Discuss the differences between monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and present a historical

development of M&E

 Discuss questions typically require an in depth answer that takes into account all aspects
of the debate concerning a research topic or argument. You must demonstrate reasoning
skills with this type of question, by using evidence to make a case for or against a
research topic/ argument. Advantage and disadvantages of a question.

Monitoring
→ “A continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on specified indicators to
provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing development intervention with
indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives and progress in the use of
allocated funds” (OECD DAC)

Monitoring
Gives ongoing information via select indicators, on the direction of change, the pace of change,
and the magnitude of change. It can also identify unanticipated
changes.
→ Are targets being reached?
→ Is the program/policy/country on track?
Monitoring
Can happen at different levels
→ Project/program
→ Sector
→ National / sub-national
What can we monitor?
• Monitoring may include indicators for:
→ Spending
→ Inputs
→ Activities
→ Outputs
→ Outcomes
Examples of project level monitoring
indicators: FARM Project
• Component 1
- Number of farmers, processors, others who adopted new
technologies
- Hectares under improved technologies
- Number of individuals that have received training, by sex
• Component 2
- Number of producer organizations receiving assistance
- Number of women farmers organizations assisted
• Component 3
- Number of training events
Who monitors?
• Monitoring can be anchored and carried out at
various institutional levels
→ National M&E agency
→ National statistics agency
→ Line Ministries
→ Local government
→ Project staff
→ Third sector
→ Donor agencies
→ A combination of these
Monitoring - what’s it good for?
• Critical to knowing whether policies, programs, and
projects are moving in the intended direction.
• Building a monitoring system to continuously track
performance ought to be essential for managers.
• If used properly, can improve service delivery and
provide data for evaluation
Monitoring - what doesn’t it tell us?
Relevance
Implementation
Efficiency
Cost-effectiveness
Causality
Attribution
Sustainability
Evaluation
→ “The systematic and objective assessment of an on-going or completed project, programme or
policy, its design, implementation and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and
fulfillment of objectives, development efficiency, evaluation effectiveness, impact and
sustainability” (OECD DAC, 2010)
Evaluation
→ “In contrast to monitoring, evaluations are carried out at discrete points in time and often seek
an outside perspective from technical experts” (World Bank, 2011)
→ Evaluation assesses results achieved and informs succeeding plans (APCoP, 2011)
Process Evaluation
→ Often asks:
• Whether services and goals are properly aligned
• Whether services are delivered as intended to the appropriate recipients.
• How well service delivery is organized.
• The effectiveness of program management.
• How efficiently program resources are used.
Program Evaluation
→ “A study, using research methods to collect and analyze data of the outcome of a program,
that is whether and how well a program is working”
→ Examines whether specific objectives were reached within a given budget and time period.
Process Evaluation
→ “A study of the implementation of a program or policy focusing on inputs, activities, and
outputs, and often used to assess the performance of implementers.”
→ Often focussed on the internal dynamics of implementing organizations, policy instruments,
service delivery mechanisms, management practices, and the linkages among these.
Performance Evaluation
“Mixing it up - process and outcome focus”:
• What a project or program has achieved.
• How it is being implemented
• How it is perceived and valued;
• Whether expected results are occurring;
• Other questions pertinent to program design, management,
and operational decision making
• Often include before and after comparisons, but generally lack
a rigorously defined counterfactual.
Impact Evaluation
→ An evaluation, which examines the final
welfare outcomes of a project, program or
policy.
→ A counterfactual analysis, which seeks to
establishing causality and attribution.
Complementarity of M & E
• The main difference between monitoring and evaluation is their timing and focus of
assessment.
• Monitoring and evaluation are integrally linked; monitoring typically provides data for
evaluation, and elements of evaluation (assessment) occur when monitoring.
• E.g. Monitoring looks at how many farmers were training (what happened), but may also
include post-training tests (assessments) on how well they were trained
• More monitoring than evaluation going on – but quality and utility is not always high
M&E – Summing up
• It’s all about measuring results
• Monitoring and evaluation are two separate but interrelated strategies to collect data and
report the findings on how well (or not) the public sector is performing
• If used strategically they can be powerful management and policy-making tools.
References
• Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Managing for Development
Results (2011) Framework for Results-Based Public Sector
Management.
• Brown, A. (2012) Evaluation in the M&E context. Presentation for
SHIPDET Special Topic Course on Evaluation. Kunming, PRC.
• Capuno, J. (2012) Introduction to Evaluation Techniques.
