Thrive Annual Review 2023-2024

Title: Getting children ready to learn and thrive – Research into implementing effective and quality Early Childhood Development at scale (Thrive)
Programme Value £ (full life): £20,500,000	Review date: 24/02/2024
Programme Code: 300769	AMP start date: 28/08/2019	AMP end date: 31/12/2026

Summary of Programme Performance

Year	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
Overall Output Score	A	A	A	A	A
Risk Rating	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate

DevTracker Link to Business Case:	https://iati.fcdo.gov.uk/iati_documents/90000824.odt
DevTracker Link to results framework:	https://devtracker.fcdo.gov.uk/projects/GB-GOV-1-300769/documents

A: SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW

Description of programme

Thrive is a £20.5m programme (2019-2026) which aims to address evidence gaps on what works to deliver quality, multi-sectoral early childhood development (ECD) interventions at scale in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Thrive has two active components:

Component 1: Research Programme Consortium (RPC) (£14.75m The New Zealand Government Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) is contributing £975k to fund the Kiribati research which, in addition to the FCDO funding of £14.75m, brings the total value of the RPC to approximately £15.725m. ) (2022-2026) – led by Oxford Policy Management (OPM), the RPC conducts implementation research across five countries (Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Ghana, Bangladesh, and Kiribati). The implementation phase of this component started in June 2023.

Component 2: Research calls (£4m) (2020-2026) – Thrive is co-funding ECD research with the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC conducted 3 research calls during this reporting period, totalling 6 to date. No new funding has been allocated this period; funding continues for 3 previous successful bids.

Through Component 3, Thrive also contributed £800K to the multi-donor World Bank (WB) Early Learning Partnership (ELP) to support Early Years Fellows in LMICs: early- to mid-career professionals working to advance the ECD agenda in their home countries. Funding to Component 3 concluded in January 2022 and it is not discussed further in this review A summary of Component 3 is provided in annex B. .

Summary supporting narrative for the overall score in this review

This annual review (AR) covers the reporting period March 2023 – February 2024. Reflecting delivery against output indicators, overall Thrive is scored A (meeting expectations). However, there have been challenges with programme management on Component 1 (the RPC) and this review also highlights the need for a more developed and ambitious strategic vision for the RPC, articulating how constituent parts of the consortium work synergistically.

The key development this period was the RPC, which was contracted in 2022 (due to a 2020-21 FCDO pause in new programme procurement), transitioning from inception to implementation in May 2023. Inception finished in December 2022, but there was a delay in issuing the implementation contract because of extensive revisions to the financial proforma and protracted UK cabinet office approvals. This created a standstill period for the RPC from January to May, who then used June to review the research portfolio, with research projects launching in July 2023. Examples of achievements in this period include:

The Tanzania team supported the government with the first joint sector review (JSR) for ECD, identifying evidence gaps that will support delivery of the Tanzania National Multi-Sectoral ECD Programme (NM-ECDP)

The MRC grant ‘EN-REACH: Every Newborn – Reach up Early Education intervention for All Children in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Tanzania’ (MR/V035274/1) developed and piloted an evidence-based school readiness intervention inclusive of disability specific material in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Tanzania The three grants currently funded by FCDO and MRC under Thrive are: [MR/V035274/1] EN-REACH: Every Newborn – Reach up Early Education intervention for All Children in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Tanzania [MR/V035312/1] Improving health and development through play – Evaluation of a comprehensive Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) programme at scale in Ghana [MR/V034928/1] Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home-based intervention to support early deaf child development in South Africa

Major lessons and recommendations for the year ahead

Programme performance for component 1 does not meet expectations and currently is not delivering value for money. However, we believe it is possible for the necessary improvements to be made with a dedicated improvement plan, to be developed following this AR. This plan should include, but is not limited to, action on the recommendations below. The plan should be in place by mid-April 2024 and agreed with the FCDO team leader.

The recommendations from the previous AR have been actioned apart from the recommendation to “improve coordination and collaboration between programme component activities”. Plans are in place to implement this for active components (including a researcher roundtable, and a scientific conference) but these will take place in the next reporting period. Actions on completed recommendations are detailed in annex A: these include establishing an informal cross-cadre advisory group and developing a VfM framework.

Revisions to the logframe this period have not proved stretching enough. The score of ‘A’ is partly based on set-up indicators which were included as proxy measures to show progress towards outputs given the contractual standstill: it is important that by the next review the programme is assessed against more robust indicators and appropriately ambitious milestones. The RPC needs to better engage with creating and co-owning the results framework and theory of change (ToC).

Recommendation: The RPC and FCDO programme team should revisit the updated ToC to assess whether it is fit for purpose, evaluating how the logic and assumptions have been tested. The RPC and FCDO programme team should revise the logframe to introduce more stretching and robust indicators and milestones (by end of June 2024).

The RPC lacks a comprehensive monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) strategy that articulates how MEL activities are conducted to provide robust formative and summative assessments of the programme. At present, there are several components (e.g., country roadmaps, programme ToC, reporting structures, conceptual framework) that exist in parallel without clear integration.

Recommendation: The RPC should provide a clear MEL strategy that integrates existing activities within an overarching vision and structure, explaining how these activities are being conducted and how the resulting information is being used to improve the programme. The deadline for this recommendation is for the strategy to be finalised and implemented: a draft should be shared for input from the FCDO programme team by April 2024 (by end of June 2024).

As this AR illustrates, the key challenge now is for the RPC to bring together what is currently an extensive portfolio of discrete projects (annex C) into a coherent programme that is more than the sum of its parts. The conceptual framework (annex F) provides a valuable foundation for this and was strengthened this period from the inception draft. The framework identifies the areas within ECD research where the RPC aims to contribute. However, articulating an overall strategic vision will strengthen cohesions and overall impact.

Recommendation: The RPC should, with input from FCDO, provide a strategic vision that illustrates how the programme is bringing together research projects so that the collective value is greater than individual contributions. This should set out how outputs will be synthesized across focal countries and demonstrate the balance between addressing global evidence gaps and conducting responsive research in country (by end September 2024).

Technical assistance (TA) is a small component of the RPC, intended to support country governments on ECD implementation. There is a risk that research activities skew towards or are conflated with TA: assessment of output 3 (section C) highlights how the distinction between short-term research projects and TA is not always clear.

Recommendation: The RPC should provide a strategy and structure for the TA function which sets out the end-to-end process of TA delivery and defines parameters and triage of requests. Changes from what was proposed in the original RPC bid should be justified (by end March 2024).

A key programme management issue is poor financial management of the RPC due to lack of consistent forecasting and planning across focal countries (section F). This has impacted on FCDO confidence in overall forecasting and resource allocation.

Recommendation: The RPC must provide a costed workplan that includes disaggregated spend for the TA function, quarterly snapshots showing forecast spend for activities, and quarterly implementation milestones. An updated work plan must be made available on a quarterly basis or on request (by end March 2024).

The business case includes provision for a three-year extension of up to £10m, extending the programme end date from December 2026 to December 2029 In addition to the components listed in section A, £550k of the current programme budget of £20.5m covers a programme-funded post (PFP) programme responsible owner (PRO) for THRIVE, and £400k is earmarked for external evaluation in the outer years of the programme lifecycle. . The next reporting period and AR should be used inform the decision on an extension so the RPC can make most strategic use of this if granted.

Recommendation: The FCDO programme team should draw upon internal advisory cadre capability and invite a 10% advisor to conduct the next AR and provide additional scrutiny in consideration of a possible costed programme extension (advisor to be appointed by end September 2024 for next AR to be completed by February 2024).

B: THEORY OF CHANGE AND PROGRESS TOWARDS OUTCOMES

The programme theory of change and (ToC) and logframe were revised this period to address conflation between activities, outputs, and outcomes, and show the underpinning logic more clearly. The logframe was revised to reflect these updates and address previous challenges including poor version control, unclear indicator descriptions, cumulative indicators that risked double counting and inaccurate % weightings See annex E for more detail on revised output indicators. .

The Thrive ToC illustrates how the programme will create robust research to support the implementation of effective ECD interventions at scale. The RPC has three key activities: 1) country research programmes; 2) stakeholder engagement; and 3) technical assistance. This is in addition to the research calls facilitated through the MRC. Through these activities, the programme is expected to deliver outputs of primary research, evidence products with recommendations for programme and policy adaptation, strategic advice to country governments, and effectively engaged stakeholders.

It is expected that these outputs will result in two short-term outcomes. Firstly, the global evidence base on ‘what works’ for ECD will grow because evidence produced by Thrive will increase the demand for ECD research from stakeholder engagement fuelling research generation from elsewhere. The second short-term outcome is increased government engagement in ECD policy and programming. As long-term outcomes, we anticipate that LMICs will begin to adopt and implement effective and equitable EDC interventions at scale because of the improved evidence based and government engagement. The revised ToC aims to provide a more detailed causal logic by differentiating between short-term and long-term outcomes, illustrating how, over time, these build towards the intended impact.

Figure 1. Thrive Theory of change (ToC)

The intended impact of the programme is improved education and health outcomes for children (this is unchanged). The original impact indicator was “THRIVE countries demonstrating positive progress against SDG targets - specifically SDG 4.2 (all girls and boys to have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education) and SDG 4.6 (ensure all youth achieve literacy and numeracy)”. This has been revised to “Improved ECD Index score in Thrive focal countries” to retain the focus on education and health outcomes but captured by a more up-to-date indicator UNICEF was tasked with leading the development of a measure to track progress against SGD indicator 4.2.1, which most recently resulted in creation of the ECD Index 2030 (ECDI2030). This multidimensional indicator is included in the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS), increasing the likelihood of relevant data being available to assess the impact of Thrive. .

Describe where the programme is on/off track to contribute to the expected outcomes and impact. What action is planned in the year ahead?

Overall, the programme is demonstrating acceptable progress based on delivery of outputs, but there is a risk that the RPC develops as a disparate collection of projects, limiting its ability to maximise delivery of outcomes. We assess that the RPC is not currently delivering value for money. There were no outcome indicator milestones set for this period however, the programme has made progress (see below) towards the milestones expected in next reporting period (table 1). The programme risks being off track to meet these milestones if the recommendations made at this juncture are not implemented.

