Request for Applications

RFA No. 102074 RFA_003

USAID YouthPower Action under YouthPower Implementation IDIQ

Integrated Workforce Development and Sexual and Reproductive Health Activity

RFA Date of Issuance: / June 26, 2017
Due Date for Questions: / July 6, 2017; Submission of questions or requests for clarification in writing via email to by 17:00 hours (EST).
Emailed submissions must contain the subject line “[your organization] – USAID YouthPower Action – Integrated WfD and SRH Activity - Questions”
Please note that inquiries and answers to inquiries will be shared with all registered Offerors.
Please do not contact any USAID YouthPower Action or FHI 360 employees regarding this RFA. Contacting individual employees shall be cause for disqualification. No telephone inquiries will be answered.
Date for pre-bidder meeting: Opportunity to ask questions live / July 13, 2017 9:00 hours (EST)
Deadline for Applications: / August 10, 2017; Submission of applications (including technical applications and budgets) via email to by 17:00 hours (EST).
Emailed submissions must contain the subject line “[your organization] – USAID YouthPower Action – Integrated WfD and SRH Activity”
Anticipated Start Date: / September 15, 2017; Start date is subject to change.

I.  Purpose Statement

The goal of this Request for Applications (RFA) is to build evidence on what works in youth integrated, cross-sectoral programming to achieve better Workforce Development (WfD) and Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) outcomes. This RFA builds on recent research conducted by YouthPower Action that assessed programs that integrated SRH and WfD. The research identified key features of effective integrated programs which was used to develop a theory of change. This RFA solicits applications from prospective applicants to implement a youth program consistent with that theory of change that can be compared to single sector approaches. YouthPower Action will conduct impact and process evaluations of the winning grant program(s) to help USAID understand whether there is a higher return on investment (e.g. in terms of SRH and WfD outcomes) by implementing integrated programs relative to a single sector focus.

This RFA is issued as a public notice to ensure that all interested, qualified and eligible US and Non-US organizations legally registered for business have a fair opportunity to submit applications for funding.

II.  Introduction and Background

YouthPower Action, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Contract No. AID-OAA-I-15-00009/AID-OAA-TO-15-00003, is one of multiple YouthPower projects designed to support USAID in the implementation of its Youth in Development Policy (2012). The purpose of YouthPower Action is to support the scale up of evidence-based positive youth development programs, support capacity building of youth serving institutions, and implement innovative youth development approaches.

One of YouthPower Action’s activities is to encourage the diffusion or uptake of effective cross-sectoral approaches which could ultimately enable the scale-up of evidence-based youth development programs. Many youth programs are funded by donors and implementers who are focused on accomplishing single sector outcomes based on funding allocations and the goals set by each sector. Thus, even if funders understand that youth benefit from more integrated approaches, unless there are clear returns on investment for their sector, they may choose more narrowly defined programming. YouthPower Action seeks to generate rigorous research that tests the theory that integrated workforce development and SRH programming yields greater impact than single-sector (WfD or SRH) programming and is more cost effective.

In 2016, to facilitate a more robust evidence-base of cross-sectoral youth approaches, YouthPower Action consulted with experts and conducted an extensive review of integrated workforce development (WfD) and sexual and reproductive health (SRH) interventions. The findings from this review is presented in the attached Assessment of Integrated Workforce Development and Sexual and Reproductive Health Interventions with Recommendations for the Future.

A key result of the YouthPower Action Assessment report is a Theory of Change (Figure 1) that can serve as a general guide to integrated WfD and SRH programming for youth. The theory of change describes a holistic model that is grounded in a Positive Youth Development (PYD) approach with features including building skills, assets and competencies; fostering healthy relationships; providing youth with safe physical and emotional spaces; transforming systems by providing more holistic support; and strengthening the social environment.

Figure 1: Theory of Change for Integration of Workforce Development and Sexual and Reproductive Health

Results of the review demonstrate that integrated WfD and SRH programs can promote long-term outcomes for youth. However, the review found no impact evaluations that compared the outcomes of integrated programs to those of single-sector WfD or SRH alone.