Presentation for AFDC-APCoP-ADB Special Course on Resultsbased
Planning, Budgeting and Evaluation, Urumqi, PRC.
• Castro, Manuel Fernando, Gladys Lopez-Acevedo, Gita Beker
Busjeet, and Ximena Fernandez Ordonez. 2009. “Mexico’s M&E
System: Scaling Up from the Sectoral to the National Level.”
Independent Evaluation Group, ECD Working Paper Series 20, World
Bank, Washington, DC
References
• Engela, Ronette, and Tania Ajam (2010). Implementing a
Governmentwide Monitoring and Evaluation System in South Africa.
Independent Evaluation Group, ECD Working Paper Series 21, World
Bank, Washington D.C.
• Kusek & Rist (2004) Ten steps to a results-based monitoring and
evaluation system : a handbook for development practitioners, World
Bank, Washington D.C.
• OECD DAC (2010). Glossary of Key Terms in Evauation and Results
Based Management.
• Shepherd, Geoffrey (2011). Conducting Diagnoses of M&E Systems
and Capacities, PREM Notes Number 16, World Bank, Washington
D.C.
• Soto, G. (2010) Integrating Evaluation into Decision Making: The
Mexico Experience. Presentation at World Bank Regional Impact
Evaluation Workshop, Ghana.
Kusek JZ, Rist RC (2004) A Handbook for Development Practitioners. Ten Steps to a Results-
based Monitoring and Evaluation System. The World Bank, Washington DC.
Available from: http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/ppme/10steps2resultbasedMonitoring.pdf
In broad terms, monitoring is carried out in order to track progress and performance as a basis for
decision-making at various steps in the process of an initiative or project. Evaluation, on the
other hand is a more generalised assessment of data or experience to establish to what extent the
initiative has achieved its goals or objectives.
Monitoring systems provide managers and other stakeholders with regular information on
progress relative to targets and outcomes. This enables managers to keep track of progress,
identify any problems, alter operations to take account of experience, and develop any budgetary
requests and justify them. This enables the early identification of problems so that solutions can
be proposed. It is considered to be a critical part of good management.
Periodic evaluation is also considered to be good practice, and can be used to investigate and
analyse why targets are or are not being achieved. It looks at the cause and effect of situations
and trends which are recorded within monitoring.
1.2.1 Definitions of monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring is the continuous collection of data on specified indicators to assess for a
development intervention (project, programme or policy) its implementation in relation to
activity schedules and expenditure of allocated funds, and its progress and achievements in
relation to its objectives.
Evaluation is the periodic assessment of the design, implementation, outcomes and impact of
a development intervention. It should assess the relevance and achievement of objectives,
implementation performance in terms of effectiveness and efficiency, and the nature,
distribution and sustainability of impacts.
Source: unit author, (adapted from OECD (2002), Casley and Kumar (1987)
It is clear that monitoring and evaluation are different yet complementary. Monitoring is the
process of routinely gathering information with which to make informed decisions for project
management. Monitoring provides project managers with the information needed to assess the
current project situation and assess where it is relative to specified targets and objectives –
identifying project trends and patterns, keeping project activities on schedule, and measuring
progress toward expected outcomes. Monitoring can be carried out at the project, programme or
policy levels.
Monitoring provides managers and other stakeholders with regular information on progress
relative to targets and outcomes. It is descriptive and should identify actual or potential successes
and problems as early as possible to inform management decisions
Evaluation, on the other hand, gives information about why the project is or is not achieving its
targets and objectives. Some evaluations are carried out to determine whether a project has met
(or is meeting) its goals. Others examine whether or not the project hypothesis was valid, and
whether or not it addressed priority needs of the target population. Depending on the purpose of
a particular evaluation, it might assess other areas such as achievement of intended goals, cost-
efficiency, effectiveness, impact and / or sustainability. Evaluations address: ‘why’ questions,
that is, what caused the changes being monitored; ‘how’ questions, or what was the sequence or
process that led to successful (or unsuccessful) outcomes; and ‘compliance and accountability’
questions, that is, did the promised activities actually take place and as planned? Evaluations are
more analytical than monitoring, and seek to address issues of causality. A baseline study is the
first phase of a project evaluation. It is used to measure the ‘starting or reference points’ of
indicators of effect and impact
DEFINING “MONITORING”
Everyday notion of “monitoring” = checking/ measuring/ close observation/ “policing”/
“supervising”

Everyday examples:
Monitoring the patient’s blood pressure
Monitoring your weight
Monitoring household expenditure
Monitoring –in everyday life –is the close (even continuous) and systematic observation
(“surveillance”) of an object.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MONITORINGAND EVALUATION

But what is the relationship between the notions of “monitoring” and “evaluation”?