Table 1. Outcomes, indicators, and milestone for next reporting period (2024-25)
Outcomes	Indicator	Milestone
1. Effective and equitable ECD interventions are implemented at scale by LMIC national governments (long-term)	1.1 Stories of change demonstrating contribution of evidence produced by the RPC to improve efficacy of in-country ECD programmes	3

1.2 Number of pilots initiated or evaluated by Thrive which are scaled up by focal country governments	2
2. Increased global evidence base on quality ECD (short-term)	2.1 Number of academic citations of primary research papers	10
3. Increased government engagement in ECD policy and programming (short-term)	3.1 Stories of change demonstrating increased government buy-in as a result of Thrive's work	2

Whilst Thrive is starting to see academic outputs from the MRC grants (with primary research papers expected from the RPC in the next reporting period) the outputs are not yet significant enough to expect numerous citations or clear use of evidence by country governments. The RPC has updated and strengthened their conceptual framework (see annex F), which supports outcome 2 by providing the foundation for the research activities and ensuring outputs. However, the programme currently struggles to articulate how the portfolio of research projects forms a cohesive body of work that is more than the sum of its parts. Given that the programme will conclude at the end of 2026, there is a need for the research direction to be honed and reflected in more substantial RPC outputs next year.

Progress towards outcomes 1 and 3 is supported by positive country government engagement seen from Thrive focal countries over the past year. The RPC have conducted stakeholder workshops in country, establishing national steering committees to secure buy-in and co-creation of the research projects. Requests for significant technical assistance received in Tanzania and Ghana illustrate government engagement with Thrive and appetite for support on ECD policy and programming but could risk diverting attention away from robust research if the distinction between TA and research activities is not made clear.

Justify whether the programme should continue, based on its own merits and in the context of the wider portfolio

Thrive has met output indicators this reporting period, but the programme requires improvement to ensure it delivers research that achieves expected outcomes and contributes to the intended impact of improved education and health outcomes for children. Thrive fills a gap in the portfolio, as it is the only FCDO programme with an explicit focus on holistic ECD. It builds on the FCDO health priority of Ending Preventable Deaths to better understand what works ensure children do not just survive but are able to meet their potential. The programme aligns with FCDO organisational priorities on education and foundational learning, as well as providing opportunities to explore gender and inclusion dimensions of development from the earliest possible point of the lifecycle. The programme needs improvements to demonstrate value for money based on the assessment provided in section D, and this review supports a continuation of the programme.

C. DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING

Output Title	Primary research papers
Output number:	1	Output Score:	A
Impact weighting (%):	40%	Weighting revised since last AR?	No

Indicator(s)	Milestone(s) for this review	Progress
1.1 Number of articles submitted for peer reviewed publication	0	1 – exceeded expectations. (MRC Loucaides et al.)
1.2 Percentage of submitted papers published after peer review	0%	100% – exceeded expectations. (MRC Loucaides et al.)
1.3 Percentage of published peer reviewed papers authored or co-authored by women	0%	100% – exceeded expectations. (MRC: Loucaides et al. has authors of both genders)
1.4 Percentage of published peer reviewed papers authored or co-authored by Global South authors	0%	100% – exceeded expectations (MRC: Loucaides et al. has authors affiliated with academic institutions in the UK, Rwanda, Uganda, and South Africa)
1.5 Bi-annual meetings with Thrive Workstream Leads to ensure buy-in of Thrive research questions	2	2 (RPC) – met expectations
1.6 Research themes and workstreams identified that guide the Thrive research agenda	1	1 (RPC) – met expectations
1.7 Number of Life-Cycle Research Projects identified	2	2 (RPC) – met expectations

Briefly describe the output’s activities and provide supporting narrative for the score.

Thrive has met the milestones for this output. For indicators 1.1 – 1.3, Although no publications were expected this period, Loucaides et al. (MRC grant MR/V035274/1) published a meta-analysis of approaches to livelihood support for caregivers of children with developmental disabilities in LMICs. They found that whilst stakeholders widely reported livelihood support for caregivers, there was a marked absence of peer-reviewed literature on the topic, highlighting an evidence gap around the provision of holistic ECD support for disabled children.

Indicators 1.5 – 1.7 were agreed with the RPC during revisions to the logframe in August 2023 to evidence the preparatory work undertaken to implement research projects, given the contractual delay in beginning activities. An important part of this preparatory work has been strengthening the RPC conceptual framework, finalised in September 2023 (indicator 1.6). The is structured around three themes (table 2) subdivided into workstreams focus on specific evidence areas, with each workstream allocated a dedicated academic lead.

Table 2. Structure of RPC conceptual framework Annex F summarises the RPC research workstreams and academic leadership.
Theme	Workstreams (WS)
1. What works	WS1.1 Understanding childhood development WS1.2 Piloting innovative ECD approaches
2. Implementation at scale	WS2.1 Strengthening the ECD workforce WS2.2 Sustainable scaling
3. Equity and inclusion	WS3.1 Gender equity, women’s empowerment, and father engagement WS3.2 Marginalised and disadvantaged children WS3.3 Measurement and assessment

An RPC workstream lead meeting was held in July 2023 to ensure that the workstreams collectively address key ECD evidence gaps (indicator 1.5). In September 2023, a second workstream lead session was held with the Thrive Tanzania team to explore alignment of the project portfolio with the framework and identify opportunities to build on this (indicator 1.5).

The RPC has identified two projects that take a long-term approach to ECD scaling where the programme can contribute (indicator 1.7). The first is a cluster randomised controlled trial (CRCT) in Ghana evaluating whether the Lively Minds early childhood care and education (ECCE) programme retains efficacy when taken to scale by the Government of Ghana. The trial receives core funding from USAID and the Thrive MRC grant MR/V035312/1, with the RPC adding a project to identify how practices and culture within local government education services affect scaling, identifying enabling factors that support the handover of NGO pilot programmes to government service providers.

The second project builds on the infrastructure of Kizazi Kijacho, a 6-year multi-arm CRCT in Tanzania led by the Institute for International Economic Studies, Stockholm University. The original CRCT compared the efficacy of unconditional cash transfers with a parenting intervention: the RPC has added a third arm combining the interventions, as a key evidence gap in ECD is the impact of bundling multiple interventions and whether this has a multiplier effect. The RPC has also expanded the CRCT sample size to evaluate a more scalable version of the parenting program, conducting both and impact and process evaluations.

Describe any changes to this output during the past year, and any planned changes as a result of this review.

The title of this output was updated from ‘Robust and rigorous research on effectiveness ('what works' to strengthen implementation of ECD service delivery at scale) and efficacy (innovative approaches to ECD)' to ‘primary research papers’. This change was made to align the logframe with the revised theory of change and capture the output in straightforward terms, rather than describing the activity that underpins this. It remains the case that delivery of robust and rigorous research is the core expectation behind this output. Indicators 1.5 – 1.7 will not be reported against at the next review, as by then it is expected that the RPC will be producing published results to be captured by indicators 1.1 – 1.4.

Progress on recommendations from the previous AR (if completed), lessons learned this year and recommendations for the year ahead

It was recommended at the previous AR that the FCDO Thrive programme team and the RPC should work with the new What Works Hub for Global Education (WWHGE) programme to ensure ECD is incorporated into the hub and identify collaborations. The Thrive Research Directorate has met with Noam Angrist, Academic Director of WWHGE and are exploring synergies in research topics, approaches, and methods. The RPC has proposed hosting a scientific conference in 2024. It is recommended that the RPC proposal for hosting a scientific conference should detail how this will be used as an opportunity to showcase the work produced through the MRC grants and further build relationships with complementary programmes including WWHGE (by end of April 2023).

Output Title	Evidence products with implications for programme and policy adaptation
Output number:	2	Output Score:	A+
Impact weighting (%):	40%	Weighting revised since last AR?	Yes

Indicator(s)	Milestone(s) for this review	Progress
2.1 Number of evidence products produced with implications for programme and policy	3	5 – marginally exceeded expectations (4 RPC, 1 MRC)
2.2 Percentage of evidence products that include discussion of how to apply implications through a gender and inclusion lens	30%	80% – exceeded expectations.(4 out of 5 products)
2.3 Percentage of evidence products authored or co-authored by women	30%	80% – exceeded expectations. (4 out of 5 products)
2.4 Percentage of evidence products authored or co-authored by Global South authors	30%	80% – exceeded expectations. (4 out of 5 products)
2.5 Annual meeting with Research Directorate, International PIs and Country Teams to discuss synergies across the projects and encourage collaboration	1	1 – met expectations

Briefly describe the output’s activities and provide supporting narrative for the score.

Thrive has met and marginally exceeded the milestone targets for this output. Five products are contributing to the achievements of indicator 2.1 These documents are not included as annexes to this review due to their length but will be made publicly available with the launch of the Thrive website. (table 3). The Thrive overview for the Oxford Evidence Event was originally intended for an internal audience (FCDO advisors) and does not contribute to contribute to indicators 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 as the other products do.

Table 3. Evidence products and counting against indicators 2.1
Component	Product
RPC	Economic Development Initiatives (EDI) Global: Kizazi Kijacho baseline survey completion report
RPC	Elizabeth Glaser Paediatric AIDS Foundation (EGPAF): Community health worker (CHW) training progress report
RPC	Thrive Tanzania Early Childhood Development Centre report
RPC	Thrive Programme overview for Oxford Evidence Event with FCDO advisors for the Education and Development Forum (UKFIET)
MRC	EN-REACH school readiness intervention materials that equip caregivers with knowledge and skills ​​to support children’s transition into local pre-primary and primary schools

The EN-REACH grant (MR/V035274/1) looks at adapting and expanding the success of the ‘Reach Up’ intervention – a Jamaican home visiting programme and one of the most evidence-based parenting programmes to support early child development – with a particular focus on ensuring children are ready for the transition to pre-primary and primary school. The EN-REACH grant team has produced an evidence-based parenting intervention ‘Let’s get ready’ in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Tanzania with involvement from ministries of health and education in each country. The intervention, delivered to parents and caregivers over nine sessions Each session focuses on a particular aspect of children’s readiness for school, for example, session two ‘Let’s play together’ encourages structured and unstructured play to develop motor skills, whilst session three ‘Let’s grow happy and healthy’ helps caregivers support children with behavioural difficulties. , includes specific content on disability. Each country has completed two months of piloting and materials are being tailored to the country contexts.

