Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 30;15(sup1):2067396.
doi: 10.1080/16549716.2022.2067396.

Building coherent monitoring and evaluation plans with the Evaluation Planning Tool for global health

Affiliations

Building coherent monitoring and evaluation plans with the Evaluation Planning Tool for global health

Timothy Roberton et al. Glob Health Action. .

Abstract

Practitioners in global health are called to monitor and evaluate their projects. This keeps projects on track, it meets donor and public demand, and it is a key mechanism by which global health organizations hold themselves accountable and improve their community of practice. However, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is time- and resource-consuming, bringing into question whether the effort expended on M&E is worth it. While there has been a shift towards emphasizing the learning aspect of M&E, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other actors still struggle to get value from their efforts. One reason for this is that M&E plans are often not coherent or employed to their full potential. Theories of change, indicator lists, and data collection become a series of disjointed efforts that do not tie together. They become tick-the-box exercises to satisfy donors rather than a logical approach to draw meaningful findings for stakeholders, governments, and local communities. In this paper, we propose a step-by-step approach to utilizing M&E tools to their fullest potential, including: (1) a clearly defined theory of change that captures all program pathways and shows all intermediate objectives needed to achieve impact, (2) indicators which directly reflect the intermediate and ultimate objectives in the theory of change, and (3) a data collection plan which includes appropriate methods to measure indicators and address the questions stakeholders want answered. We make the case for a simpler, more coherent approach to M&E and propose a new tool to help practitioners more easily develop evaluation plans that are rigorous, practical, and worth the effort.

Keywords: Evaluation; M&E; NGOs; donors; monitoring and evaluation; non-governmental organizations; planning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References

    1. Bach-Mortensen AM, Montgomery P.. What are the barriers and facilitators for third sector organisations (non-profits) to evaluate their services? A systematic review. Syst Rev. 2018;7:23–28. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Christie CA. What guides evaluation? A study of how evaluation practice maps onto evaluation theory. New Dir. Eval. 2003;2003:7–36.
    1. Alkin MC, Vo AT, Hansen M. Using logic models to facilitate comparisons of evaluation theory. Eval. Program Plann. 2013;38:33. - PubMed
    1. Miller RL. Logic models: a useful way to study theories of evaluation practice? Eval. Program Plann. 2013;38:77–80. - PubMed
    1. Elbers W, Knippenberg L, Schulpen L. Trust or control? Private development cooperation at the crossroads. Public Adm. Dev. 2014;34:1–13.

Publication types