Is monitoring an activity where we simply describe what we observe or measure and evaluation
–as the word suggests –is an activity where we make value judgements (that go beyond
description)? It is not as simple as this.

On the basis of monitoring certain phenomena or actions (including programme activities) we

certainly do make value judgements.

In addition, when monitoring is done in relation to targets it can be seen as evaluative.

If the patient’s blood pressure is too low or too high we conclude that “the person is at risk”
(which is an evaluative statement and nor merely descriptive). If household expenditure is too
high, we conclude that “we have to cut back on certain luxury items”. Such value judgements
then may translate into a new course of action or intervention.
THE ORIGINS
Interest in evaluation arose in the United States because research was not sufficient to meet the
demand for a systematic examination of what was going on in the field…
Since then, new systems and methods of looking at projects, which differ from those of
conventional research, have been used, breaking from the conventional stream of research (Rossi
& Freeman, 1982). These systems and methods were not only new in their approach but were
also called by a different name: “evaluation” (Rossi & Wright, 1984; Tyler, 1942)
The demands on the evaluators and evaluation in general changed from examining operational
and measurable aims in the 1950s to producing useful information for the decision-makers and
even to shaping the actual intervention in the 1970s (Nevo, 1989; Scriven,1967; Stufflebeam et
al., 1974)
DEFINING “EVALUATION”
Evaluation research is the systematic application of social research procedures for assessing the
conceptualization, design, implementation and utility of social intervention programmes.
(Rossi. Lipsey and Freeman 2004:2)

Evaluation is the systematic assessmentof the operation and/or the outcomes of a program or
policy, compared to a set of explicit or implicit standardsas a means of contributing to the
improvement of the program or policy. (Wei
PURPOSE OF EVALUATION
When we evaluatea programme (or anything else for that matter) we basically make a judgment
of the evaluandwith reference to certain evaluation criteria or principles such as:
Relevance (the right or appropriate thing to do)
Effectiveness and Impact (achieving the correct results)
Efficiency (achieving results with optimal resources)
Value for money (achieving the right results [value] given the available finances [money]

(OECD DAC 2009)

REFERENCES
Calvert J and Martin B 2001Changing conceptions of basic research http://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-
tech/2674369.pdf

Levin-Rozalis M (2003) Evaluation and Research: Differences and Similarities. The Canadian
Journal of Program Evaluation Vol. 18 No. 2 Pages 1–31
Rossi P, Freeman M and Lipsey H. 2004. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach 7thEdition.
SAGE. Thousand Oaks, California.
Smith N and Brandon P (ed). 2008. Fundamental Issues in Evaluation. Guilford Press, New
York.

A step by step guide to

Monitoring and Evaluation
http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/research/technologies/projects/
monitoringandevaluation.html
Monitoring and Evaluation for Sustainable Communities by
http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/research/technologies/projects/
monitoringandevaluation.html is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Non-
Commercial Share Alike 3.0 Unported
License.
Version 1.0 Published January 2014.

Handbook
for Monitoring
and Evaluation
1st Edition
October 2002
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
PO Box 372
CH-1211 Geneva 19
Switzerland
Telephone: +41 22 730 4222
Telefax: +41 22 733 0395
Telex: 412 133 FRC CH
E-mail: secretariat@ifrc.org
Web site: www.ifrc.org

Monitoring is the day-to-day management task of collecting and reviewing information that
reveals
how an operation is proceeding and what aspects of it, if any, need correcting.
Monitoring is a continuing function that uses the systematic collection of data on
specified indicators to inform management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing
International Federation or national society operation of the extent of progress and
achievement of results in the use of allocated funds.

Evaluation is the systematic and objective assessment of an on-going or completed

operation, programme or policy, its design, implementation and results. The aim is to
determine the relevance and fulfillment of objectives, as well as efficiency, effectiveness,
Impact (overall Goal) and sustainability. An evaluation should provide information that is
credible and useful, enabling the incorporation of lessons into management decision-making.

