^{By Kevin Kasoli}

Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning (MEAL) plays a pivotal role in the implementation and delivery of an organisation’s strategic plan by guaranteeing that goals are tackled efficiently, effectively and iteratively. Understandably, the urgency to achieve goals can sometimes lead organisations to overlook essential elements of MEAL, often undermining progress and organisational growth. This article considers some important features of MEAL and how accounting for them early can lead to organisational success.

Incorporate MEAL into programme design

Incorporating MEAL from the outset of programme design leads to formulation of objectives that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound – SMART -- and therefore help an organisation reach its goals. Planning for MEAL at the early stages also facilitates the intake of baseline data, which are crucial to benchmark assessments later. Moreover, the baseline assessment itself is a valuable tool for programme planning. For example, the SFA Foundation MEAL team is engaged throughout the proposal and implementation process to streamline the adoption of MEAL to achieve strategic goals.

Resource allocation

According to a USAID report, organisations should allocate between 5%-10% of total budget to MEAL to ensure programmes are effectively monitored, evaluated and adjusted. Insufficient resources for MEAL can result in data collection that fails to cover all facets of intervention, limiting downstream ability to gauge programme effectiveness. Aspects of MEAL that are commonly short-changed include site visits, midterm evaluations, interactive learning sessions, end-term evaluations and impact assessments. Missing any of these steps can undermine holistic understanding of the efficacy of programmes, which can hamper the ability to achieve sustainable outcomes and significant impact. Organisations that prioritise resource allocation are effective in assessing impact. The SFA Foundation allocates budget for internal MEAL processes and also finances the recommended support to its grantees, so that they may implement data quality reviews and site visits, as well as conduct training to improve data quality.

Quality indicators

Indicators include definitions, targets, rationales, units of measure, baseline values, disaggregation levels, and methods of data collection and tools (specifying their limitations and how to manage them.) These are quantitative or qualitative variables that help organisations collect data that accurately measure achievement toward targets. All results (output, outcome, and impact) have specific SMART indicators that measure performance throughout the life of the programme. The quality of indicators is generally more important than their quantity; those that are deemed irrelevant or that are too costly to track should be eliminated from the programme design. There are multiple frameworks for indicators, including CREAM (clear, relevant, economic, adequate and monitorable) and SPICED (subjective, participatory, interpreted, cross-checked, empowering and disaggregated). These approaches have been adopted by the SFA Foundation and its grantees to select and develop progress indicators.

Importance of qualitative data

Researchers can favour collection of quantitative data over qualitative data because the former can be easier and less costly to collect and analyse. However, failing to collect qualitative data can undermine the ability to determine the rationale behind certain outcomes or trends, often critical to decision making. Good qualitative data can produce a nuanced understanding of multiple perspectives that helps unravel bias. A balanced approach to collecting, analysing and distilling insights from both qualitative and quantitative data is advisable. Pairing data collection tools for quantitative indicators of progress with a narrative to provide context to the numbers is considered best practice and is the standard assumed by the SFA Foundation. 

Considerations beyond positive, direct and intentional results

Limiting data collection to positive, direct and intentional results can inhibit the ability to derive the full scope of results attributable to programme interventions. Proper tracking captures negative, indirect and unintentional results that can reveal key insights to inform current and future programmes. Tracking the entire spectrum, including negative results, also enhances transparency and accountability, increasing credibility. This helps foster trust among stakeholders and informs decision making.

Learning sessions

Learning sessions enable organisations to assess what is and is not working during the course of the research project;. All key stakeholders should participate in all stages of programme planning, implementation and assessment. Learning sessions held during the programme period can identify areas requiring improvement and facilitate strategic and practical corrections, typically agreed to by consensus. Those held during and following programme implementation enable researchers to avoid repeating mistakes, diminishing stakeholder engagement and making poor decisions.

Pay attention to the “so what”

Fully analysing and distilling key insights from the qualitative and quantitative data help account for the “so what” in MEAL – taking into consideration the purpose of the programme and the big-picture results. Data sets should not only be considered in relation to the narrow context in which they were collected; they should also be considered relative to data collected across different levels. This requires in-depth analysis and interpretation to glean the relevance of data and to surface insights upon which to make recommendations. Questions that put individual data sets in context include, “what does this data signify for our programme?” and “what actionable steps should we pursue based on this new information?”. SFA Foundation interrogates the data collected across all the programmes in order to use it to inform evidence-based decisions and actions.

Review the Theory of Change (ToC) periodically

A Theory of Change (ToC) provides a roadmap for how strategy implementation will result in desired changes. It links change pathways and their underlying assumptions to achieve the desired outcomes and impact. Failure to periodically check how a programme tracks with the ToC may result in lost focus on objectives and goals, which can in turn lead to misalignment between the intended outcomes and the activities being implemented. All key stakeholders must participate in periodic review in order to increase focus and resources on effective work. ToC review also fosters learning, increases adaptability and facilitates impact. SFA Foundation reviews all ToCs annually to increase relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of programme interventions.

Conduct ex-post evaluations

Ex-post (post-event) evaluations are conducted following the closure of programme implementation. They help attribute successes and failures to various aspects of the theory of change (ToC). Intended outcomes are compared to actual outcomes, and unintended outcomes are considered whether they are positive or negative. To optimise ex-post reviews, data must be collected and analysed for relevant indicators to determine unintended deviations, assess causality and gauge attribution. Through this process, organisations can gauge the effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability of their programmes, and distil key insights that can enhance the effectiveness of future planning and resource allocation.

Communicate MEAL findings

Vital programme insights must be communicated clearly and frequently so that decision makers can use them in planning. This enables efficiencies in resource allocation and improves stakeholder engagement. SFA Foundation programme and communications teams use stakeholder meetings, feedback mechanisms, multimedia communication and regular updates and reports to convey findings across constituencies.

A cross-cutting commitment to incorporation and implementation of MEAL into programmes will increase their efficiency and effectiveness.

About the Author(s)

Kevin Kasoli

Kasoli is a Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning Officer at the SFA Foundation