What an RCT-in-DiD design actually buys you
Why a staggered rollout across matched school pairs is what lets us credit the training, not the calendar.
Ask us about this →Indwoke shows NGOs and funders where their work creates real change, so effort and money flow to what works best. Live in the field in Mumbai today, built to become the standard for the social sector.
Institutional safeguarding · Mumbai municipal schools
Anonymized at the point of collection.
Nothing is decided after the data arrives.
Whichever way the finding points.
20 MCGM schools, in field right now.
The work is not short on conviction, intent, or capability. It is short on infrastructure — the systems that tell delivery apart from impact. Indwoke is building that layer across three connected disciplines.
Field records are captured, verified and kept governed end to end — from first survey to last. No one can leak what was never kept, because the person who runs a programme is never the only one who can check it.
View methodology →
Our default is a randomized controlled trial with a comparison group — the same standard used in medicine and development economics. Where a trial isn't possible, we step down a named ladder of methods and say which rung we're standing on.
See the live study →
Complex field information becomes comparable, decision-ready impact data across a whole portfolio — so a funder can see, at a glance, where the next rupee does the most good.
Meet the team →
Every organisation in the social sector shares the same worry at audit time — not that the programme failed, but that no one can prove it worked. Indwoke exists to close that gap, end to end.
For accurate data management, evidence-based decisions, and measurable social impact — designed for NGOs, CSR teams, research organisations, foundations, and government institutions.
Enabling organisations worldwide to use technology and data for sustainable, informed, scalable social change — replacing generic impact reports with evidence-grade results.
The whole point is credibility. We would rather show a weak result than a flattering one.
Data serves people. Every number traces back to a real programme and a real community.
Study designs fixed in advance, versioned findings, published methods. No black boxes.
Impact is not a one-time claim. We measure, learn, and revise, continuously.
A 90-day randomized controlled trial across 20 MCGM schools, run with implementation partner Amala Jeevan India Foundation. Ten schools receive safeguarding training now, and ten matched schools receive it after the final survey — that staggered design is what lets us show whether the training itself made the difference, rather than something else happening in the city that term.
Whether safeguarding training actually changes anything: children's sense of safety and trust in adults, staff confidence in recognising and responding to concerns, and institutional readiness — policies, reporting channels, referral pathways.
The study measures awareness and access, never individual incidents, and the outcomes, split, and analysis were fixed before a single baseline form was collected.
Results will exist in December 2026. Until then, this page claims none.
Tell us about the programme you're running — we'll walk you through what a study design like this would look like for it.
Findings come later. The rules they will be held to are fixed, published, and checkable now.
Our default is a randomized controlled trial with a comparison group — the same standard used in medicine and development economics. Where conditions do not allow one, we step down a named ladder of methods and name the one used.
Seven published, validated research instruments already mapped to our sectors, used instead of reinventing surveys from scratch.
Personal details never leave the field. Data is anonymised at the point of collection, so no personal data ever reaches the cloud. Compliant with the DPDP Act by design.
Every field cycle is scored against the protocol fixed before it began — so the numbers below describe process integrity today, not the outcome we hope for in December.
Indwoke owns the whole chain: how data is captured in the field, how it is kept secure, how it is verified, and what is reported upward. No one can leak what was never kept.
The strongest study design the situation allows. Where a trial is not possible, we step down a defined ladder of methods and name the rung we are standing on.
Comparable, decision-ready impact data across a whole portfolio, so a funder can see where the next rupee does the most good.
Official statistics measure enrolment, not learning. Every study becomes a permanent, anonymous entry in a record that outlives its funding cycle.
Anyone can move data. Indwoke's strength is a growing library of research designs that decide, in advance, what would count as impact — so a finding cannot be dressed up after the fact.
Consolidate programme data, instruments and records into one governed, secure system of record.
Fix the study design and the comparison group before any data is collected, so what counts as impact is decided in advance.
Compare against the comparison group, publish the finding whichever way it points, and revise.
We publish null and negative results too — no exceptions. A protocol that fails to find an effect is as much a part of the record as one that succeeds.
Here's what that looks like in the stack that runs underneath the study.
One system of record for programme data, instruments and field records — governed, not scattered across spreadsheets.
Anonymization happens at the point of collection. No personal data reaches the cloud in the first place.
Encrypted, access-controlled, and built for an audit-ready trail from first survey to last.
| Protocol | Domain | Study design | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Institutional child safeguarding (AMALA–PRAJA) | Child protection | RCT-in-DiD | Live in field |
| Child safety screening | Child protection | Validated instrument | Ready |
| Child wellbeing assessment | Mental health | Validated instrument | Ready |
| Women's safety & POSH readiness | Gender | Survey + readiness index | Ready |
| Institutional readiness assessment | Cross-sector | Policy & systems audit | Ready |
Tell us which protocol fits, and we'll scope what it would take to run it with you.
Notes on how the evidence engine is built, published as we build it — not after the fact.
Why a staggered rollout across matched school pairs is what lets us credit the training, not the calendar.
Ask us about this →
What "anonymised at the point of collection" means in practice, field form by field form.
Ask us about this →
A protocol that finds nothing is still a finding — and it belongs in the record next to the ones that succeed.
Ask us about this →When the final survey is in, the finding — positive, null, or negative — is published against the design fixed in advance. That's the commitment.
Indwoke is founder-led. Two views of the same problem: institutions do not lack data, they lack systems that cannot lie.
Comes from an NGO and social-sector background — the view of the problem from inside the field.
Comes from corporate audit and HR systems — the view of the problem from inside institutions.
One live trial, no results yet. The method is real today. The first headline numbers arrive in December 2026, and we will publish them whichever way they point.
No sales team, no handoffs — you'll speak with Prajakta or Dev directly.
Everything after the first phase is a plan, not a promise. Each one unlocks only when the one before it holds up.
Run the anchor study end to end and show the approach works in real municipal schools.
Speaking to: government & implementation partnersPublish what we find, whichever way it points, and take the method toward peer review. A second NGO replication is in early discussion.
Speaking to: funders & NGO partnersReady-made templates, so each new programme costs less to measure without losing rigour.
Speaking to: NGO customersEvidence-grade results across a whole portfolio, replacing generic impact reports.
Speaking to: funders & investorsSee how the platform turns field data into evidence you can act on.
Tell us who you are and what you're working on — we'll get back to you within two working days.