In Tanzania, the government are pushing for evidence to inform a scalable model for ECD centres. The RPC produced a report for the government which uses qualitative data from local stakeholders to propose components of the ECD centre model, with equity and inclusion as a central consideration. Preliminary recommendations include: careful choice of location for the centres to ensure proximity and access to marginalised communities; sufficient provision of 1:1 staffing ratios for children with certain disabilities; and early community engagement and co-creation to mitigate stigma around disability.

In July 2023, the RPC convened the first in-person annual meeting in Oxford, United Kingdom (indicator 2.5), bringing together the programme and research directorates, principal investigators (PIs), country research teams, workstream leads and FCDO See annex F for detail of the RPC structure. . The two-day workshop included country-level project presentations and a review of how these mapped to the conceptual framework. This allowed country research teams to identify areas for collaboration which will lead to synthesised evidence products and highlighted the challenge of balancing country level research priorities with global evidence gaps.

Describe any changes to this output during the past year, and any planned changes as a result of this review.

As part of the recommended revision of the ToC and logframe, the title of this output was updated from “Rigorous, robust and policy relevant (where appropriate) synthesis products produced across the whole programme” to “Evidence products with implications for programme and policy adaptations”. This change was made to simplify the language whilst retaining the aim of capturing evidence-based outputs other than academic publications. The weighting of this output has been increased from 20% to 40% (with a corresponding decrease for output 3) to emphasise the programme’s focus on evidence generation and synthesis over technical assistance.

The indicators have been updated accordingly, mirroring the format for output 1 (see indicators 1.2 – 1.4). However, without more stretching milestones, these indicators risk magnifying how well the programme is performing (e.g., if one product is produced that has female and global south authors and incorporates a gender and inclusion lens this would exceed multiple indicators). Indicator 2.5 (the research partners annual meeting) was included to show evidence of initial work behind the outputs during the early stage of implementation and may be removed in future pending review during the next reporting period.

Progress on recommendations from the previous AR (if completed), lessons learned this year and recommendations for the year ahead.

The previous annual review did not include specific recommendations for this output. This review highlights three recommendations:

The FCDO programme team and RPC should review logframe indicators 2.2 – 2.4 which, although capturing important data, risk overstating how well the programme is performing. The milestones for this indicator are set to increase for the next reporting period (to 50%) but should be increased further. Indicator 2.5 will also be reviewed and likely removed. (by end August 2024).

The RPC should ensure that evidence products counted against this indicator are made publicly available either via the Thrive website or other appropriate channels including implementing partners websites, blogs, or social media (by end April 2024)

The RPC should ensure that the Thrive website is launched as soon as possible, and that following the website launch all products are included in the evidence library from hereon (by end April 2024)

Output Title	Policy relevant and targeted strategic advice provided to country governments
Output number:	3	Output Score:	A
Impact weighting (%):	10%	Weighting revised since last AR?	Yes

Indicator(s)	Milestone(s) for this review	Progress
3.1 Policy relevant and targeted strategic advice provided to country governments	0	0 – no outputs expected against indicator at this milestone
3.2 Number of short-term research projects identified with influencing opportunities for ECD scaling	7	8 – marginally exceeded expectations (RPC)

Briefly describe the output’s activities and provide supporting narrative for the score.

Thrive has met and marginally exceeded the milestone targets for this output. Eight short-cycle projects were identified during this reporting period with influencing opportunities for ECD scaling (table 4) See annex C for a full list of projects in the RPC portfolio and project descriptions. which are underway and on track to deliver results within the expected timeframes. The programme had scope for these formative research projects to be conducted in the early phases to improve the quality and focus of subsequent projects.

Table 4. Short-term research projects with influencing opportunities for ECD scaling
Country	Code	Project title	Project dates
Bangladesh	BNSC7	Bangladesh Situation Analysis	Oct 23 – Mar 24
Ghana	GHSC1	Delivering a PEA and establishing a PEA process	Jul 23 – Oct 23

GHSC2	Improving child outcomes with integrated 0-3 services	Sep 23 – Mar 24

GHSC3	Situation Analysis of ECD provision in Ghana	Jul 23 – Mar 24
Kiribati	KBSC1	Situation Analysis of ECD provision in Kiribati	Nov 23 – Mar 24
Sierra Leone	SLSC1	ECD Situation Analysis (PEA, ECD Services Mapping)	Jul 23 – Mar 24

SLSC2	System Analysis	Jul 23 – Mar 24
Tanzania	TZSC1	Assessment of ECD organisations, public finance, and service delivery in Tanzania (ECD situation analysis)	Jul 23 – Mar 24

These projects have allowed the country research teams to identify priority issues for ECD in each context, guiding strategic engagement with key stakeholders. For example, the RPC has been supporting Tanzania’s National ECD Steering Committee to identify the evidence gaps needed to achieve the policy aims outlined in Tanzania’s National Multisectoral ECD Programme (NM-EDCP). The RPC contributed to the first Joint Sector Review (JSR), marking the first-time multiple government ministries met to coordinate ECD services delivery. With the situational analysis in Tanzania (TZSC1) highlighting strong political will to scale up provision of ECD centres, the RPC has been able to strategically focus on providing the evidence to inform a model ECD centre.

Describe any changes to this output during the past year, and any planned changes as a result of this review.

The title of this output was updated from ‘Policy relevant research produced, and appropriate, evidence-based, and timely technical advice provided to government on request’ to ‘Policy relevant and targeted strategic advice provided to country government’ to better differentiate this from the production of research (outputs 1 and 2). The weighting has been revised from 30% to 10% to emphasise that the production of research is the central aim of the programme, with this output being a smaller and supplementary component of the RPC’s remit. Indicator 3.2 is specific to the current stage of the programme as this refers to formative research projects and is not expected to be reported against at the next review: it is expected by that stage that the RPC technical assistance function will be clearly implemented and the number of instances of TA provided will be counted against 3.1.

Progress on recommendations from the previous AR (if completed), lessons learned this year and recommendations for the year ahead

The RPC has completed the recommendation from the previous AR to raise awareness of Thrive by focusing on national and global level engagement. A key lesson learnt this year is that in its current configuration, the RPC does not clearly differentiate between short-term research projects that are informed by country government agendas and offers of technical assistance (TA). On paper, the RPC distinguishes short-term research from TA as being ‘knowledge creation’ rather than ‘knowledge application’, but this is not clear in practice. This lesson is address by the overarching programme recommendation on having a distinct structure for the RPC TA function.

The example provided above from Tanzania on how insights gleaned from the formative short-term research projects has informed subsequent research focus for the RPC is not as clearly demonstrated in the other focal countries. It is recommended that:

The RPC should demonstrate in the outputs of the formative research projects and the concept notes for new projects how findings have been used to inform the RPC direction. All proposed projects need to clearly articulate the research question and relative contributions to the global evidence base and / or country-level evidence gaps (by end May 2024).

Output Title	Key stakeholders are engaged through effective dissemination of primary research papers and evidence products
Output number:	4	Output Score:	A
Impact weighting (%):	10%	Weighting revised since last AR?	No

Indicator(s)	Milestone(s) for this review	Progress
4.1 Total number of views across promotional publication blog posts on Thrive website during reporting period	0	0 – no outputs expected against indicator at this milestone.
4.2 Number of dissemination events where Thrive's work is shared	5	7 – exceeded expectations. (5 RPC, 2 MRC)

Briefly describe the output’s activities and provide supporting narrative for the score.

Thrive has met and exceeded the milestone targets for this output. There have been 7 dissemination events Defined as workshops, briefings, presentations or panel representation with academics, researchers, national or international policymakers (e.g., governments, donors, international organisations, non-governmental Organisations, National Statistics Offices, etc.) or other ECD stakeholders. this period where Thrive's work has been presented (table 6). These events have played an important role in ensuring key stakeholders are engaged in Thrive’s work. For example, researchers conducting the MRC sensitization workshop in Nepal on the EN-REACH project reported that the presentation improved engagement between officials and the study team, resulting in approval from the ministries on further study activities.

In Tanzania, the ECD Centre Model Workshop resulted in government buy-in and tangible commitments to advancing the ECD agenda. This workshop was attended by the Deputy Permanent Secretary (DPS) from the President's Office, Regional Administration and Local Government Tanzania (PO-RALG). A key takeaway was commitment from the DPS to write to all Local Government Authorities to allocate budget for the construction of ECD centres for FY2024/25. The DPS acknowledged the evidence gap around what a model ECD centre should be for Tanzania, and provided assurances that evidence and proposals generated by the RPC would reach the president. This demonstrates how this output is contributing to the short-term outcome of increased government engagement in ECD policy and programming, and the long-term outcome of governments scaling ECD interventions.

Table 5. Thrive dissemination events Annex G provides detail on agendas and attendees for RPC engagements.
Component	Country	Event
1	RPC	Ghana	Thrive Presentation to Government of Ghana officials and the National Development Planning Commission - November 2022
2	RPC	Kiribati	Thrive briefing with the Ministry of Women, Youth, Sport, and Social Welfare Offices (MWYSSA) – March 2023
3	RPC	Kiribati	Thrive Lead Keynote speech – September 2023
4	RPC	N/A	Oxford Evidence Day (UKFEIT) presentation by Thrive Research Director – September 2023
5	RPC	Tanzania	Tanzania ECD Centre Model Workshop with five government ministries and NGOs – September 2023
6	MRC	N/A	Researchers from the EN-REACH grant (MR/V0352741) participated in a global community of practice (with 523 members) for professionals caring for children with developmental disabilities and their families – June 2023
7	MRC	Nepal	Researchers from the EN-REACH grant (MR/V0352741) conducted a sensitisation workshop with officials from centre for education and human resource development (CEHRD) and education and health ministers – July 2023

Describe any changes to this output during the past year, and any planned changes as a result of this review.

