FFAR » Contracted Work: Tipping Points Program Evaluation

Contracted Work: Tipping Points Program Evaluation

Open Opportunity

Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning Contact

Chris Gambino
cgambino@foundationfar.org

Monday, March 31, 2025, 5:00 p.m.PT

All proposals are to be submitted by Monday, March 31, 2025, 5:00 p.m. PT deadline. Proposals should be submitted as a Portable Document Format (PDF) via email to cgambino@foundationfar.org with the subject line “Tipping Points Program Evaluation Proposal”.

FFAR welcomes individuals or teams with social science, systems science, food systems and evaluative methods expertise to apply. If beneficial to the success of the evaluation process, FFAR may match one or more individuals into a team. A successful team will include individuals with evaluative methods experience (especially in evaluating research investments) as well as individuals with sufficient technical depth and breadth in social science, system science and food systems research to evaluate the success of individual projects that focused on participatory modeling efforts and novel stakeholder engagement approaches to study system interactions.

Proposal Process Timeline

Submission deadline: Monday, March 31, 2025
Finalist presentations and panel discussions: Monday, April 7 through Friday, April 11, 2025
Client reference checks: Monday, April 7 through Friday, April 11, 2025

Proposals Should Contain the Following Sections

Applicant background/overview (1 page maximum), including an indication of relevant expertise
Previous experience(s) of research program evaluation work with a similar or related scope (2 pages maximum)
Description approach and evaluation plan (5 pages maximum)
- Including relevant indicators to assess proposed evaluation questions
Project budget and budget justification (this evaluation does not require matching funds)
Evaluation timeline
Project key personnel including roles and responsibilities
Team members’ CVs
Links to deliverables from past evaluation projects of a similar scope
Client references

Finalist Presentation Preparation

FFAR will hold a 60-minute meeting (20-minutes presentation and 40-minute panel interview) with finalists via video conference. The presentation should highlight the applicant’s approach, including the criteria and standards they envision being used to measure the success of projects and the Tipping Points portfolio as a whole. Additionally, the presentation should include a brief explanation of methods, followed by a showcase of how collected data may be visualized.

The panel discussion may be used to clarify the methods used for collection and analysis of data. Additionally, the panel may inquire about past projects and previous client relations to ensure the applicant and FFAR are a good fit.

About Tipping Points Program Evaluation

FFAR seeks to evaluate the success of the Tipping Points program. The evaluator, in collaboration with FFAR, will define criteria and standards of success (i.e. metrics). It is important for the evaluator to capture project outputs, outcomes and where available, impacts (including how project outputs have influenced the agriculture value chain and/or informed policy development).

We envision a summative program evaluation to assess outcomes and impacts, as defined in the FFAR Program Evaluation FAQs . Through the evaluation, we hope to uncover whether and how project deliverables are being used to date and contributing to the U.S. food and agriculture system. We foresee the evaluator conducting a cross-project comparative analysis for the 5 completed projects, using an agreed-upon set of metrics. Finally, we envision the evaluator creating 1-2 exemplar cases (i.e. detailed case studies) using a mixed methods approach, which includes quantitative analyses and qualitative analyses to calculate cost-effectiveness and counterfactuals. We expect all findings—and recommendations where applicable—to be evidence-based with references to supporting evaluation data (e.g., survey findings).

About the Tipping Points Program

The Tipping Points Program explores the intricate dynamics of regional food systems, focusing on critical research questions that investigate why existing food system interventions—such as those centered solely on food access and affordability—have not resulted in substantial improvements in food security and health. The program aims to identify systems-level leverage points that, when targeted, could drive transformational change in reducing food insecurity, enhancing health outcomes, and strengthening economic resilience.

Through collaboration with communities and organizations in U.S. cities, program-funded researchers developed models of regional food systems to assess the interactions among key system components and how these interactions influence broader outcomes. FFAR challenged grantees to examine multiple food-system interventions and external factors—including connections to housing, transportation, and other regional systems—to better understand the collective impacts of these elements. The research is guided by foundational questions, including:

How do different components of the food system influence one another, and what are cascading effects?
Which policy and program interventions work best in specific contexts?
How can interventions be adjusted or combined to optimize their impact on the food system, community health and the economy?

By addressing these research questions, the Tipping Points Program has awarded $11.1 million across 5 executed projects to generate data-driven insights that inform future food system strategies. Of those awarded funds, FFAR has provided $5.6M in funding with $5.5M in partner match funding from 42 co-funders spanning academic institutions, community organizations, non-profits and more.

Download the full RFP and review all requirements.

FFAR Program Evaluation: FAQs

How does FFAR define assessment and evaluation?