III.  SCOPE OF WORK

The purpose of this RFA is to build on the results of the review by funding on-going programs to implement activities that will provide the evidence needed to test the hypothesis that integrated WfD and SRH interventions are a better value than single sector WfD and SRH interventions. The grantee will be responsible for implementing both an integrated and single sector interventions and for developing and implementing a monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) plan that will enable YouthPower Action to carry out studies to build evidence on the impact of the integrated program consistent with the Theory of Change. In addition to generating evidence on the impact of integrated programs, the grant will also generate learning about how integration occurs in practice. This RFA provides the opportunity for applicants to obtain an external evaluation of their on-going program and to potentially generate evidence to support scale-up and future funding opportunities.

Applicants may currently be implementing integrated WfD and SRH interventions, or may be implementing single-sector WfD or SRH interventions and seeking to incorporate other integrated program elements that were identified in the assessment report. Organizations can cooperate to apply but one organization must be the lead and the grant holder. Proposed programs must be informed by the assessment report and incorporate the key features outlined in the theory of change above and presented in Table 1 below. Programs addressing both boys and girls are encouraged.

Table 1: Key Features in the Integrated WfD and SRH Theory of Change

Minimum Required
WfD Features / Minimum Required
SRH Features / PYD Features required for both WfD and SRH programs
· WfD curricula for vocational/technical skills training
· Employer consultation / · SRH curricula covering pregnancy, puberty (if serving adolescents) and HIV prevention and treatment
· Links to SRH services / · Curricula based soft skills education
· Engaging and safe learning environments
· Social interaction opportunities
· Opportunities to foster healthy relationships
· Engaging policy makers, communities, and families

Applications will be considered for projects that will implement an integrated WfD and SRH intervention with PYD features and either a WfD intervention and/or a SRH intervention individually, which must also include the key PYD features identified in Table 1 to allow for comparison. The following are examples of how an offeror might approach this activity:

Example scenario 1: IP1 is implementing an integrated program in Ideatown. IP1 is interested and willing to implement the WfD and/or SRH program as stand-alone components alongside the integrated activity to contribute to a broader learning agenda. IP1 submits an application requesting support for costs related to implementation of the stand-alone component, any new activities needed to implement the PYD features and additional M&E activities.

Example scenario 2: FabWorkforce is currently implementing a WfD program and has had positive impact on youth. FabWorkforce would like to incorporate an SRH activity and the key PYD features. FabWorkforce proposes an integrated WfD and SRH integrated program with a PYD approach so that the hypothesis that an integrated program will result in better outcomes than their single-sector programs can be tested. They describe the adjustments to their existing single-sector programs to make them comparable to the required integrated design. The application requests support for implementation costs associated with the additional sectoral approach (either SRH or WfD) and PYD features to reach an integrated program and additional M&E activities.

Because the purpose of this RFA is to implement a program that can be studied, offerors are responsible for proposing and implementing a Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning plan (MEL), and ensuring fidelity to workplans and monitoring, evaluation and learning plan (MEL[1]). The MEL should describe:

·  Results framework, activities, context

·  Performance indicators

·  Project Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

·  Management of the monitoring system

·  Performance reporting schedule

·  Project evaluation plan – include timetable for data collection

·  Impact evaluation – how will you facilitate or support the impact evaluation?

·  Process evaluation – how will you facilitate or support the process evaluation?

·  Relationship to Mission Country Development Cooperation Strategy – if appropriate

Based on the Theory of Change, we would expect to see positive outcomes for youth in both SRH and WfD categories. Offeror must describe the expected results in both SRH and WfD in a logic model with short-term, intermediate and long-term outcomes. Offeror should plan on collecting the following data throughout their project implementation for at least one cohort:

Monitoring data – what the program already collects and any additional information appropriate to the additional intervention arm;

Evaluation outcomes – what a program already collects for existing program management and any information appropriate to the additional intervention arm and for the impact evaluation (the short, intermediate, and long-term WfD and SRH indicators that your program may not already be collecting, but that are described in your logic model and the Theory of Change).

