M&E simply

2015-16
Vera Lacey Krylova

Lepras M&E

One of many definitions of M&E

to
s
p
l
he l is to
t
a
th
oa
s
g
s
e
s
t
,
c
I
s
o
t
.
r
s
u
p
t
s a e resul of outp
i
n
io
t
v
t
e
n
a
i
e
u
h
l
c
a
em
va
g
e
d
a
n
d
n
a
a
an
e
m
c
g
n
e
n
ori rforma
tur pedia
t
i
u
f
n
nd
iki
a
Mo ve pe
W
t
o
en
t.
r
r
c
r
p
a
u
p
c
im
m
e
i
v
d
o
r
imp mes an
o
outc

Lepras M&E

ToR for this session

What is M&E?
1. What does M stand for?
2. What does E stand
for?
3. What is the
difference?
4. Why do we need
this?

Lepras M&E

How we understand M&E

Lepras M&E

How we understand M&E

Lepras M&E

How we understand M&E

Lepras M&E

ME
Monitoring
- Ongoing
- Primary purpose is
programme
management
- Focus on outputs

What did we do?

Evaluation
- Less frequent
- The primary purpose is
judgement of merit
- Focusses more on
outcomes and impact

How did her life

change?

M&E

M&E of a parent

M&E

M&E of a parent

Lepras M&E

Linkages

Lepras M&E

M&E tools artificial separation

KAP survey

Focus groups
Attendance
registrars

Monitoring

Evaluation
survey
Patient
record
system

Works sheets
Minutes of
meetings
Advocacy
meeting
agenda

Project plan

Budgets

Baseline
survey

Transportatio
n log

Workshop
attendance
sheet

Evaluation

Needs
assessment
Social
Key
Audit
informant
interviews

M&E

M&E our problem, not

beneficiarys
Did you come for
KAP or
beneficiary
survey?

Are you here to

receive output
3.2.1 or 3.3.4?
Have you come
for outputs or
outcomes?
Are you here for
baseline or
follow up
survey?

I dont have a
survey for
beneficiaries in
wheelchair!

Lepras M&E

Static baseline
Randomly selected beneficiary group for baseline
and different random group for exit survey
Large scale baseline survey done at the beginning
and large scale endline at the end
Little use for project steering
Limited controls of false attribution
Baseline

Exit

M&E

Individual (dynamic) baseline

The initial sample selection is random but none of the
follow up surveys are random
Each person enters the project in their time
Change is captured on individual level
Reduced risk of false attribution
Baseline

Exit

M&E

Case study
Case study: M&E of management of patients with
diabetes 2
Key widely accepted indicators for improved outcomes
- patients' self care practice
- BP & weight & LDL
- emotional distress and quality of life

M&E

Case study continued

Static design for a two year project
The patient intake is supposed be staggered over 2 years
- patients' self care practice: monitored by health visitor
every two months using health visitor paper report
form
- BP & weight & LDL: monitored twice a year at a clinic
by a nurse practitioner, recorded in patient record
electronic system
- emotional distress and quality of life: collected twice at
baseline and endline point using external data
enumerators using their portable tablets

M&E

What would you do?

Suggest an alternative design to monitor the indicators
- patients' self care practice
- BP & weight & LDL
- emotional distress and quality of life
You do not have to but can do any of the following
Redefine the frequency
Redefine roles
Redefine tools

M&E

Everyone is unique

M&E

Everyone is unique

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesda
y

Thursday

M&E

Revision - Three things

New ideas?
New concepts?
New thoughts?

M&E
Our problem not the
beneficiarys
Lepras M&E

Go beyond artificial separation of monitoring tools and

evaluation tools
Tap into existing source of information regardless of their
label
Use the concept of beneficiary (dynamic) baseline
Cater to ALL beneficiaries they dont all enter the project
in the first two months of the project
Identify natural points for data collection
Saves you money, time
Allows you to gather more information
Is more beneficiary focussed
Minimise the need for recounts
Use beneficiary unique ID to prevent recount

4 success criteria

Will it be used?
How?
How often?
By whom?
Beyond the project?

4 success criteria

Can it be sustained?
Sustainability
- Throughout the
project
- After the project
- If a key member of
staff leaves
- In other scenarios

4 success criteria

Will it help the people we work

with?

4 success criteria

Is it good enough?
Donor accountability
- Provide evidence
not speculations
- No need to be
perfect
- Dont try to capture
ALL the insight

Thank you