NGO & Development Project Feasibility in Kenya: Quick Answers
An NGO or development project feasibility study tests whether a proposed intervention is relevant, viable and implementable before significant funding, staffing or programme commitments are made. The objective is not to prove that a concept should proceed. It is to test the assumptions behind the proposed intervention, identify implementation constraints and establish what must be true for the programme to succeed.
Raven Africa focuses on development-sector feasibility: evidence of need, programme logic, beneficiary and stakeholder perspectives, institutional capacity, operational practicality, policy and regulatory conditions, safeguarding and inclusion considerations, implementation risks, sustainability and monitoring readiness. Where a TOR requires specialist technical, environmental, engineering, clinical, actuarial, legal, tax or other regulated expertise, those inputs are defined separately and incorporated through appropriately qualified specialists.
| Question | Quick answer |
|---|---|
| Who is this service for? | International and Kenyan NGOs, CSOs, foundations, donors, development agencies, implementing partners, consortium leads, social-impact organisations and international advisers working in Kenya. |
| What decision does the study support? | Whether a proposed programme or project should proceed, be redesigned, narrowed, piloted, deferred, subjected to additional evidence gathering or not implemented in its present form. |
| What can be assessed? | Needs, intervention logic, target groups, stakeholder support, organisational capacity, operations, location, implementation arrangements, policy context, safeguarding, risks, sustainability and monitoring requirements. |
| What evidence can be collected? | Desk research, official and programme documents, stakeholder interviews, beneficiary consultations, site visits, focus groups, observation, field enquiries and other methods agreed in the TOR or inception report. |
| What is delivered? | A decision-ready feasibility report setting out evidence, tested assumptions, findings, constraints, risks, options, implementation conditions and recommended next steps. |
| Can Raven work from a TOR or RFP? | Yes. The methodology, work plan, field approach, staffing inputs and reporting structure can be aligned to the commissioning organisation's TOR and evaluation requirements. |
| How are fees determined? | Fees depend on the TOR, research depth, counties and sites, respondent groups, travel, fieldwork, workshops, specialist inputs, reporting requirements and deadline. |
| What is needed to start? | The concept note or project brief, draft or final TOR, target geography and population, proposed intervention, available studies, donor or funding requirements, intended users of the report and required completion date. |
A development feasibility study should test both the problem and the proposed response. Evidence that a need exists does not by itself establish that the proposed intervention is the right, realistic or sustainable way to address it.
When a development feasibility study adds value
Before funding or programme launch
- Designing a new NGO, foundation or donor-funded programme in Kenya
- Testing whether a proposed intervention responds to an evidenced need
- Assessing a new county, target group or implementation geography
- Validating programme assumptions before committing a major grant or implementation budget
Before final project design
- Preparing a funding proposal, concept note or programme design
- Responding to donor conditions requiring an independent feasibility study
- Testing partner capacity and implementation arrangements
- Preparing for a consortium, localisation or multi-partner implementation model
Which development feasibility scope do you need?
| Decision situation | Best starting scope | Why |
|---|---|---|
| The programme concept is early and the organisation needs to know whether deeper design work is justified. | Pre-feasibility / concept validation | Tests the highest-risk assumptions, evidence gaps, target population, stakeholder context and obvious implementation constraints before a larger study is commissioned. |
| A donor, foundation or board needs evidence before approving a programme or grant. | Development project feasibility study | Integrates needs, programme logic, stakeholder evidence, organisational capacity, operations, risks, sustainability and implementation feasibility into one decision framework. |
| The TOR requires multiple counties, specialist sectors or several implementing partners. | Multidisciplinary / TOR-led feasibility study | Combines Raven's research, stakeholder, field and risk work with specialist inputs required by the commissioning organisation. |
| The uncertainty concerns one defined issue such as beneficiary needs, stakeholder acceptance, partner capacity or implementation risk. | Use the narrower specialist service | A full feasibility study may be unnecessary. A needs assessment, stakeholder assessment, due diligence review, field verification or risk assessment may answer the decision more efficiently. |
NGO & Development Feasibility Study Scope
The scope should follow the programme decision and the commissioning organisation's TOR rather than a universal template. A livelihoods project, humanitarian intervention, health programme, education initiative, social enterprise, localisation programme or climate-resilience project will each require different evidence. Raven defines the questions to be answered, the respondent groups, the geographic evidence required and any specialist disciplines needed.
