Sagehill Research Group — Policy research and evaluation on violence prevention

The problem we solve

Most organizations doing important work face the same constraint. Does this program actually work? What does the evidence really say? How do we make a case a funder will support? Those questions need research training a lean organization cannot keep on staff.

01 — Hiring

Not the answer, because the need is intermittent

An organization with a $1.5M budget cannot justify a doctoral-level analyst post, but has three or four discrete analytical needs each year.

02 — Large firms

Minimum engagements exceed the budget line

The majors carry real capacity and brand recognition, but their smallest engagement often costs more than the entire line the work has to come out of — and junior staff perform it.

03 — The gap

Doctoral capacity, one project at a time

Sagehill is built for exactly that gap: research and evaluation capacity available for a single project, at a fixed price, with the principals doing the work.

Funder fluencyGrant writers and evaluation consultants understand funder logic, application architecture, and outcome measurement — but generally cannot independently appraise the technical evidence base underlying a client's programs.
Technical appraisalSubject-matter scientists can appraise that evidence, but typically have no fluency in tri-agency application structure, theory of change, developmental evaluation, or funder reporting.
The intersectionTwo labour markets exist here and rarely overlap. Sagehill's principals hold doctorates on both sides of it, and have each spent years converting technical evidence into decision products for senior institutional audiences.

Figure 1

Where the firm sits between two labour markets. Schematic; illustrative of positioning, not a data figure.

What we do

Four capabilities, delivered as fixed-fee written products. Work is scoped in writing, produced remotely, and released only after both principals have read it.

Funding

Funding development

We build and strengthen grant applications — architecture, evidence base, logic model, budget narrative — for tri-agency, federal, and philanthropic competitions. We work from the published adjudication criteria, not from instinct.

Evaluation

Evaluation design

Theories of change, logic models, indicator frameworks, and evaluation plans that satisfy funders and, more importantly, tell you something true about your own program.

Evidence

Evidence synthesis

We find, appraise, and synthesise the research relevant to your decision, and tell you plainly where the evidence is strong, where it is thin, and where it does not exist.

Translation

Technical translation

Technical material turned into briefs, board papers, and submissions a non-specialist audience can act on without losing what matters.

Service catalogue and indicative fees

Service	Deliverable	Effort	Fee
Grant development — major	Full application architecture, drafting, and revision for a tri-agency or major federal competition	25–45 hrs	$4,000–$7,500
Grant development — foundation and small program	Proposal, budget narrative, and logic model for a foundation or provincial program	8–16 hrs	$1,200–$2,500
Grant review and strengthening	Structured critique of a client-drafted application against published adjudication criteria, with a revision map	6–10 hrs	$1,200–$2,000
Evaluation framework	Theory of change, logic model, indicator set, data collection plan, reporting template	30–55 hrs	$4,500–$9,000
Rapid evidence synthesis	Protocol, search, appraisal, and synthesis report with evidence tables	25–50 hrs	$3,500–$8,000
Jurisdictional scan	Comparative review across named jurisdictions with an options table	15–30 hrs	$2,500–$5,000
Policy brief or board paper	Decision-ready brief translating technical source material for a non-technical audience	10–20 hrs	$2,000–$3,500
Impact assessment review	Third-party methodological review of an environmental or social impact assessment, or a cumulative effects assessment	20–35 hrs	$3,500–$6,500
Advisory retainer	Named-hours monthly access for ongoing methodological guidance	4–8 hrs/mo	$1,200–$2,400/mo
Recorded training module	Self-paced module with workbook — grant development or evaluation fundamentals	Self-paced	$149–$399/seat

Commercial terms

Fifty percent deposit on signature; balance on delivery
Two rounds of revision included; further rounds at $150 per hour
Client owns the deliverable on final payment; the firm retains its templates and methods
An explicit limitation-of-reliance clause in every statement of work

What we do not do

No success fees or contingent pricing on funding applications — contingency creates an incentive to overstate an applicant's case and is prohibited by several major funders
No lobbying, government relations, or advocacy representation of any kind
No prime-contractor facilitation or delivery requiring weekday on-site presence
No more than two concurrent engagements — a capacity control, not a marketing position

Why Sagehill

We do not compete on availability, and we do not pursue work requiring same-day response or weekday on-site presence. What we offer instead is narrower and harder to buy.

01

Two PhDs, and they do the work

No junior staff, no handoff after the pitch. The people who scope your project write it.

02

We read the science

Grant writers who cannot appraise your evidence base can only make your case sound better. We can tell you whether it holds.

03

Two disciplines, one team

Infectious disease immunology and public health on one side; environmental science, water governance, and impact assessment on the other. Convergent problems get appraisers who read across both literatures.

04

Fixed scope, fixed fee, fixed date

You know the price and the delivery date before we start. We decline work we cannot deliver rather than deliver it late.

How we work

Four commitments that govern every engagement, from the scoping call to the final release.

BAND 01

We scope in writing before we start

Every engagement opens with a scoping call and a written statement of work. No work begins on a verbal brief, so the price and the date are settled at the beginning rather than negotiated at the end.

BAND 02

We review each other's work

Internal peer review is mandatory. Nothing leaves this firm that only one of us has read. Deliverables are scheduled with a minimum twenty percent effort buffer, and where slippage becomes foreseeable you hear about it immediately rather than at the deadline.

BAND 03

We tell you what the evidence supports

Including when that is not what you hoped. Where the literature is thin, or accessible sources constrain the review, the limitation is stated in the deliverable rather than papered over.

BAND 04

We aim to leave you more capable

Frameworks come with the reasoning, so you can extend them yourself. Every engagement should leave the client able to do more of the work in-house next time.

