CFIR and RE-AIM will be applied. - Work Plan: A detailed work plan outlining key tasks, responsible team members, and timelines aligned to the deliverables in Section 7. - Budget: A detailed budget including total cost, itemized direct costs, and overheads. ***The budget ceiling for this opportunity is 11,500 Euro.*** Clarification questions should be submitted electronically to bidding@tiko.org no later than 5 PM SAST, 14 September 2026. Tiko will provide responses to clarification questions by 16 September. Proposals should be submitted electronically to bidding@tiko.org no later than end of day, 23 September 2026. Late submissions will not be considered. Only shortlisted applicants will be contacted for further steps.