Core development-feasibility workstreams
| Workstream | Questions tested | Typical output |
|---|---|---|
| Needs & context feasibility | Is the identified problem supported by current evidence? Who is affected, where, to what extent, and what programmes or services already exist? | Problem analysis, evidence of need, geographic and population context, service gaps and issues requiring deeper assessment. |
| Programme & intervention feasibility | Is the proposed intervention appropriate to the identified problem? Are its theory-of-change assumptions plausible and are alternative approaches more realistic? | Intervention findings, critical assumptions, design options, adaptation points and conditions for proceeding. |
| Stakeholder & beneficiary feasibility | Do intended beneficiaries, government actors, communities, CSOs, partners and other stakeholders understand, support or constrain the proposed intervention? | Stakeholder findings, beneficiary priorities, acceptance issues, influence and dependency mapping, engagement requirements. |
| Organisational & institutional feasibility | Do the proposed lead and implementing partners have the governance, staffing, systems, local presence, procurement, safeguarding, reporting and programme-management capability required? | Institutional capacity findings, capability gaps, partner dependencies, strengthening requirements and due-diligence triggers. |
| Operational feasibility | Can the intervention be delivered in the target geography with realistic staffing, access, logistics, suppliers, infrastructure, security, data and implementation arrangements? | Operating constraints, resource requirements, access issues, implementation bottlenecks and practical delivery options. |
| Policy & regulatory feasibility | Is the programme aligned with relevant national and county policy, institutional mandates, approvals and sector requirements? | Policy and institutional map, approval dependencies, coordination requirements and issues requiring legal or specialist confirmation. |
| Financial & resource feasibility | Are the proposed budget, cost drivers, staffing assumptions, geographic coverage and resource requirements realistic for the intended outputs and implementation model? | Cost and resource assumptions, sensitivity points, affordability questions and matters requiring specialist budgeting or financial modelling. |
| Social inclusion, gender & safeguarding feasibility | What gender, disability, age, protection, exclusion, conflict-sensitivity, safeguarding or do-no-harm considerations could affect programme design and delivery? | Material inclusion and safeguarding issues, design implications and specialist referral points where required. |
| Sustainability & exit feasibility | What happens after donor or programme funding ends? Can local ownership, capacity transfer, institutionalisation or another sustainability pathway realistically continue the intended benefits? | Sustainability assumptions, ownership requirements, transition risks, exit conditions and longer-term dependencies. |
| Monitoring, evaluation & learning readiness | Can progress and outcomes be measured? Are indicators, baselines, data sources and learning questions realistic for the proposed intervention? | Measurement-readiness findings, baseline requirements, data gaps and links to the later M&E framework. |
Three common assignment formats
Pre-Feasibility / Concept Validation
A focused early-stage review used to decide whether the programme concept has sufficient evidence and implementation logic to justify full design, fundraising or a larger feasibility study.
NGO & Development Project Feasibility Study
A full independent assessment combining needs, intervention logic, stakeholder evidence, organisational capacity, operations, policy context, risks, sustainability and implementation recommendations.
TOR-Led / Multidisciplinary Study
A feasibility study structured against a donor, foundation, NGO, consortium or institutional TOR, with additional sector or technical specialists incorporated where required.
Feasibility study consultancy for NGO TORs and RFPs in Kenya
Raven welcomes feasibility-study TORs, RFPs, framework opportunities, consortium assignments and subcontracting briefs from organisations working in Kenya. We can review the TOR and structure the methodology, research questions, sampling and respondent approach, fieldwork plan, stakeholder engagement, evidence framework, work plan, reporting structure and local delivery inputs around the commissioning organisation's requirements.
For international consulting firms and consortium leads, Raven can also act as a Kenya research and field partner for assignments requiring local stakeholder access, site visits, interviews, verification, contextual research and programme-risk analysis.
Field research in Nairobi and across Kenya
Development feasibility frequently depends on primary evidence rather than desk research alone. A Kenya assignment can combine document review with key informant interviews, beneficiary consultations, focus groups, observation, site visits, institutional interviews and field verification where these methods are appropriate to the TOR. Evidence from Nairobi should not automatically be treated as representative of other counties; multi-location studies should define the geographic sample and limitations explicitly.
What a Raven Development Feasibility Study Can Deliver
The report is designed to support a programme, funding or implementation decision. The exact structure follows the approved TOR or inception report, but a full NGO or development-project feasibility assignment can include:
Needs, Evidence & Assumptions
Document the evidence behind the problem statement, target population, programme assumptions and intervention logic, including what remains unverified.
Stakeholder & Capacity Findings
Assess beneficiary priorities, institutional context, partner capability, implementation arrangements and stakeholder conditions that could support or constrain delivery.
Implementation & Risk Framework
Identify material constraints, operational dependencies, sustainability issues, programme risks, design options and conditions that should be satisfied before implementation.