Monitoring occurs throughout the operation. A baseline study is usually conducted before the
operations begins. Evaluations can occur - for different purposes - at different points on an
evaluation.

Monitoring* of a program or intervention involves the collection of routine data that

measure progress toward achieving program objectives. It is used to track changes in program
performance over time. Its purpose is to permit stakeholders to make informed decisions
regarding the effectiveness of programs and the efficient use of resources.
Monitoring is sometimes referred to as process evaluation because it focuses on the
implementation process and asks key questions:
How well has the program been implemented?
How much does implementation vary from site to site?
Did the program benefit the intended people? At what cost?
Monitoring is an ongoing, continuous process; requires the collection of data at multiple points
throughout the program cycle, including at the beginning to provide a baseline; and can be used
to determine if activities need adjustment during the intervention to improve desired outcomes.
program activities have met expected objectives and/or the extent to which changes in outcomes
can be attributed to the program or intervention. The difference in the outcome of interest
between having or not having the program or intervention is known as its “impact,” and
measuring this difference and is commonly referred to as “impact evaluation.”
Evaluations require: data collection at the start of a program (to provide a baseline) and
again at the end, rather than at repeated intervals during program implementation; a control or
comparison group in order to measure whether the changes in outcomes can be attributed to the
program; and a well-planned study design.
The National Council of Population and Development wants to know if the
programs being carried out in province A are reducing unintended pregnancy
among adolescents in that province.
This is evaluation because it is concerned with the impact of particular
programs.
USAID wants to know how many sex workers have been reached by your
program this year.
 This is monitoring because it is concerned with counting the number of
something (sex workers reached).
A country director is interested in finding out if the post-abortion care provided in
public clinics meets national standards of quality.
This is monitoring because it requires tracking something (quality of care).

Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation for Results Based Strategies Results-

By Rosalίa Rodriguez-Garcίaand Jody Z. Kusek, GHAP, The World Bank, March 1, 2007,
with valuable contributions from GHAP and WBI colleagues at the World Bank.

Difference between monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring means tracking the key elements of programme performance on a regular

basis (inputs, activities, results).
In contrast, evaluation is the episodic assessment of the change in targeted results that can be
attributed to the programme/project intervention, or the analysis of inputs and activities to
determine their contribution to results

What is monitoring?
●A continuous internal process for making sure that the activities under the
programme/project (e.g., the implementation of ERC capacity building as stated in the
national strategy) are on track

●Monitoring of the activities should be done on a regular basis

●The process should provide regular feedback

●Progress of project activities, use of resources, results achieved and institutional systems
(staffing, policies, etc.) should be monitored

Image: http://www.galilcol.ac.il/pictures/pictures/M&E_1.jpg

What is evaluation?
●Systematic way of collecting, analysing and using information to answer basic questions
about a project/programme.

●Can be internal, external or involving many key stakeholders

●Can be done by
–Process evaluation: assess whether an intervention/model was implemented as planned,
whether the target population was reached, and what were the major challenges and successful
strategies used- Example: Have trainings in ERC been completed as planned?
–Outcome evaluation: determine whether and to what extent the expected changes occurred and
whether these changes can be attributed to the programme activities. Example: Have trained
personnel been deployed in an emergency response in a timely way?

Introduction to
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring HIV/AIDS Programs
AFACILITATOR’STRAININGGUIDE
A USAID RESOURCE FOR PREVENTION, CARE AND TREATMENT

Definition:
Monitoring is the routine process of data collection and measurement of progress toward
program objectives.
• Monitoring involves counting what we are doing.
• Monitoring involves routinely looking at the quality of our services.
Definition:
Evaluation is the use of social research methods to systematically investigate a program’s
effectiveness.
• Evaluation requires study design.
• Evaluation sometimes requires a control or comparison group.
• Evaluation involves measurements over time.
• Evaluation involves special studies.
Monitoring addresses the following questions:
1. To what extent are planned activities actually realized? Are we making progress toward
achieving our objectives?
2. What services are provided, to whom, when, how often, for how long, and in what
context?
3. How well are the services provided?
4. What is the quality of the services provided?
5. What is the cost per unit service?
Monitoring also assesses the extent to which a program or project:
1. Is undertaken consistently with each design or implementation plan
2. Is directed toward the specified target group
Evaluation is used for the following:
1. To assess the changes in the target group (e.g., changes in risk behavior)
2. To assess the extent to which objectives have been met. It is the process of determining
the effectiveness of a program or a project.
3. To track the outcomes and impacts of programs or projects at the larger population level,
as opposed to the program or project level:
• Outcomes—Short-term or intermediate results obtained by the program through the
execution of activities
• Impact—Long-term effects (e.g., changes in health status). This can be through special
studies with wide district, regional, or national coverage.
Evaluation addresses the following questions:
1. What outcomes are observed?
2. What do the outcomes mean?
3. Does the program make a difference?
Evaluations are conducted to find out what has happened as a result of a project or program or
a set of projects and programs. Conducting evaluations is very challenging for several reasons:

Monitoring and Evaluation:

Are We Making a Difference?
by Justine Hunter
Published by
Namibia Institute for Democracy
Funded by
United States Agency for International Development [USAID] and Embassy of Finland
Copyright: 2009 Namibia Institute for Democracy
What is monitoring and evaluation?
It is increasingly recognised that M & E are indispensable management functions, and they are
therefore set by donor agencies as preconditions for the allocation of funds to NGOs and CSOs.
Monitoring and evaluation tend to be understood as one and the same thing. Though related,
however, they are two different sets of organisational activities. Monitoring is the systematic
collection and analysis of information as a project progresses. It is a valuable tool for good
management. It helps NGO and CSO staff members to determine whether financial resources
are sufficient and are being well used, whether the human capacity in their organisations is
adequate, and whether they are actually doing what they planned to do. Evaluation occurs at
the termination of the project, but sometimes also at mid-term, when what was promised in the
project proposal is compared with what has been accomplished, and actual project impacts are
measured against the strategic plans agreed upon with donors at the project’s outset

4 Differences and links between

monitoring and evaluation
4.1 Monitoring
Monitoring is an on-going activity that tracks the progress of the project during its lifetime.
Therefore, monitoring is an integral part of our day-to-day operational management. It is used
to continuously assess the progress made with the project when viewed against its goals and
objectives, as outlined in the project proposal. It involves the so-called logical framework (see
Section 8) through which we track inputs, processes, activities, outputs and outcomes. These
are already outlined in the project proposal that is forwarded to donors in the planning stage
of the project. Thus, monitoring is based on targets set and activities planned during the
planning phase. These are tracked by using indicators (see Section 9). Monitoring is important,
as it might be necessary to modify activities should it emerge that they are not achieving the
desired results. Monitoring therefore helps us to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
a project.
Through routine data gathering, monitoring aims at:
• continuously assessing the project implementation in relation to the project plans,
resources and infrastructure, and the accessing of services by project beneficiaries;
• providing regular feedback for an ongoing learning process;
• improving the effectiveness of project interventions;
• increasing accountability with donors and other stakeholders;
• enabling project staff to identify strengths and successes, and alerting them to actual
and potential weaknesses and shortcomings;
• giving us time to make adjustments and take corrective actions where these are
required;
• enabling us to find out whether the project continues to be relevant for our target
group; and
• informing us on how well our project is performing against the expected results, as
outlined in the project proposal.
Monitoring is an on-going activity to track project progress during the lifetime of the project.
It is a continuous process of collecting and analysing information to compare how well a
project is performing against expected results. Evaluation will either be done at mid-term or
at the end of the project, or both.
Evaluation
Evaluation will be performed either at mid-term or at the end of the project, on conclusion of
all activities. Evaluation is a scientifically based assessment of the strengths and weaknesses
of the project. We assess the overall design, implementation and results of the completed
interventions. Evaluation thus deals with strategic issues such as project relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability (see Section 8) in the light of the objectives
formulated at the outset of the project. Evaluation includes:
• looking at the aims and objectives of the project (What difference did this project set
out to make? What impact should it have had?);
• assessing the progress made towards what we wanted to achieve at the outset;
• looking at the strategy chosen to implement the project (Did the strategy work? If
not, why not?); and
• assessing whether or not funds were used efficiently.
An evaluation that is performed at mid-term is called a formative
evaluation. This means that it takes place while the project is still running. The intention of
the formative evaluation is to improve the functioning of the project while it is still possible to
do so. It can predict the project’s final effects and can highlight adjustments that are required
to the project design. It examines the development of the project and may lead to changes
in the way the project is structured. In contrast, a summative evaluation only allows us to
draw lessons once the project has been completed. It therefore does not enable us to make
improvements to the specific project being evaluated. However, lessons may be learnt that can
be applied to enhance future projects and improve the functioning of the organisation. It is an
overall assessment of the project’s performance and its impact. It assesses the extent to which
the programme has succeeded in meeting its objectives, and the potential sustainability of
gains made through the programme.
Links between monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring usually precedes, leads up to and forms the basis for evaluation. This means that the
findings of the monitoring process can be used in the evaluation process. The same baseline data
(see
Section 7) may be used for both processes. Monitoring and evaluation may furthermore make
use of
the same research tools (see Section 10). Because of limited time and financial and human
resources,
however, project evaluations are conducted less frequently than monitoring activities. Table 3
below
compares monitoring and evaluation, while Table 4 below summarises their complementary
roles