The title of this output was revised from “Effective dissemination of research findings and engagement with key stakeholders” to “Key stakeholders are engaged through effective dissemination of primary research papers and evidence products”. This change was to capture the importance of active engagement with stakeholders rather than stakeholders being passive recipients of evidence outputs. Previous logframe indicators for this output (see annex E) included set-up indicators that corresponded to the programme inception phase and were no longer relevant. Indicator 4.1 was added to reflect the dissemination strategy that evidence outputs would be accompanied by a promotional blog post on the Thrive website when launched.

Progress on recommendations from the previous AR (if completed), lessons learned this year and recommendations for the year ahead

The previous AR did not contain specific recommendations for this output. Whilst the indicators for this output measure the quantity of activities around stakeholder engagement with the research, it is important that the quality of engagement is more consistently assessed (and that any impact of this engagement is tracked). This should bear in mind the limitations on feasibility of reporting, for example, acknowledging that MRC grant awardees are not directly accountable to report to FCDO. We recommend that:

The RPC consistently records external feedback on engagements and submits this as part of reporting against this indicator. As part of this, they should start recording any impact or influence from engagements. (by January 2025).

The RPC ensures that as academic outputs and evidence products are generated, these are used as the central material for future engagement events. As part of reporting against this indicator, the research, findings, or product being presented should be documented by the RPC (by January 2025)

The FCDO programme team and MRC should review reporting requirements and agree what data collection is feasible from grant awardees (by August 2024)

D: VALUE FOR MONEY

The key cost drivers for the OPM NB. OPM as consortium lead (and, therefore, programme manager) is referred to throughout sections D to F rather than ‘the RPC’ as being accountable for delivery of component 1. contract are staffing (approximately 60% of spend per quarter) and logistics. During this reporting period, a VfM framework has been developed to evaluate the four ‘E’s. This lists sub-criteria for each ‘E’ that need to be met to judge performance as excellent, good, adequate, or poor. The tables below show the level where these have been met and, if applicable, where sub-criteria in the level above have not been met (full tables showing the sub-criteria below these thresholds are detailed in annex H).

Economy – Excellent

Table 6. Standards for judgement of economy performance
Performance	Sub-criteria
Excellent	Actively identifying and obtaining new investment from different donors. [MET] Average unit costs for key inputs meet agreed benchmarks. [MET] And meets all criteria under ‘good’ performance. [MET]

OPM identifies opportunities for new investments through the development of National ECD Strategic plans in focal countries. They are currently building contacts, partnerships and networks with organisations that would be interested in financing or co-financing work and have identified three investment opportunities from additional donors. Average unit costs for key inputs have all met agreed benchmarks. Due to high levels of inflation (15-20%), daily net fee rates are higher than originally budgeted but still within the gross daily rates agreed in the contract. The RPC is currently managing these costs but may need to be reviewed with FCDO in due course. FCDO and MRC jointly fund research calls under Component 2, which delivers economy value by leveraging the existing infrastructure and expertise of the MRC with no additional administration or management overheads.

Efficiency – Adequate

Table 7. Standards for judgement of efficiency performance
Performance	Sub-criteria
Good	Programme outputs are generally judged to be of good quality, value, and usefulness by key stakeholders, with only a few exceptions, and are generally completed on time and within available resources, allowing for delays outside the control of the programme and researchers. [NOT MET]
Adequate	Programme outputs are generally judged to be of acceptable quality, value, and usefulness by key stakeholders, with only a few exceptions, and are showing acceptable progress within available resources. [MET]

Due to delays in the OPM contract moving to implementation, the outputs to date are primarily internal (e.g., quarterly reports, reporting frameworks). As a result, there is a lack of external feedback from key stakeholders which can be used to judge quality. The judgement of ‘adequate’ is based on FCDO feedback on internal outputs, for example, improvements needed in the quality of quarterly reporting and a more proactive approach from OPM on engaging with theory of change and logframe development. Staff turnover in the programme has been minimal but, in some cases, has impinged on teams’ ability to deliver, such as the change of PI Sierra Leone following 2023 elections, with a new PI appointed January 2024.

Effectiveness – Adequate

Table 8. Standards for judgement of effectiveness performance
Performance	Sub-criteria
Good	The programme has generally met its expected contribution to its intended short-term outcomes in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, with only a few minor exceptions, allowing for delays outside the control of the programme and researchers. [NOT MET] And meets all criteria under ‘adequate’ performance. [NOT MET]
Adequate	The programme shows progress toward both of its intended short-term outcomes, allowing for delays outside the control of the programme and researchers. [MET]

This review indicates that whilst the programme shows progress towards short-term outcomes (sections B and C), delivery against these is at risk without programme improvements. For the sub-criteria for ‘good’ to be met, OPM needs to proactively engage with developing a programme improvement plan by mid-April 2024 and focus on providing a clearer strategic vision to help evidence how all the research activities and outputs are contributing to outcomes.

Equity – Good

Table 9. Standards for judgement of equity performance
Performance	Sub-criteria
Excellent	The research explicitly addresses marginalised communities by specifically identifying these groups and develops effective, scalable interventions to reach them. [NOT MET] Research design incorporates Global South methodologies and stakeholder voices. [MET] And meets all criteria under ‘good’ performance. [MET]
Good	Involvement of Global South Researchers in research leadership roles. [MET] The research explicitly considers the context-specific gender influences on ECD outcomes, and explicitly considers gender equality objectives. [MET] And meets all criteria under ‘adequate’ performance. [MET]

The research delivered by OPM has cross-cutting themes around the gender and inclusion woven into the design of the projects. Examples of this are included in section C (see narrative for output 2). Global South researchers hold leadership roles within the RPC and disaggregated by gender, 56% of leadership positions in the RPC are held by women. The programme logframe includes indicators and milestones on global south and female authorship. The MRC grants are delivered by research teams of mixed genders and global south researchers. The research includes projects that explicitly address marginalised communities, specifically children living with disabilities. For Thrive to move from an assessment of good to excellent, the RPC research needs to explicitly address marginalised communities and develop scalable ECD interventions that reach these groups.

VfM performance compared to the original VfM proposition in the business case

The programme business summary VfM statement and proposed indicators (see annex H) have been used to develop the framework applied here. Based on this assessment, the programme needs to improvements over the next year to demonstrate value for money. Whilst it is too early to meaningfully evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the programme (ultimate impact on foreign policy objectives, relative to the inputs invested) this review has highlighted the need to develop measures that will be applied, even if the required data to conduct this analysis will not be available until the outer years of the programme.

E: RISK

All residual risk for the programme falls within appetite, with the overall programme risk rated moderate. OPM has reported a nil return on safeguarding and fraud issues each quarter to date. Discussion here focuses on categories with a residual risk of moderate. There have been no risks exceeding ‘minor’ identified pertaining to Component 2 (MRC grants).

The main strategy and context risks (moderate) are that research is delayed due to emerging contextual factors, and that systems impact is limited by insufficient government demand or capacity for research uptake. The first of these emerged in Sierra Leone, where the original principal investigator (PI) had to step down after being appointed to government following the June 2023 elections. This change of key personnel disrupted progress of the country research portfolio. In January 2024, OPM proposed a new PI whose appointment FCDO endorsed. Continued mitigation of the impact of this risk is needed to ensure the Sierra Leone research does not suffer further delays.

Public service and delivery operations risk (moderate) has centred on the delay to implementation affecting operations. The standstill period between inception and implementation from January 2023 – May 2023 hindered RPC engagement with the focal country governments, with OPM needing to reset expectations of key stakeholders. Since then, the RPC’s government engagement strategy has re-established buy-in with Thrive. The RPC used June to conduct a strategic review of proposed plans for the first year of implementation: where opportunities had been missed new projects were identified and frequency of engagement with partners was increased. The output milestones for this reporting period were reviewed to reflect challenges caused by the delay in implementation, and weekly contact between OPM and the FCDO programme management team allowed for timely decision making from June 2023 onwards.

With respect to policy and programme delivery (moderate), there is a risk that the programme fails to deliver research that is relevant to policy for scaling up ECD services, resulting in loss of engagement with policy makers and limited evidence uptake. To prevent this, OPM have focused heavily on government engagement and country endorsement for research projects. However, this raises a secondary risk that the portfolio of research projects is overly responsive and, therefore, fails to address clear, strategic research questions. Recommendations 1 and 2 from this AR (section A) seek to address this.

The primary financial and fiduciary risk (moderate) is the lack of robust financial management across the focal countries (discussed further in section F). OPM have also faced challenges with managing expectations of sub-contractors who are accustomed to grant arrangements rather than direct contracts. In response to these risks, OPM will build anticipated delays into negotiations with future downstream partners and apply stringent monitoring on bi-monthly basis with country teams over the next year. Improving financial management of the programme is a key recommendation from this review (see section A).

F: PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT: DELIVERY, COMMERCIAL & FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

Funding for Component 1 (OPM contract) is provided as a quarterly payment in arrears, based on actuals which ensures that FCDO can monitor expected spend and results. Costs have been invoiced within the timeframe agreed and all invoices have been supported by financial reporting. OPM provides quarterly reports within 30 days of quarter end.

The OPM contract underwent a five-month standstill period between January – May 2023 due to a protracted contract amendment process to formalise the transition from inception to implementation. This was due to numerous rounds of revision needed on the programme financial proforma between the FCDO commercial team and OPM, and lengthy UK cabinet office approvals processes. Despite the downstream challenges this period presented, the OPM programme management team were responsive and collaborative throughout.

There have been two broader issues for the RPC that require improvement: financial management, and internal deliverables not being consistently high quality. The original FY23/24 budget for the RPC was £4.35m. We agreed to reduce this by £450k to £3.9m in June 2023 following a revised forecast from OPM that reflected the delay starting implementation. OPM provided another forecast in July 2023 for £3.968m. Despite assuring the FCDO in the second and third quarter that this would be met, OPM submitted a revised forecast in December 2023 with a significant annual underspend of £722k against the revised budget and July forecast (so £1.17m underspend against the original budget), mainly for Q3 activities which finished in December (changes highlighted by shaded cells in table 10).