Typical report sections
- Executive summary and feasibility conclusion
- Assignment purpose, scope and methodology
- Programme concept, context and assumptions register
- Needs and target-population evidence
- Intervention logic and programme-design findings
- Stakeholder and beneficiary perspectives
- Organisational and implementing-partner capacity
- Operational and geographic feasibility
- Policy, institutional and regulatory context
- Gender, inclusion, safeguarding and conflict-sensitivity considerations where relevant
- Budget, resource and implementation assumptions where included
- Sustainability, localisation and exit considerations
- Monitoring, evaluation and learning readiness
- Risk matrix, evidence gaps and specialist referral points
- Options, recommendations and conditions for proceeding
Donor and funding-partner requirements
If the feasibility study is required by a donor, foundation, development agency, consortium lead or other funding partner, provide the relevant TOR, appraisal framework, concept note, logframe, proposal guidance or reporting template at inception. Raven will structure the research and reporting around the stated decision need and identify any specialist technical inputs that fall outside the agreed research scope.
A useful feasibility conclusion may recommend proceeding only after redesigning the target group, geography, partner model, implementation sequence, budget assumptions or measurement approach. The purpose is to improve the decision, not to force a predetermined yes-or-no answer.
Development Feasibility Study Methodology
Raven uses a question-led and evidence-led approach. The research design follows the TOR, programme type, target population, geography and intended decision. Depending on scope, methods may include document review, secondary data analysis, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, beneficiary consultations, observation, site visits, field verification and specialist inputs.
- Define the programme decision. Confirm the proposed intervention, target groups, locations, intended users of the report, funding or design decision and the questions the study must answer.
- Review the TOR and existing evidence. Examine concept notes, proposals, prior assessments, programme data, policies, budgets, logframes, theories of change, partner information and other supplied material.
- Build the assumptions and evidence framework. Identify the critical assumptions behind the problem statement, beneficiary targeting, intervention logic, partner model, operations, sustainability and intended results.
- Design the primary research. Define respondent groups, sampling logic, interview or focus-group tools, field locations, ethical and safeguarding considerations and practical access requirements.
- Test needs and programme assumptions. Compare the programme concept with available data, stakeholder evidence, beneficiary perspectives, existing services and alternative intervention models.
- Assess stakeholders and institutional capacity. Examine government interfaces, community dynamics, implementing partners, local institutions, referral systems and organisational capabilities relevant to delivery.
- Test operational feasibility. Assess staffing, access, logistics, geography, infrastructure, procurement, security, data and other practical conditions that could affect implementation.
- Review inclusion, safeguarding and sustainability. Identify material gender, protection, disability, conflict-sensitivity, ownership, localisation and post-funding considerations within the agreed scope.
- Evaluate risks, options and design changes. Determine the principal constraints, unresolved evidence gaps, alternative approaches and conditions that should be satisfied before implementation.
- Validate and report. Separate source evidence, respondent findings, client-supplied assumptions and Raven analysis, then deliver the agreed draft, validation process and final report.
How evidence is classified in the feasibility report
A decision-ready study should distinguish established evidence from stakeholder views, client assumptions and professional interpretation. Raven structures findings so the reader can see what is supported, what is indicative and what still requires confirmation.
| Evidence type | How it is used | Typical limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Official & secondary evidence | Policies, legislation, official statistics, sector reports, prior studies and institutional information used to establish context and formal requirements. | Data may be dated, aggregated or unavailable at the required population or county level; material limitations are stated. |
| Primary stakeholder evidence | Interviews, focus groups, beneficiary consultations, site visits, observation and field enquiries used to test current conditions and perspectives. | Findings depend on sampling, access, respondent quality, research ethics and the geography covered. |
| Client-supplied programme assumptions | Target groups, intervention logic, budgets, staffing, partner roles, expected outputs and implementation plans are recorded and tested where the scope permits. | They are not treated as independently verified merely because they appear in a concept note, proposal or logframe. |
| Specialist evidence | Technical, environmental, clinical, legal, financial or other specialist conclusions are incorporated where required by the TOR. | Reliance is limited to the relevant specialist's scope, qualifications, data and stated assumptions. |
| Raven analysis | Evidence is integrated into feasibility conclusions, design options, risks, conditions and recommended next steps. | Professional interpretation is identified as analysis rather than presented as a source fact. |
What to Send Us With Your TOR / RFP
For a faster scope review and quotation, share as much of the following as is available:
- TOR / RFP or procurement brief
- Concept note, proposal, logframe or Theory of Change
- Target population and intended beneficiaries
- Counties, sites or implementation geography
- Required research methods, sample or respondent groups, if specified
- Available assessments, baseline data or prior studies
- Donor, foundation or funding-partner requirements
- Expected deliverables and reporting format
- Indicative budget range, where available
- Proposal-submission or final-delivery deadline
NGO Feasibility Study Cost, Timeline & Requirements in Kenya
Raven does not publish a single fixed professional fee or universal turnaround for development feasibility work. A desk-based concept validation is materially different from a multi-county assignment involving beneficiary consultations, focus groups, institutional interviews, travel, workshops and specialist inputs. The proposal therefore prices the approved methodology, fieldwork and deliverables rather than using a generic feasibility-study rate.
