Monitoring & Evaluation
Logframes and indicators, baseline and endline surveys, collection tools, mid-term reviews and evaluation reports that satisfy funders.
Programmes accountable to a funder for results rather than activity.
What the work covers
- Results framework and indicator design
- Baseline, mid-term and endline surveys
- Data collection tools and enumerator training
- M&E system and database setup
- Process, outcome and impact evaluation
- Evaluation reporting against funder criteria
What you are left holding
- Results framework with indicator definitions
- Data collection tools and trained field team
- Clean data set and analysis tables
- Evaluation report with actionable recommendations
The work in detail
Monitoring and evaluation covers results frameworks and indicators, baseline, mid-term and endline surveys, data collection tools and enumerator training, M&E system setup, and process, outcome and impact evaluation. The common problem is not the absence of an M&E plan but indicators nobody can actually measure.
So the framework comes first, with each indicator defined by unit, baseline, target, frequency and source, and assigned to a named person. Tools are then built to the indicators rather than the reverse, then piloted and digitised for mobile collection where field conditions allow. Sampling is documented, enumerators are trained and supervised, and back-checks plus daily data quality review protect the data set while it can still be corrected.
Analysis reports results against baseline and target, disaggregated by the groups the programme is accountable for. Evaluation then assesses relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability against funder criteria, and recommendations are written to be acted on, with a session to agree who acts on what, the step most often skipped.
Monitoring & Evaluation
Scenarios, for reference
Indicators that could not be measured
A programme’s framework included indicators with no defined source or frequency, so reporting was estimated. Redefining them against available data, and dropping two that were genuinely unmeasurable, produced a report the funder accepted.
An endline with no comparable baseline
A project reached endline with a baseline collected on different questions. We reconstructed what was comparable, stated plainly what was not, and reported within those limits rather than implying precision.
A mid-term review used as a decision point
A mid-term review found one component underperforming. Because the recommendations named owners and dates, the component was redesigned during implementation rather than reported on at the end.