Table 10. RPC budget and forecasts for FY23/24
Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Annual
Budget	£3,900,000
Forecast (Jul 23)	£220,000	£390,000	£1,419,622	£1,938,809	£3,968,431
Forecast (Dec 23)	£220,000	£390,000	£836,000	£1,800,180	£3,246,180
Invoiced	£230,091.03	£401,178.65	TBC	TBC	TBC

It has, therefore, been challenging for the FCDO to have confidence in assurances from OPM on meeting forecasts due to the lack of a costed workplan illustrating breakdown of spend across activities for the fiscal year. The FCDO commissioned this in October 2023 and OPM submitted a draft costed workplan in December 2023. This revealed issues due to variation in budget management across focal countries, conflating presentation of fees and expenses.

Whilst overall delivery for Component 1 has met expectations, this has not been consistent. For example, work to respond to the previous annual review recommendations on revising the theory of change and logframe was largely driven by FCDO rather than proposals from OPM. This was reflected in a score of 3 for key performance indicator (KPI) 5.1 for Q2. The FCDO programme team flagged that a more proactive approach to delivery and quality is needed, reflecting OPM’s accountability and ownership. OPM have been responsive to feedback on strengthening reporting quality and structure.

Table 11. FY23/24 scoring for quarterly and biannual KPIs
No.	KPI	Sub-criteria	Scoring

Q1	Q2
1.1	Management, Strategy and Financial	Accurate and robust quarterly and annual reports submitted by agreed deadlines	4	4
1.2

Accurate and timely submission of forecasting and invoices	4	4
2.1	Team performance	Delivery team performance	4	4
5.1	Innovation and continuous improvement	Management team responsiveness to FCDO’s recommendations based on the findings of annual reviews, mid-term reviews, annual audit reports and performance improvement plans or evaluation reports.	N/A	3

Component 2 is administered under an MOU by MRC, who inform FCDO during each funding round whether relevant bids have been received. Decisions to fund relevant bids are made jointly. Grant disbursement has a broadly flat payment profile divided quarterly over the grant duration, and MRC invoices FCDO quarterly. The PRO and PM met with MRC in September 2023 where a possible bid was flagged but later deemed unsuitable for funding through Thrive. The PRO observed the MRC board meeting in November 2023, and has liaised with counterparts in the FCDO Global Health Research team to ensure a coherent approach to FCDO / MRC funding. There have been no significant programme management issues relating to Component 2. We recommend that the FCDO and MRC work together to clarify reporting structure and expectations to minimise additional burden on grant recipients (by September 2024).

G. MONITORING, EVIDENCE AND LEARNING

OPM has an annual monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) budget of approximately £80k and a team of four staff scheduled to work a collective 155 days per year. These resources primarily support the development of country roadmaps, stories of change, case studies, and learning workshops. This period, the OPM MEL team conducted a virtual workshop with each country team (except Kiribati, which due to its comparatively small size does not have a country team in the same way as other Thrive focal countries) to create the country roadmaps which sit within the programme theory of change (ToC) and articulate how to advance research and political engagement needed to scale up quality ECD services.

The OPM MEL work is delivered on a sporadic basis and framed around delivering on FCDO expectations of producing stories of change and output indicators. Furthermore, this activity is not situated within a clear plan, and we recommend in this AR (see section A) that OPM prioritise delivering a robust MEL strategy. The programme business case includes up to £400k for a programme evaluation to be procured in the outer years of the programme. The timing of this depends on whether a costed extension is granted and should be reviewed during the next reporting period.

MEL for Component 2 (MRC grants) is led by the MRC programme manager (PM). Data are collected using Researchfish to monitor outputs including publications, evidence products, events, and engagement. The MRC PM aims to touch base once or twice a year with the grant principal investigator (PI) and research team, to discuss any issues and get a narrative summary of progress. These meetings are used to collect information not captured via Researchfish, such as reporting on capacity strengthening activities. For grants which include trials, the MRC PM observes the Trial Steering Committee which meets at least once a year. Beyond the lifetime of the grant, Researchfish will continue to collect data for five years after the grant has closed.

To conduct this annual review, the FCDO programme team used evidence from OPM quarterly reports, meeting minutes, MRC reporting data, an OPM self-assessment exercise, and reflections from FCDO country advisors. This was used to appraise delivery and progress against the programme business case and terms of reference. Three key engagements during the year further informed this review: in May 2023, the PRO visited Tanzania to meet the Thrive team, engage with key stakeholders, and observe the Kizazi Kijacho research; in July 2023, the PRO joined an RPC research workshop bringing together the country research teams; and in January 2024 the PRO and SRO joined a further RPC research workshop which allowed engagement with other RPC members.

List of Annexes

Annex A – Progress on recommendations from previous AR

Annex B – World Bank Early Years Fellows (EYFs)

Annex C – Research programme consortium (RPC) project portfolio

Annex D – Theory of change schematics

Annex E – Logframe revisions

Annex F – Conceptual framework and RPC structure

Annex G – RPC dissemination events

Annex H – Supporting material for VfM

Annex A: Progress on recommendations from previous AR

Recommendation	Progress
1. Revise programme logframe	Recommendations (1) and (2) were addressed in parallel. The FCDO programme team and RPC worked together to develop a revised ToC and logframe, detailed in the main body of this review. As the recommendations from this year note, the logframe indicators are not stretching enough and will be revised again during the next reporting period.
2. Revisit the theory of change (ToC)

3. Develop ECD network	The PRO has engaged internally with research and policy teams to better understand how to support workstreams relevant to ECD. An informal advisory group of health and education advisors has been assembled to support the programme, arranging a series of country deep dive sessions on the research portfolio to introduce advisors and Thrive country teams. The PRO is working closely with the education policy team to identify entry points for ECD evidence, particularly in the foundational learning agenda. External to FCDO, the PRO is working with the Building Evidence in Education (BE2) ECD special interest group to explore how working across major donors and multilaterals can sustain support for ECD research.
4. Improve coordination and collaboration between programme component activities	This recommendation is outstanding and has been carried over to the next reporting period. Plans are in place to host a roundtable introducing MRC and RPC academics, and for a potential scientific conference hosted by the RPC which would provide additional opportunities for collaboration.
5. Generate measurable indicators to assess effectiveness regarding value for money (VfM)	A comprehensive VfM framework has been developed during this reporting period which includes indicators on assessing effectiveness (see section D). Next steps to continue strengthening this include developing indicative cost-effectiveness measures and including more objective, quantitative metrics for VfM. Finalizing the VfM assessment and indicators for Thrive is being wrapped into a wider piece of work within the FCDO team to strengthen and standardise VfM reporting for the portfolio.

Annex B: World Bank Early Years Fellows (EYFs)

Thrive contributed £800k to the multi-donor World Bank (WB) Early Learning Partnership (ELP), with the final instalment made in FY21/22. This funding was earmarked to support Early Years Fellows (EYFs) in LMICs, a global cohort of early- to mid-career professionals who worked with World Bank staff and government policymakers to advance the ECD agenda in their home countries for two years. The EYFs are also enrolled in a professional development programme that constitutes 20% of their time.

The aim of the Fellowship is to develop the next generation of in-country leadership needed to scale up investments in the early years. The end target for the WB is to have supported a total of 85 EYFs by 2027. Since 2017, three cohorts of EYFs have been supported, with the third cohort now in their second year of the Fellowship:

Cohort 1 → 20 young African professionals (2017 to 2019)

Cohort 2 → 25 global fellows working across 36 countries (2020 to 2021)

Cohort 3 → 14 global fellows working in 17 countries (2022 to 2024)

The FCDO funding to the EYFs equates to support of 8 fellows across cohorts 2 and 3. The graduated cohorts of EYFs had a major impact in expanding and improving the Bank’s portfolio of investments in ECD, leveraging a combined $3.4 billion in resources for ECD through new and existing early years projects. For example, in Rwanda, the EYF supported by FCDO funding contributed to the development and rollout of the Nutrition Community Scorecard, to monitor whether 22 key nutrition and ECD related interventions are reaching pregnant women and children under 2 years of age. The model has since been scaled in 19 out of 30 districts in the country. See here for more information on cohort two projects.

In September 2022, the 14 Fellows of Cohort 3 began their work with 17 World Bank countries across the globe. The selection process for the third cohort was highly competitive, with over 1,200 applications received. In Cohort 3, Fellows are working in small groups to produce five global goods across quality early learning, home-based childcare, parenting, and adversity, ECD in the context of Fragility, Conflict, and Violence (FCV), and ECD measurement. These projects will be published in Summer 2024.

Annex C: Research Programme Consortium (RPC) project portfolio

The portfolio of projects launched by the RPC to date is presented in the table below. This includes projects on five longitudinal research projects which are marked in the table below with a red asterisk (*) by the project code. The numbered workstream can be cross-referenced with the summary of the conceptual framework detailed in annex F.

Project code	Project title	Project dates	Workstream (s)	Project description
Bangladesh	BNLC3*	Extending and enhancing the ongoing ECD scale-up programme (Saving Bangladeshi Babies Brain (SB3) in Bangladesh	Jul 23 – Mar 24	1.2, 2.2, 3.1, 3.3	The (SB3) programme is a rare example of an intervention which has successfully integrated ECD programmes into the health service, using government infrastructure. This project aims to unpack which features of the programme, or the existing government infrastructure, are crucial to successful scaling and integration into government services, and what the challenges to such scaling and integration have been.

BNLC6	ECD provision to the Rohingya population	Oct 23 – Dec 24	1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.2	This project seeks to contribute to global knowledge about effective ECD programming in refugee settings by studying the delivery and content of early childhood development (ECD) services to the Rohingya population in the Cox's Bazar region of Bangladesh.

