evidoria

What works in Kigali

All catalogues · Rwanda profile

45
evaluated practices
66/100
average quality score
9%
strong evidence, of 44 assessed

Quality scores are 0–100 rubric scores; “strong evidence” reflects study design; adoptions count documented replications elsewhere. Know more

Strengths & weaknesses vs peers

Strengths

Evaluation evidence +51 pts 100 here · 49 average

Water & soil — retention, infiltration, erosion control +25 pts 73 here · 48 average

Biodiversity — conservation / improvement, evidenced +25 pts 73 here · 48 average

Demonstrated reach +24 pts 100 here · 76 average

Evaluated outcomes +21 pts 100 here · 79 average

Effectiveness +20 pts 88 here · 68 average

Impact on gender equality +17 pts 88 here · 71 average

Equity & inclusion +17 pts 67 here · 50 average

Multi-stakeholder collaboration +16 pts 90 here · 74 average

Teacher capability & pedagogy +16 pts 53 here · 37 average

Achievement / evidence +12 pts 100 here · 88 average

Inclusiveness / equity +11 pts 53 here · 43 average

Gender-mainstreaming embedding +11 pts 100 here · 89 average

Weaknesses

No standout gaps.

Score profile vs peers

Evaluation evidence
100 · 49
Water & soil — retention, infiltration, erosion control
73 · 48
Biodiversity — conservation / improvement, evidenced
73 · 48
Demonstrated reach
100 · 76
Evaluated outcomes
100 · 79
Effectiveness
88 · 68
Impact on gender equality
88 · 71
Equity & inclusion
67 · 50
Multi-stakeholder collaboration
90 · 74
Teacher capability & pedagogy
53 · 37
Achievement / evidence
100 · 88
Inclusiveness / equity
53 · 43
Gender-mainstreaming embedding
100 · 89
Evidence of learning impact
33 · 26
Carbon — sequestration / storage, evidenced
33 · 28
Innovation level
67 · 62
Transparency, fairness & accountability
58 · 54
Curator validation
75 · 73
Transferability / replicability
61 · 60
Fire resilience — risk reduction, evidenced
7 · 6
Sustainability (ongoing)
78 · 78
Scalability beyond pilot
62 · 62
Governance, certification & transferability
62 · 64
Evidence of impact / measured public value
56 · 57
Transparency, ethics & data protection
40 · 47
Documented learning
67 · 74
Efficiency
25 · 33

Coloured bar: Kigali. Grey bar: peer average across the corpus. Both on a common 0–100 scale.

Points compare this place's average on each dimension with the average across all evaluated places, on a common 0–100 scale. Know more

Top good practices here

Rwanda's Land Tenure Regularization Programme — Titling Land in Women's Names · 100

Rwanda's Constitutional Gender Quota and Gender Monitoring Office · 96

IremboGov's Last-Mile Agent Network and USSD Interface — Designing E-Government for Rwanda's Low-Literacy, Offline Citizens · 96

IremboGov — Rwanda's Web, App and USSD Multi-Channel Design for a Low-Smartphone Population · 96

Digital Umuganda — Building Open Voice Data and AI Services for Kinyarwanda, Rwanda's National Language · 92

Digital Ambassadors Programme (Rwanda) · 92

Bandebereho — Gender-Transformative Fathers' and Couples' Programme · 89

Carnegie Mellon University Africa: A $275.7M Partnership for African Tech Talent Retention · 86

Each number is the practice's overall 0–100 quality score against its catalogue's rubric. Know more

Recommended to adopt or replicate

Transferable practices from elsewhere that address this place's gaps.

Ciudad Mujer — El Salvador's Integrated Women's Services Programme · fit 100/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Backed by strong evidence

Already adopted in 3 other places

SASA! Community Mobilisation Programme against Intimate Partner Violence — Uganda · fit 100/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Backed by strong evidence

Already adopted in 4 other places

Digital Green — Video-Mediated Agricultural Extension · fit 100/100

  • Backed by strong evidence

Sweden's Barnahus (Children's House) — Multidisciplinary One-Stop Centres for Child Victims of Sexual Abuse and Violence · fit 90/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Backed by strong evidence

Already adopted in 6 other places

Copenhagen Business Hub (Erhvervshus Hovedstaden) · fit 90/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Backed by strong evidence

Fit estimates how well a practice matches this place, 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent); the list is ordered to favour practices that address this place's gaps. Know more