| Assignment type | Typical scope | Fee and timeline approach |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-feasibility / concept validation | Problem evidence, intervention assumptions, target group, stakeholder context, principal risks and recommendation on whether deeper design work is justified. | Quoted after review of the concept note, available evidence, geography and required decision date. |
| NGO / development project feasibility study | Needs, programme design, stakeholder and beneficiary evidence, organisational capacity, operations, policy context, sustainability, risks and implementation recommendations. | Custom proposal with inception, research, fieldwork, analysis, validation, draft and final-report stages. |
| Multi-county or multidisciplinary study | Multiple field locations, respondent groups, sector specialists, larger samples, workshops or complex implementation arrangements. | Quoted against the TOR, research design, person-days, travel, fieldwork, specialist inputs and reporting requirements. |
| Institutional / procurement assignment | Study undertaken under a defined NGO, donor, foundation, development-agency or consortium TOR. | Technical and financial proposal aligned to the TOR, evaluation criteria, methodology, work plan and deliverables. |
What affects the professional fee?
- Number of counties, sites and target populations
- Research methods and sample size
- Key informant interviews, focus groups and beneficiary consultations
- Fieldwork, travel, translation and enumerator requirements
- Data analysis and specialist sector inputs
- Validation workshops and presentations
- Report depth, donor templates and deadline
Information needed for a quotation
- Draft or final TOR, where available
- Concept note, proposal or programme description
- Target population and intended beneficiaries
- Counties, sites or implementation geography
- Available assessments, baseline data or prior studies
- Proposed partners and implementation arrangements
- Donor or funding-partner requirements
- Required deliverables and completion date
What affects the timeline?
The proposal should separately identify inception, desk review, research-tool development, respondent mobilisation, fieldwork, analysis, validation, draft review and final delivery. This makes external dependencies visible instead of hiding them within a single headline turnaround.
- Availability and quality of existing programme information
- Research ethics, safeguarding or institutional approvals where required
- Access to beneficiaries, government officials and other stakeholders
- Number and geographic spread of field locations
- Translation, facilitation and enumerator requirements
- Availability and sequencing of specialist consultants
- Client and donor review, validation and approval processes
Feasibility Study vs Other Raven Development & Research Services
The distinction helps clients commission the correct scope and keeps the feasibility page focused on pre-programme viability rather than competing with Raven's specialist service pages.
| Service | Primary question | Use that service when... |
|---|---|---|
| NGO & Development Feasibility Study | Is the proposed programme or project sufficiently relevant, viable and implementable to proceed, redesign, fund or defer? | The decision requires multiple dimensions of programme feasibility to be integrated before implementation. |
| Needs Assessment | What problem or unmet need exists, for whom, where and at what scale? | The primary uncertainty is the problem, affected population or service gap rather than the feasibility of a defined intervention. |
| Monitoring & Evaluation | Is an existing intervention progressing and producing intended outputs, outcomes and learning? | The programme has already started and the question concerns implementation, performance, results or learning. |
| Stakeholder Assessment | Who can affect or be affected by the programme, and what do their interests, influence and relationships mean? | The assignment requires deeper stakeholder identification, mapping, legitimacy, influence and engagement-risk analysis. |
| Field Verification | What is actually happening at a location, institution, project site or beneficiary level? | The principal need is independent physical verification, site observation, interviews or documentary confirmation. |
| Due Diligence | Is a named partner, grantee, supplier, implementing organisation or counterparty sufficiently verified? | The principal risk concerns a defined institution or counterparty rather than the programme as a whole. |
| Risk Monitoring | What has changed after implementation begins, and does it require management action? | The exposure is ongoing and management needs recurring alerts, contextual intelligence or risk briefings. |
Specialist boundary: Raven does not present development research as a substitute for regulated technical work, formal legal or tax opinions, clinical assessments, engineering design, environmental certification, statutory audit or other specialist work reserved to appropriately qualified professionals. Where such inputs are material to the TOR, they should be included as separate specialist workstreams.
Who Raven can support
- International NGOs operating or planning programmes in Kenya
- Kenyan NGOs, CSOs and community-based implementation structures
- Foundations and philanthropic organisations
- Donors and development agencies
- International and local implementing partners
- Consortium leads and prime contractors
- Social-impact and development organisations
- Research institutions and programme-design teams
- International consulting firms requiring a Kenya research and field partner
Frequently Asked Questions
Request an NGO or Development Feasibility Study Scope
Send the TOR or concept note, proposed intervention, target population, counties or sites, available evidence, intended donor or decision-maker, required research methods and preferred completion date. Raven can then structure the methodology, fieldwork, team inputs, deliverables and quotation around the assignment.