BNSC7	Bangladesh Situation Analysis	Oct 23 – Mar 24	N/A	The project aims to provide a framework for updating the Inception Phase “landscaping” studies; for building relationships with “core stakeholders”; for identifying new entry points for Thrive short-cycle operational research; and for updating Thrive’s national strategy
Ghana	GHLC1*	"Lively Minds" Scaling	Jun 23 – Sep 25	1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2	This project aims to increase the knowledge of the key features required to enable successful scale-up and delivery of high-quality early childhood education (ECE) by identifying which dimensions of practices and culture within local government education services are critical for the delivery and the successful scale up of ECE programmes, shown to significantly improve child outcomes when implemented by an NGO, Lively Minds (LM). This project is built onto the existing infrastructure of a large cluster randomised controlled trial.

GHLC3	KG Teachers Perceptions	Jun 23 – Sep 24	1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1	This project aims to quantify perceptions of KG teachers, and to what extent, parental-engagement policies can alter these perceptions. Questions of gender and labour market will also be a valuable strand of inquiry under this project, as the status and perceptions of women are integral to perceptions of the sector.

GHLC5	Parental - Time Constraints	May 23 – May 25	1.1, 3.1	This project will leverage the ongoing impact evaluation of the scaled GES-LM intervention and document time allocations of primary caregivers (in more than 90% of cases the biological mother) without the programme in place (Research Question (RQ)1). It will then estimate intervention impacts on these variables (RQ2) by exploiting the experimental variation induced by the RCT design of the evaluation. It will field the same survey instruments to PCGs’ spouses in order to answer RQ3. Finally, it will use information on wages to assess the monetary implication of any observed changes (RQ4)

GHLC6	KG Teachers Sustaining Performance at Scale	Sep 23 – May 25	1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3	This project aims to deliver a short cycle study focused on systems and structures which would enable or present challenges to the scaling of teacher training, driven by the Government of Ghana. This will include examination of administrative, training and PFM systems and possibilities for change. It will then design and set a short efficacy trial to examine how to provide adequate INSET training at scale, for improved performance

GHSC1	Delivering a PEA and establishing a PEA process	Jul 23 – Oct 23	N/A	As the research agenda has narrowed and focused for the portfolio of research, this project aims to deliver a deep political economy process to identify engagement opportunities and pathways with Ghana’s policy landscape.

GHSC2	Short cycle Improving child outcomes with integrated 0-3 services	Sep 23 – Mar 24	1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3	This project includes a literature review and intensive stakeholder engagement process to determine the most promising ECD intervention (or combination of interventions) for children aged 0-3 to be trialled in Ghana. The aim is for this project to feed into a future longer-term project where co-funding would be applied for to trial and evaluate the identified intervention.

GHSC3	Situation Analysis	Jul 23 – Mar 24	N/A	The project aims to provide a framework for updating the Inception Phase “landscaping” studies; for building relationships with “core stakeholders”; for identifying new entry points for Thrive short-cycle operational research; and for updating Thrive’s national strategy.
Kiribati	KBLC1	Status of ECH and development: Baseline and informing	Jul 23 – Dec 24	1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3	In 2017 the first developmental census of all 3–5-year-old children across Kiribati was conducted. This project seeks to follow-up and collect critical nationwide census data on three- to five-year old children in Kiribati in terms of their health and development, home learning environments, and early childhood education experiences to support and inform the evaluation of the new ECD and ECE policies and any new investments in the sector.

KBLC2	Validating GSED	Aug 23 – Aug 24	3.3	This project ultimately seeks to validate the Global Scale for Early Development Short Form (GSED SF), developed by the WHO, for use in Kiribati, through a formal series of processes including face validation, cultural and context neutrality, Test-retest reliability (association between GSED scores 2 weeks after the initial assessment) and inter-rater reliability (score and item level), Concurrent validity, Construct validity, and Discriminant validity.

KBLC3	Using island child development coordinators	Aug 23 – Mar 26	1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1	The Government of Kiribati is interested in the concept of Island Child Development Coordinators (ICDCs). It is envisaged that the ICDCs could either deliver community playgroups themselves or facilitate them through existing community ECECs. Existing playgroup models are rarely designed by those they intend to serve, undermining sustainability. Respecting core local values, such as reciprocity and consensus, the project would promote the development of a sustainable playgroup model.

KBSC1	Situation Analysis	Nov 23 – Mar 24	N/A	The project aims to provide a framework for updating the Inception Phase “landscaping” studies; for building relationships with “core stakeholders”; for identifying new entry points for Thrive short-cycle operational research; and for updating Thrive’s national strategy.
Sierra Leone	SLSC1	ECD Situation Analysis (PEA, ECD Services Mapping)	Jul 23 – Mar 24	N/A	The results of the presidential and parliamentary elections in June 2023 will be critical in shaping the vision and actions that the country will take. Thrive Sierra Leone’s plan will vary significantly, depending on who wins. As such, an in-depth political economy analysis will be a critical process to explore and refine a comprehensive, detailed, relevant and engaged plan for research and action to strengthen Sierra Leone’s ECD policy design and delivery.

SLSC2	System Analysis	Jul 23 – Mar 24	N/A	The project aims to provide a framework for updating the Inception Phase “landscaping” studies; for building relationships with “core stakeholders”; for identifying new entry points for Thrive short-cycle operational research; and for updating Thrive’s national strategy.

SLLC3*	ISWAY young child cohort	Dec 23 – Mar 25	3.2	This project will leverage an ongoing intergenerational study of war-affected adults to examine the intergenerational influences of war experiences on parenting and the development of young children in a post-conflict setting. The project builds off of a unique longitudinal cohort of war-affected youth that have been followed for over 20 years during the course of four waves of data collection
Tanzania	TZLC1*	Kizazi Kijacho: Impact of Parenting Intervention and UCT	Oct 22 – Mar 26	1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3	This project aims to Identify scalable ways to effectively guide and mentor CHWs when delivering complex, integrated Early Childhood Development (ECD) services, leveraging the randomized controlled trial (RCT) infrastructure of Kizazi Kijacho, an ongoing 6-year ECD research programme in Tanzania led by Institute for International Economic Studies.

TZLC2	Perinatal Conditions for ECD	Jul 23 – Mar 24	1.1, 3.1, 3.2	In close collaboration with Tanzania’s National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), this project will build a comprehensive picture of the environment in which the new generation of children in Tanzania are born and the expected implications of this for child development. It will use the two most recent waves of the Tanzania DHS data (2016 and 2021) to investigate how these risk factors vary across the country and across families, and how they have changed over time.

TZLC13*	Kizazi Kijacho Scaling: A Process Evaluation	Jul 23 – Aug 24	1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.3	The RCT of the KK programme will generate quantitative evidence on impacts for a range of intermediate and primary outcomes related to caregiving practices and child development. However, to understand the conditions that are needed for CHW-based parenting programmes like KK to be effective and to assess programme sustainability and scalability, the RCT needs to be complemented with a process evaluation (PE). The PE will provide insights into how KK works and the processes leading to outcomes

TZLC14	Community ECD Centres as Scaling Models	Jul 23 – Mar 24	1.2, 2.2	This project aims to support in the identification of the most scalable, sustainable and effective community based ECD centre model for the Tanzanian context

TZSC1	Assessment of ECD organisations, public finance and service delivery in Tanzania (ECD situation analysis)	Jul 23 – Mar 24	N/A	The project aims to provide a framework for updating the Inception Phase “landscaping” studies; for building relationships with “core stakeholders”; for identifying new entry points for Thrive short-cycle operational research; and for updating Thrive’s national strategy.

TZSC2	ECD Score card	Nov 23 – Mar 24	2.2	The ministry of community development gender women and special groups (MoCDGWSG), with the technical assistance from the Tanzania ECD Network (TECDEN), is developing a multisectoral ECD scorecard to support in the performance management of the National Multisectoral Early Childhood Development Programme (NM-ECDP). This project aims to support government stakeholders in detailing the purpose of the scorecard and implications for its design; Collating lessons from experiences with other scorecards and identifying implications for the ECD scorecard; Rapidly assessing existing data systems and developing a basic framework and guidance note that can frame the selection of indicators at the technical workshops
Public goods projects	PG01	Measurement and Assessment	Jan 24 – Mar 24	3.3	This is an area of work that will commence in the final quarter of FY2 and the first quarter of FY3. The aim will be to summarise the status of ECD population, service provider and carers approaches to the measurement of child development and the assessment of community level service provision for ECD. From this summary and from a review of the Focus Country Programmes identify areas for possible development and research application.

PG02	Rapid public expenditure reviews (PERs) via artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) approaches	Jul 23 – Jun 24	2.2	This project aims to support rapid ECD PER work in the Thrive countries by harnessing artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) approaches. By using OPMs in-house AI and ML PER Application (AMPERA), the time required to conduct a PER will be significantly shorter than in a conventional PER.

PG03	Estimating Public Services Delivery for ECD in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Phase 1	Jul 23 – Jun 24	2.1 & 2.2	In recent years, high-resolution mapping of key socioeconomic indicators based on a mix of survey data and geospatial remote sensing has made significant advances (see e.g. Chi et al (2022) for the case of poverty). This project proposes to investigate whether similar approaches could be used to map ECD services

PG04	Convening Networks (ECD Research Newsletter)	Sep 23 – Mar 24	1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3	This project aims to use emerging AI, Machine Learning and web-scraping tools to build an efficient newsletter production process. A monthly newsletter that summarises both the latest evidence and signposts the latest development in ECD scaling practice will be produced and circulated.