FFAR recognizes five domains of evaluation based on Rossi, Lipsey & Henry (2019), outlined below:

Assessment of Need

A needs assessment for a food and agriculture research program identifies
and prioritizes the specific challenges, critical gaps and opportunities within the food system and agricultural sector that require research interventions. It helps stakeholders, including funders, policymakers, researchers, agricultural practitioners and the value chain, understand what areas of the system need innovation, scientific inquiry or technical solutions using real data. This assessment ensures that research funding is directed toward the most relevant, high-impact areas that address the needs of farmers, communities and ecosystems, thereby maximizing the effectiveness of investments in agricultural and food system research.

Assessment of Theory & Design

A theory and design assessment of food and agriculture research funding
evaluates the underlying logic, assumptions and structure guiding how funds are allocated, managed and directed toward specific research goals. This evaluation ensures that the underlying theory of change (or logic model) is strategically aligned with sectoral needs, global challenges and the potential for transformative impact in agriculture and food systems. It helps determine if the proposed funding model realistically connects desired outputs and outcomes, and whether the assumptions about how change will occur are credible and supported by evidence.

Assessment of Process & Implementation

A process and implementation assessment of food and agriculture research
funding evaluates how efficiently and effectively funding is managed, allocated, and utilized throughout the lifecycle of research projects. This type of assessment ensures that the operational aspects of funding—from grant allocation to project execution—are functioning as intended, delivering the desired outputs, and meeting the goals of the funding program, portfolio or consortium and helps explain why they are or are not.

Assessment of Outcomes & Impacts

An outcomes and impact assessment of food and agriculture research funding
evaluates the tangible results of funded projects and how these results contribute to broader societal, economic and environmental goals. This assessment determines whether the research investments led to measurable changes in agricultural practices, productivity, food security, sustainability and overall well-being of communities. These evaluations offer accountability to funders, stakeholders and beneficiaries by demonstrating the effectiveness, value and benefits generated, and they inform decisions about whether to continue, scale, modify or discontinue research programs.

Assessment of Efficiency & Cost

An efficiency and cost assessment of food and agriculture research funding
evaluates how well resources (funds, time, labor and materials) are utilized to achieve desired outcomes. This type of evaluation examines the relationship between the inputs (resources provided) and outputs (results achieved) or outcomes (changes created), ensuring that the funding is used in a manner that maximizes value for money while minimizing waste and delays. It helps identify ways to optimize the program’s processes and improve cost- effectiveness.

What types of evaluations does FFAR contract?: We ask the evaluator(s) to systematically collect and analyze data about the work we’ve funded in a specific program area to understand the effectiveness and efficiency of the program. We often ask evaluators to assess programs’ outcomes with completed research grants. In these cases, we seek to understand the tangible results of research projects (i.e., deliverables) and how they have advanced fields of study and/or changed decision-maker attitudes or behavior (e.g., industry, farmers, producers, food supply chain actors, government, and/or consumers) and enhanced the scientific workforce’s skills. For programs or funding portfolios that have very mature research projects (~7 years from completion date), we seek an assessment of their impact on agriculture, the environment and society and the cost- effectiveness of their solutions. At times, we may ask an evaluator to assess other aspects of a research funding program, including assessments of the process and implementation.

How do academics or issue experts fit in?: Issue experts can play several roles in a program evaluation. While they may not have formal evaluative science training, issue experts are uniquely aware of the value of the research project deliverables under assessment. As such, experts can and should be part of evaluation team proposals. Another option is for an evaluation team to lean on an expert panel—in this case, the experts can provide expert opinions on deliverables without taking a larger role in the evaluation. For programs or portfolios with mature projects (~7 years or more since completion date) that have already been assessed for outcomes, experts like economists can play a key role in looking at the cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness of the outcomes.

Does a potential evaluator or evaluation team need to meet all the desired skills and experiences listed in the evaluation RFP?: In most cases, FFAR prefers evaluation teams that can meet all the listed
requirements. However, if you bring the appropriate skills and experience to excel at a portion of what is requested in an RFP, we invite you to apply and share how you would be the best person or group to take on that part of the work. Once all proposals are received, FFAR may partner evaluators based on their proposals or fund multiple proposals addressing different parts of the RFP.

Who should submit a proposal? How are program evaluation contracts written and executed?: FFAR can contract with 1099s (independent contractors), for-profits and 501(c)(3) nonprofits. FFAR enters fixed-priced contracts with payment based on deliverables. If necessary, FFAR may consider time and material costs based on the selected proposal’s requirements.

Does FFAR require a funding match for program evaluation proposals?: No. FFAR does not require matching funds for program evaluations match.

Does FFAR allow indirect costs in program evaluation budget proposals?: In short, yes, we will consider proposals with indirect costs. Evaluations at FFAR are fee-for-service work, not grants, and various entities apply. Our priority is to get an evaluation that meets our needs and provides the most value for the money. Some proposals from individuals or firms often contain expenses like indirect costs in a grant. While we will accept a proposal submitted by a university, high administrative costs may weaken the proposal’s competitiveness.

Should FFAR program evaluations be considered federal awards or contracts?: No. FFAR is a 501(c)(3) and program evaluation contracts are contracts are not considered to be federal awards or contracts.