Figure 2

The results chain underlying an evaluation framework engagement. Populated with the client's own programming at scoping; the labels shown are illustrative.

An evidence review that only confirms is not a review.

Sagehill Research Group — methodological honesty

People

Sagehill is a two-principal firm. Both principals deliver client work and neither holds a purely commercial role — the people you meet at the scoping call are the people who write the deliverable.

Dr. Steve Jimbo

PhD, PMP · Principal — Edmonton, Alberta

Steve is an immunologist and policy analyst whose career spans laboratory research, federal biosecurity science, and senior public-sector policy development. He leads Sagehill's evidence synthesis, health and biosecurity risk framing, and evaluation design.

Evidence synthesis
Evaluation design
Biosecurity & One Health
Project management

Read full biography

He holds a PhD in Vaccinology and Immunotherapeutics from the University of Saskatchewan, where his research at VIDO-InterVac characterised regulatory and effector B cell populations in mucosal lymphoid tissue and examined immune-inhibitory pathways in bacterial respiratory disease. His work is published in the peer-reviewed immunology literature, including Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology.

He subsequently served as a Research Scientist with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency at the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease, working within Canada's high-containment animal health system on foreign animal disease preparedness. That work grounded his practice in formal risk assessment, biosecurity, and the One Health interface between animal, human, and environmental health.

Steve now works in senior policy analysis in the public sector, leading complex policy development, program analysis, and evaluation initiatives, and holds an adjunct appointment with the School of Public Health at the University of Saskatchewan.

At Sagehill, he leads evidence synthesis, health and biosecurity risk framing, program logic and evaluation design, and the translation of technical findings into decision-ready products for boards, funders, and executive audiences.

Email: [steve@sagehillresearch.ca]
Calls: By appointment — early morning, evening, or a booked weekday window

Dr. Jania Chilima

PhD · Principal — Edmonton, Alberta

Jania is an environmental scientist and collaborative governance specialist whose practice spans field science, impact assessment, and municipal climate and water policy. She leads Sagehill's governance, impact assessment, and participatory research work.

Impact assessment
Water governance
Climate resilience
Participatory research

Read full biography

She holds a PhD and a Master of Environment and Sustainability from the University of Saskatchewan, and a joint honours BSc in Environmental Resource Sciences and Business Administration from Trent University.

Her doctoral research examined collaborative water governance and management in the lentic–lotic system of Lake Diefenbaker, Saskatchewan, integrating community-based participation theory, institutional analysis, and recreational hazard assessment, including the behavioural dimensions of lake users. Her master's research addressed watershed cumulative effects assessment and management in the Grand River basin, Ontario.

Her technical credentials include Phase I Environmental Site Assessment certification from the Associated Environmental Site Assessors of Canada; Environment Canada certification in terrestrial ecological monitoring (EMAN) and benthic macroinvertebrate analysis (OBBN); Social Impact Assessment and Quality Assurance in Environmental Impact Assessment training through the International Association for Impact Assessment; and Human and Ecological Risk Assessment through the Toxicology Centre at the University of Saskatchewan.

Jania works as a senior environmental project manager in municipal environment and climate resilience practice. She serves on the Board of Directors of the Safe Drinking Water Foundation, a national charity advancing drinking water education, and has taught at the graduate level in environmental public health at the University of Saskatchewan School of Public Health.

Email: [jania@sagehillresearch.ca]
Calls: By appointment — early morning, evening, or a booked weekday window

Two doctoral researchers with complementary technical foundations — infectious disease immunology and public health on one side, environmental science and water governance on the other — and a shared professional history of translating technical evidence into decisions that institutions, funders, and boards can act on.

Independence and conflict of interest

Both principals are employed full time in the public sector. We publish these limits rather than mention them if asked, because an organization retaining us to appraise evidence honestly is entitled to know exactly where our own interests sit.

We do not accept — no exceptions

The Government of Alberta: any ministry, agency, board, commission, delegated administrative organization, or provincial corporation
Any organization delivering or advocating in family violence, sexual violence, or abuse prevention and response services in Alberta
The City of Edmonton: any department, branch, agency, or City-controlled corporation
Any party holding an active procurement, permit, approval, regulatory, or funding relationship with the City of Edmonton in a principal's area of responsibility
Any municipality or regional body within the Edmonton Metropolitan Region
Any vendor, contractor, or subcontractor to either employer
Any engagement whose performance would require information not available to the general public
Any lobbying, government relations, or advocacy activity, however characterised

Who we work with

Universities, research institutes, and individual investigators
National and regional charities in health, water, and environment
Philanthropic foundations
Health authorities, watershed agencies, and municipalities outside Alberta
Professional associations and learned societies
International non-governmental and global health organizations
Research and evaluation consultancies engaging subcontracted technical capacity

How screening works

Every prospective client is screened against a written policy, signed by both principals, before a proposal is issued
A subcontract does not launder an excluded end client — the ultimate client must clear the same screen
Where either principal holds any residual doubt, the engagement is declined. The tie-breaker is always to decline
A conflict log records every prospective client, the outcome, and the reasoning

Contact

Tell us what you're trying to fund, or prove.

Every engagement starts with a scoping call and a written statement of work, so the price and the date are settled before anything begins. If the work is not something we can do well, we will say so.

The deliverable and the deadline it has to meet
The competition or funder, and its published criteria
What evidence or program documentation you already hold
Your budget range for the piece of work

Email: [hello@sagehillresearch.ca]
Based: Edmonton, Alberta
Fully remote delivery, national market
Launching: Q4 2026
Assurance: Professional liability (errors and omissions) and commercial general liability, $2M. Certificate available to clients on request.

Evidence you can fund. Outcomes you can prove.