Annex D: Theory of change (ToC) schematics

Figure 1. Component level ToC proposed by RPC during programme inception

Figure 2. Original programme ToC included in business case

Figure 3. Revised programme ToC developed this reporting period

Annex E: Logframe revisions

Output 1. (Primary research papers)

Previous logframe indicators	Current logframe indicators (August 2023)	Summary of changes
1.1 Number of relevant bids for MRC calls on ECD	1.1 Number of articles submitted for peer reviewed publication	The original indicator 1.1 wasn’t a helpful metric to judge the output of rigorous research (albeit interesting data on demand for funding). Original indicator 1.2 was intended as a set-up indicator and so removed. The original indicator 1.4 spoke more to the technical assistance component of the programme rather than evidence generation so was also removed from this output. Original indicator 1.3 captured the key information (research outputs) and was revised to indicators 1.1 and 1.2 (to recognise effort in submission) plus sub-indicators 1.3-1.4 to disaggregate the reporting through a gender and inclusion lens.
1.2 Number of high-quality operational research plans from country teams (This includes grants awarded by MRC)	1.2 Percentage of submitted papers published after peer review

1.3 Number of high-quality research publications produces (and published on the Thrive website - or equivalent)	1.3 Percentage of published peer reviewed papers authored or co-authored by women

1.4 Number of evidence-based recommendations from country-level implementation research to FCDO and MFAT country offices and their implementation partners	1.4 Percentage of published peer reviewed papers authored or co-authored by Global South authors

1.5 Indicator to be set up.	1.5 Bi-annual meetings with Thrive Workstream Leads to ensure buy-in of Thrive research questions	Indicators 1.5 – 1.6 were added to the logframe this period to evidence the preparatory work undertaken by the RPC that supports generation of primary research papers in the next reporting period. These will not be assessed in future reviews.
N/A	1.6 Research themes and workstreams identified that guide the THRIVE research agenda

N/A	1.7 Number of Life-Cycle Research Projects identified

Output 2. (Evidence products with implications for programme and policy adaptation)

Previous logframe indicators	Current logframe indicators (August 2023)	Summary of changes
2.1 Publication of rigorous, robust and policy relevant (where appropriate) synthesis products produced across the whole programme	2.1 Number of evidence products produced with implications for programme and policy	The wording of indicator 2.1 was tweaked to simplify language are more closely reflect the output as written in the revised theory of change.
N/A	2.2 Percentage of evidence products that include discussion of how to apply implications through a gender and inclusion lens	Indicators 2.2 – 2.4 were added to mirror the format for output 1 and disaggregate reporting through a gender and inclusion lens.
N/A	2.3 Percentage of evidence products authored or co-authored by women

N/A	2.4 Percentage of evidence products authored or co-authored by Global South authors

N/A	2.5 Annual meeting with Research Directorate, International PIs and Country Teams to discuss synergies across the projects and encourage collaboration	Indicator 2.5 was added to evidence the preparatory work undertaken by the RPC that supports production f synthesised evidence products. This will not be assessed in future reviews.

Output 3. (Policy relevant and targeted strategic advice provided to country governments)

Previous logframe indicators	Current logframe indicators (August 2023)	Summary of changes
3.1 Research plans (including key research questions) are co-designed and communicated with government and key stakeholders	3.1 Number of instances of technical assistance provided	Indicator 3.2 has been updated to new indicator 3.1 to more accurately capture the outputs delivered (TA) rather than the demand for this (which is useful monitoring but does not link with progress to outcomes). 3.1 was intended as a set up indicator: it has been revised this period to 3.2 and will likely be removed for the next reporting period.
3.2 Number of requests from government for technical assistance on ECD	3.2 Number of short-term research projects identified with influencing opportunities for ECD scaling.

3.3 Number of countries that can demonstrate improved government policy and/ or programming because of technical assistance provided by Thrive.	N/A	Indicator 3.3 was removed as it conflated outputs (the technical assistance provided) with outcomes (the result of that output).

Output 4. (Key stakeholders are engaged through effective dissemination of primary research papers and evidence products)

Previous logframe indicators	Current logframe indicators (August 2023)	Summary of changes
4.1 Number of dissemination events (conferences, workshops, or conference panels) organised which attract an influential audience of decision makers and thought leaders	4.1 Total number of views across promotional publication blog posts on Thrive website during reporting period	Original indicator 4.1 has been retained with the wording tweaked to remove subjectivity (e.g., ‘influential audience’) and renumbered to indicator 4.2. Original indicator 4.2 has been removed to avoid conflating this with technical assistance (which is likely to also be offered to national working groups and technical working groups) and double counting with output indicator 3.1. The new indicator 4.1 reflects new dissemination strategies to increase uptake.
4.2 Number of evidence-based technical contributions from RPC to NCF (Nurturing Care Framework TWG (Technical Working Group), national level Education Working Groups or similar global and national groups.	4.2 Number of dissemination events where Thrive's work is shared

4.3 Set up indicator extended: Number of academics and policy stakeholders with which Thrive has an established collaboration and dialogue.	N/A	Indicators 4.3 and 4.4 were set up indicators intended to capture work during the programme inception phase and so have been removed.
4.4 Set up indicator extended: Thrive team, including PFP, contribute technical support and insight to global working groups/communities of practice (including BE2, NCF M&E (Monitoring & Evaluation) group)	N/A

Annex F: Conceptual framework and RPC structure

The Research Programme Consortium (RPC) structures its portfolio around a conceptual framework comprising three central themes (what works, implementation at scale, and equity and inclusion) further divided into workstreams. This annex summarises the framework and academic oversight of the RPC. See annex C for a list of current research projects and how these correspond to the RPC workstreams.

Conceptual framework

Theme 1: What works?

The RPC aims to address evidence gaps in the role of ECD in shaping lifelong outcomes and its potential to address inequalities as early as sixth months of age, focusing on areas such as identifying which skills hold significance during different development stages, how to equip children to achieve success in school, and understanding the lasting impact of interventions on children of varying ages.

WS1.1 Understanding childhood development

Despite significant progress in recent years on developing a robust evidence-based framework to model child development, gaps persist on understanding the dynamics of factors that affect development and contextualising these to specific LMIC settings. The RPC aims to address these gaps, for example, by identifying the links between gains in early skills and the acquisition of later skills. This would greatly enhance the capacity to predict long-term cost-effectiveness of interventions.

WS1.2 Piloting innovative ECD approaches

The majority of the evaluated ECD interventions focus on specific dimensions of child development, with limited research on holistic interventions and outcomes. The evidence suggests that more significant and enduring impacts on child development can be achieved through sequencing and combing interventions, strengthening contextual adaptation, further experimentation to identify the best approaches. The RPC will develop and test new programmes to build the evidence base on these dimensions of ECD approaches.

Theme 2: Implementation at scale

Transitioning from small-scale pilot initiatives to large-scale interventions comes with intricate complexities and inherent risks. The RPC will identify the best mix of interventions, considering aspects like their duration, frequency, and delivery methods. It will also focus on the workforce as a key component of successful scaling.

WS2.1 Strengthening the ECD workforce

Taking ECD programmes to scale involves embedding programmes in existing systems which relies on appropriate workforce capacity. The ability to select an appropriate workforce for the delivery of ECD programmes at scale is often severely limited by a lack of formal early childhood service providers, and there is limited information available about the characteristics of effective ECD workers in LMICs. The RPC seeks to better understand the role of workforce characteristics in quality ECD service delivery and effective support to improve workforce capabilities.

WS2.2 Sustainable scaling

Evidence shows that even the most promising ECD programmes can lose their effectiveness when scaled up, suggesting that maintaining fidelity of programme delivery and ensuring sustainability is crucial. To effectively translate proof-of-concept pilots to delivery at scale, the RPC seeks to deepen understanding of programme delivery fundamentals. This includes identifying the optimal combination of interventions, and their duration, frequency of delivery, and delivery modality. It also requires a better understanding of how these interventions can be seamlessly integrated into existing service infrastructure and systems. The RPC will develop and improve analysis methods for establishing causal links between the roles played by programme implementation features and programme impacts, maintaining an emphasis on sub-group analysis.

Theme 3: Equity and inclusion

This theme explores the existing evidence on gender equity, empowerment, and father engagement in ECD, gender disparities in ECD outcomes and in parental inputs,

the important role ECD plays in shaping gender equity, and the positive effects of ECD

programmes on women. The RPC seeks to better understand the gendered impacts of ECD programmes, and the challenges faced by marginalised and disadvantaged children. It also seeks to address the knowledge gap in ECD measurement and assessment, championing the use and validation of existing measures alongside further innovation.

WS3.1 Gender equity, women’s empowerment, and father engagement

Early childhood plays a vital role in shaping gender identity and stereotypes (51), with exposure to inequitable gender norms impacting children's skill development, behaviour, and attitudes. Scaling up ECD programmes presents an opportunity to promote more equitable gender identities and stereotypes. There is need for evidence on the gendered impacts of ECD programmes on family and caregivers. All Thrive programme evaluations will disaggregate impact by gender and will explore potential drivers of difference. Evaluations conducted as part of Thrive will measure impacts on mothers and caregivers beyond caregiving practices, as well as potential mechanisms for these.

WS3.2 Marginalised and disadvantaged children

Efforts to scale up ECD programmes risk amplifying inequalities if those who are already most marginalised are less likely to have access to these programmes. Further evidence is needed on the effectiveness of ECD interventions for children with disabilities and those living in conflict and post-conflict settings. The RPC will conduct mixed-methods studies that allow us to identify marginalised children and assess the impact of ECD interventions for these groups.

WS3.3 Measurement and assessment

Measures to capture the process of ECD and influencing factors are crucial to deliver effective interventions at scale. Significant progress has been made in the development of measures such as the Global Scale for Early Development (GSED) by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Early Childhood Development Index 2030 (ECDI2030). The RPC will adapt and validate existing measures of child development and work to develop feasible scalable measures of socio-emotional development.

RPC structure

The RPC is made up of the following organisations:

Oxford Policy Management (OPM) (consortium lead)

Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)

Yale University

Boston College

Sightsavers international

Ifakara Health Institute

Chr. Micheleson Institute and Centre for Experimental Research on Fairness Inequality and Rationality (CMI-FAIR)

Bangor university

International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (ICDDRB)

Stockholm University

Institute for Development (IfD)

University of Southern Australia

The Programme Leadership Team (PLT) comprises the Research Directorate (RD), the Programme Director and the Deputy Programme Director. The PLT is responsible for setting the strategic direction of Thrive; reviewing the performance of Thrive and adjusting strategy where new opportunities and threats emerge. The PLT ensures that the Research Director and Programme Director report on strategy and implementation performance to FCDO. The Research Directorate are also responsible for supporting the project to shape the global, regional and national research agendas. The Workstream Leads and International Principal Investigators support the RD in the formation and delivery of the academic programme, ensuring the alignment of national and international research priorities; agreement on common research approaches, methodologies and frameworks; ensuring that possibilities for cross-country comparison are taken up (i.e. with commonly shared definitions, measurement and calculation methods.

