Monitoring and Evaluation are two parts of the same agenda, meant to inform learning, accountability, and promote informed decision-making within the global development and humanitarian industries. But what function does monitoring and evaluation (M&E serve)? And if we have M&E as their own distinctive, discrete processes, why do we conduct third-party monitoring (TPM)? How is TPM differentiated from M&E? And how does it compare to M&E?
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring and Evaluation are the cornerstones of project management for interventions. It’s useful to differentiate between the concepts of monitoring and evaluation, as they are deeply interconnected processes, but operationally serve different purposes.
Monitoring is “the routine collection and analysis of information to track ongoing progress against plans and check compliance to established standards”. (IFRC) Monitoring, when done effectively, is useful for informing decision-making at multiple levels and ensures project accountability. As a process, monitoring demands clarity in the who, what, when, where, and how of intervention evaluation management.
For example:
- Who is responsible for measuring and collecting monitoring data?
- Who are the stakeholders and beneficiaries involved in the process?
- What is being measured? How will it measure it?
- What indicators will be, or are, being used?
- When does monitoring take place? And at what frequency?
On the other hand, evaluation provides information that allows donors, partners, and stakeholders to improve interventions by generating knowledge about what works, and conversely, what doesn’t. The process of evaluation involves identifying what has been done, and investigates the overall effectiveness of an intervention against its objectives. Thus, the purpose of an evaluation is to provide a sound assessment of the value of a project, program, policy or intervention. The main evidence generated by evaluations is a set of judgments about value and performance(ALNAP).
Evaluations are comprised of one or more of the following criteria:
- Relevance
Did the project adress the needs of the needs of the community? - Efficiency
Did the project do so in a manner that was low cost? - Effectiveness
Did the project change existing practices in a beneficial manner? - Impact
What was the effect of these changes? - Sustainability
Are these changes sustainable?
But: underpinning both of the processes of monitoring and evaluation is the fundamental question: “Are we doing the right things?”
So, what’s the difference between M&E and Third-Party Monitoring?
Within this Monitoring and Evaluation toolkit is Third-Party Monitoring (TPM). TPM is a useful tool for monitoring projects that would otherwise be inaccessible to clients and donors. One of the key differences between M&E and TPM is that whilst M&E can be conducted internally, TPM is conducted by an external, impartial third party. This independent perspective is both the boon and the bane of TPM. A boon or benefit, in that TPM can provide an independent perspective on the performance of humanitarian aid projects. A bane, in that the quality of TPM reports may vary, and external evaluators are not often trusted at the onset of TPM activities.
For projects in which millions of financial resources may be pooled into, TPM can identify potential problems within the program, and also provides solutions. TPM’s utility in this regard is clear- by being able to assess stakeholder engagement and hold up a magnifying glass to the processes and procedures of a given program, TPM provides valuable insights into strengths and weaknesses in regards to an interventions strengths and potential weaknesses, and often condenses these findings into concise reports. By knowing whether projects address key needs as may be perceived by the community, TPM reports are indeed a useful tool for monitoring and evaluation practices.
Interventions are largely measured in terms of their perceived success. M&E and TPM are tools that to gauge these successes of interventions, and when the need emerges, get help to get interventions back on track.
Sources
- http://allindiary.org/monitoring-and-evaluation-me/shttps://phap.org/theme-meal
- crs.org/sites/default/files/crs-files/institutional-strengthening-10-monitoring-evaluation.pdf
- https://www.alnap.org/help-library/missing-the-point-reflections-on-current-practice-in-evaluating-humanitarian-action
- https://www.alnap.org/blogs/are-humanitarian-evaluations-fit-for-purpose
About the Author
Lael is a Junior Officer at Trust, who recently joined our Business Development department, working on media and communication for Trust. A third culture kid turned public health scientist, Lael has a Masters of Science in International Public Health from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. She has spent the last year working as a frontline public health worker, providing COVID-19 testing and vaccines to rural communities in Georgia, and connecting families adversely affected by the pandemic with food, water, shelter, and utility resources.
Read more about Lael on LinkedIn.