We are interested in short, intermediate, and potentially long-term outcomes (see assessment report for examples). Applicants should describe the following outcomes in their logic model and results framework and plan to collect the following data (described in the MEL):

·  Short-term outcomes: changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills and intentions. Example outcomes: technical knowledge and soft skills (based on workforce training); SRH knowledge, e.g., how diseases can be transmitted during sex and how the use of some devices (condoms) can reduce the risk of transmission; increased intention to use contraception.

·  Intermediate outcomes: changes in behavior, such as correct and consistent condom use or other contraceptive use or seeking health services (SRH), or seeking or securing employment (WfD).

·  Long-term outcomes: changes in health outcomes, such as delayed pregnancy and unplanned pregnancy or HIV prevalence (SRH) and changes in employment status for the workforce arm of the intervention.[2]

·  Outcomes must be measured across all interventions at the individual level (data collected from individual youth participants of each program being evaluated) minimally at baseline and endline. Intermediate and long-term outcomes should be measured for up to 24 months depending on your project’s logic model.

Impact and Process Evaluations

Applicants must describe how they will facilitate and support the following evaluations in their monitoring, evaluation and learning plans (MEL). The offeror is not responsible for the design of the impact evaluation or for the analysis, however, the best impact evaluations are implemented in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration. YouthPower Action will conduct the impact and process evaluations with the implementer’s MEL data and other data the evaluation team will collect. Evaluation plans will be developed with the grantee’s collaboration. Both evaluations are expected to be continuous throughout the program cycle.

The impact evaluation will cover up to two years. If the program supported by this grant is an existing integrated program, YouthPower Action will seek additional funding for a large-scale impact evaluation. Otherwise, the impact evaluation will be on a scale appropriate to the size of the project, e.g., small scale if the funded project is an integrated project new to the offeror.

The impact evaluation will measure the differences in outcomes between the two or three intervention groups. Recommended designs include 1) randomizing youth through a lottery to one of the intervention groups or 2) randomizing the interventions by location (cluster design) with data illustrating similarities of locations across key variables. YouthPower Action evaluation team prefers individual randomization, but recognizes this this option is not feasible for all existing programs. Applicants should describe which of the designs they expect to accommodate, the number of youth they expect per group and location. The size of the impact evaluation will depend upon the existing program size and nature. If the proposed integrated program is a pilot for the offeror, then the impact evaluation may be a pilot study rather than a full-scale impact evaluation.

Process Evaluation: The project will capture information in the MEL system about “how-to” implement programs that contribute to better youth outcomes. Some original data collection, e.g., interviews with staffs and focus groups with beneficiaries, will be done by the process evaluation team to supplement information from the MEL. Questions YouthPower Action wants to answer with this process evaluation include:

1.  How are interventions integrated? What worked well and didn’t work well?

2.  Which features did program beneficiaries think were most helpful?

3.  What are the staffing and operational issues relating to an integrated program and how does the implementer(s) address them?

4.  Given that soft skills and life skills (e.g. self-control, positive self-concept) are important to both SRH and Workforce outcomes, how are those skills addressed by the program?

5.  How much intervention time is necessary to produce desired outcomes? What is the treatment intensity, and is it different across workforce and SRH-specific outcomes?

6.  Cost information: scale-up decisions require information about how much it costs to reach each youth, to “treat” each youth, and cost per outcome. Activity-based costing is required to provide cost information.

7.  If appropriate, can we discern if some activities are more effective or appropriate for girls than for boys? Why?

Offerors are responsible for the above, if awarded, and:

·  Implement high-quality, integrated WfD and SRH intervention and WfD and/or SRH interventions, with PYD approach.

·  Use best practice program management with MEL data to maximize likelihood of reaching targets and outcomes.

·  Collect high-quality monitoring and evaluation data across groups with PYD approach: In addition to the grantee(s) use of these data for program management, the information will be used by the YouthPower Action team for the impact evaluation and some of the questions to be addressed by the process evaluation.