The Programme Management Team are responsible for establishing, training and supporting OPM’s business systems and operations management (recruitment and contracting; fieldwork operations; security; due diligence with safeguarding and child protection; logistics). The country teams are led by the Country Research Manager (CRM) who is responsible for both “outward facing” functions including the management of core stakeholder engagement and for ensuring that the communications functions deliver to an effective research uptake and engagement strategy that enables positive change for ECD. The CRM is supported by the country based Principal Investigator who helps in shaping the national research agenda for ECD; promotes a local brand for ECD based on the excellence of applied ECD research; and who ensures the technical quality of national research and of the research products that the CRM uses to secure and maintain the engagement of core stakeholders.

Table 1: Thrive RPC team

Programme Leadership
Susan Walker	Research Director
Sonya Krutikova	Co-Research Director
Bet Caeyers	Deputy Research Director
Simon Hunt	Programme Director
Sourovi De	Deputy Programme Director
Programme Management
Anna Duncan-Grant	Project Manager
Georgina Palmer	Assistant Project Manager
Technical Advisory
Susan Walker	Workstream Lead: 1.1 Understanding Childhood Development
Orazio Attanasio	Workstream Lead: 1.2 Piloting Innovative ECD Approaches
Theresa Betancourt	Workstream Lead: 2.1 Strengthening the ECD Workforce
Tim Ensor	Workstream Lead: 2.2 Sustainable Scaling
Ingvild Almas	Workstream Lead: 3.1 Gender Equity, Women's Empowerment, and Father Engagement
Helen Baker Henningham	Workstream Lead: 3.2 Marginalised and Disadvantaged Children
Abbie Raikes	Workstream Lead: 3.3 Measurement and Assessment
Bangladesh Portfolio
Helen Baker-Henningham	International Principal Investigator
Dr Jena Derakhshani Hamadani	National Principal Investigator
Md. Tarek Hossain	Country Research Manager
Anuradha Agrawala	Country Lead
Ghana Portfolio
Britta Augsburg	International Principal Investigator
Jophus Anamuah-Mensah	National Principal Investigator
Adelaide Addo-Fening	Co-Country Research Manager
Terence Adda-Belinia	Co-Country Research Manager
Kiribati Portfolio
Sally Brinkman	International Principal Investigator
Sarah Howells	Senior Researcher
Sierra Leone Portfolio
Theresa Betancourt	International Principal Investigator
Regina Yillah	Country Research Manager
Laura van der Erve	Country Lead
Tanzania Portfolio
Bet Caeyers	International Principal Investigator
Honorati Masanja	National Principal Investigator
Ester Elisaria	Co-National Principal Investigator
Deogardius Medardi	Country Research Manager
Radhika Menon	Country Lead

Annex G: RPC dissemination events

#	Event	Attendees	Agenda
1	Thrive Ghana Presentation - November 2022	Director General Dr. Kodjo E Mensah-Abrampa National Development Planning Commission, Eleanor Bailey, Adelaide Addo-Fening	THRIVE Country portfolio presentation, Opportunities for collaboration
2	Thrive Kiribati briefing with the Ministry of Women, Youth, Sport and Social Welfare Offices (MWYSSA) - March 2023	Sally Brinkman, Sarah Howells, Tannako Temone, Senior Welfare Officer, MWYSSA and Judith Alpuche, Technical Advisor to MWYSSA, UNICEF	Overview of Thrive country portfolio, discuss alignment and current knowledge gaps with the policy, program and research activities and interests of MWYSSA
3	Thrive Kiribati Lead Keynote speech - September 2023	Approximately 250 live and another 500 streamed. Mix of academic, policy and practice audience within the discipline of early childhood development and early education	Nexus between the disciplines of health and education to support ECD and ECE and how to support the bringing together and greater understanding of the two disciplines for the benefits of children and their families.
4	Oxford Evidence Day (UKFEIT) Thrive Research Director, Sonya Krutikova, presentation - September 2023	Sonya Krutikova, Simon Hunt, FCDO programme team, FCDO Advisors	ECD as a leveller that reduces later inequalities – what does the evidence tell us about how this works, who benefits most, and if / how we should push to combine ECD in education systems
5	Thrive Tanzania ECD Centre Model Workshop - September 2023	Thrive Tanzania team, 34 high level members from five ministries, non-governmental organizations including the World Bank, WHO, UNICEF attended the workshop, meeting chaired by the Deputy Permanent Secretary (DPS)	THRIVE team in collaboration with UNICEF and PO-RALG co-hosted a workshop that aimed to gather key Tanzanian stakeholders’ views and experiences in implementing and delivering Early Child Development (ECD) Centre services across mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar

Annex H: Supporting material for VfM

The summary VfM statement provide in the business case notes the following intentions:

Benchmark costs against comparable programmes. We have already used the negotiated costs of the RISE programme to estimate appropriate costs for this proposed programme but we are working closely with PCD on a wide range of other research procurements which will help us to benchmark further, including ERICC (Education Research in Conflict and Crisis) and the EdTech research hub, as well as the Health RPCs such as RESYST and REBUILD, the ‘Technical Assistance for Nutrition’ programme, and other similar hubs e.g.. What Works to Prevent Violence: Impact at Scale

Consolidate lessons from comparable programmes such as RISE, ERICC, Ed Tech, Health RPCs and others to drive efficiencies and quality. These lessons will inform the development of the Terms of Reference for the RPC

Drive competition by using the market to select the most competitive supplier for the RPC that combines intellectual leadership with strong programme management

Ensure the possibility for some research to be commissioned out by the RPC. This will guarantee programme flexibility and allow for adaptive programme management

Ensure high quality research through academic incentives and the expectation for peer reviewed publications

Have a strong focus on providing quality evidence with direct programme and policy relevance on what works to deliver quality ECD services

Invest in research uptake activities to help ensure that the evidence generated is available and used by decision makers

Learn from other ECD relevant programmes across health, education, nutrition and social protection, including RISE, ERICC, the ESRC Impact Initiative, health research programmes, nutrition technical assistance programmes, about innovative ways of measuring impact and adapting approaches where necessary

Focus on countries where there is the greatest opportunity for high beneficiary impact and where lessons learnt could have the most impact on DFID and other’s investments in ECD services

Table 1. Standards for judgement of economy performance
Performance	Sub-criteria
Excellent	Actively identifying and obtaining new investment from different donors. [MET] Average unit costs for key inputs meet agreed benchmarks. [MET] And meets all criteria under ‘good’ performance. [MET]
Good	Average unit costs for key inputs generally meet agreed benchmarks. [N/A] And meets all criteria under ‘adequate’ performance. [MET]
Adequate	Average unit costs for key inputs do not consistently or materially exceed agreed benchmarks. [N/A] The programme can demonstrate that it is following good practice to manage key economy drivers and key costs. [MET]
Poor	Any of the conditions for adequate are not met. [N/A]

Seek opportunities for further match funding for the RPC and/or thematic research calls from other donors

Table 2. Standards for judgement of efficiency performance
Performance	Sub-criteria
Excellent	Programme outputs are judged to be of high quality, value, and usefulness by key stakeholders, and are completed on time and within available resources, allowing for delays outside the control of the programme and researchers [NOT MET]
Good	Programme outputs are generally judged to be of good quality, value, and usefulness by key stakeholders, with only a few exceptions, and are generally completed on time and within available resources, allowing for delays outside the control of the programme and researchers. [NOT MET]
Adequate	Programme outputs are generally judged to be of acceptable quality, value, and usefulness by key stakeholders, with only a few exceptions, and are showing acceptable progress within available resources. [MET]
Poor	Any of the criteria for ‘adequate’ not met. [N/A]
Table 3. Standards for judgement of effectiveness performance
Performance	Sub-criteria
Excellent	The programme has met its expected contribution to all of its intended short-term outcomes in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, allowing for delays outside the control of the programme and researchers. [NOT MET] The research has produced effective, equitable approaches that could be implemented at scale by LMIC national governments. [PARTIALLY MET] And meets all criteria under ‘good’ performance. [NOT MET]
Good	The programme has generally met its expected contribution to its intended short-term outcomes in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, with only a few minor exceptions, allowing for delays outside the control of the programme and researchers. [NOT MET] And meets all criteria under ‘adequate’ performance. [NOT MET]
Adequate	The programme shows progress toward both of its intended short-term outcomes, allowing for delays outside the control of the programme and researchers. [MET]
Poor	Any of the criteria for ‘adequate’ not met. [N/A]
Table 4. Standards for judgement of equity performance
Performance	Sub-criteria
Excellent	The research explicitly addresses marginalised communities by specifically identifying these groups and develops effective, scalable interventions to reach them. [NOT MET] Research design incorporates Global South methodologies and stakeholder voices. And meets all criteria under ‘good’ performance. [MET]
Good	Involvement of Global South Researchers in research leadership roles. [MET] The research explicitly considers the context-specific gender influences on ECD outcomes, and explicitly considers gender equality objectives. [MET] And meets all criteria under ‘adequate’ performance. [MET]
Adequate	Involvement of Global South researchers as local experts. [MET] The programme has a process to ensure research addresses equity for girls and marginalised communities. [MET]
Poor	Any of the conditions for ‘adequate’ not met. [N/A]

Table 5. Possible VfM indicators proposed in business case
Economy	Partner administration and management charges as % total programme budget Overheads/indirect costs of research institutions as proportion of their total programme allocations Mean salary/rate per researcher day (including employee benefits/employer taxes and contributions) Mean person day cost for events (workshop/conference/annual meetings etc.) Additional funding leveraged, as % of DFID funding
Efficiency	Unit costs per research output and per peer-reviewed journal article % of scheduled outputs delivered on time
Effectiveness	% of outputs that have international co-authorship Peer reviewed publications available Number of children reached by improved quality intervention Evidence of policy uptake e.g., number of downloads, citations, in-country mentions
Equity	Women authored papers Southern authored papers – lead authors and co-authors