Monitoring is the systematic and continuous collection and analysis of information about the
progress of a development intervention. Monitoring is done to ensure that all the people who
need to know about an intervention are properly informed, and so that decisions can be taken in a
timely manner. There are many different types of monitoring, including financial monitoring,
process monitoring and impact monitoring.

Traditionally, monitoring differs from evaluation because it is carried out by internal rather than
external staff, it is ongoing rather than periodic, and it focuses more on activities and outputs
than on outcomes and impact. In addition, monitoring usually relies on a system, rather than
being a one-off exercise carried out a specific point in time.
However, in many circumstances monitoring may be more important than evaluation, especially
for CSOs that want to learn from their experiences and use this to improve performance. There
are two main reasons for this. Firstly, monitoring is almost always conducted by in-house project
staff, while evaluations are frequently conducted by outside consultants. This means that the
monitoring process provides greater opportunities for CSO staff to utilise their own knowledge
and experience, while the learning resulting from evaluations is often focused more on the needs
and perceptions of outside agencies.
Secondly, because monitoring is a continuous process, rather than a periodic one, it enables
adjustments to be made in a timely and methodical way. This means that lessons can be applied
immediately rather than waiting months or even years for a formal evaluation to be conducted.
But if monitoring is the more important of the two in many circumstances, it is also more
difficult to do well (Gosling and Edwards 2003). This is because it relies on a system, rather than
being a one-off task carried out by a dedicated team or individual. To serve a useful purpose, this
system needs to generate information that is relevant, accurate and timely for a range of different
stakeholders. This is often a difficult exercise, especially as many CSO staff engaged in
monitoring are not M&E specialists.
References
 Gosling, L and Edwards, M (2003). Toolkits: A practical guide to assessment, monitoring,
review and evaluation. Second edition. Save the Children, UK.
 IFRC (2011). Project/programme Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Guide. International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Geneva, 2011.
 Pratt, B and Boyden, J (eds.) (1985). The Field Directors' Handbook: An Oxfam Manual for
Development Workers. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
 Simister, N (2000). Laying the Foundations: The role of data collection in the monitoring
systems of development NGOs. Occasional paper 01/00. Bath, Centre for Development Studies,
University of Bath.

Basic Principles of
Monitoring and Evaluation
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
2:00 PM (EDT)
Dr. Beverly J Nyberg
occurring and progress is being made, e.g. tracking inputs and outputs.
Monitoring data indicates:
• how programs are conducted. Is the intervention on track or on budget? (inputs & activities)
• program’s level of performance. Is it reaching the desired number of households? (outputs)
Evaluation – Systematic collection of information to learn why and/or to what
extent a program has been successful/unsuccessful. Ascertains whether the
inputs and outputs have produced the desired results – that is, evaluating their
effectiveness
What’s the difference?
Monitoring –
Evaluating –
Tracks what we are doing (primarily
inputs & outputs) to assess whether
programs are performing according to
plan. Are we doing things right?
Assesses if we have achieved the
desired results (outcomes & impact)
Are we doing the right things
Monitoring Data 1
• Provides regular feedback that measures change
over time in any of the program components such
as costs, personnel and program implementation
• Can be analyzed to track the efficiency of achieving
program goals and objectives
• An unexpected change in monitoring data may
trigger the need for a more formal evaluation of
activities
Evaluation Data
• Can be used to assess the effectiveness, relevance and
impact of achieving your program’s goals.
• Often involves measuring changes in knowledge, attitudes,
behaviors, skills, community norms, utilization of services
• Provides feedback that helps programs analyze the
consequences, outcomes and results of its actions

While monitoring provides real-time information required by management, evaluation

provides more in-depth assessment.The monitoring process can generate questions to
be answered by evaluation. Also, evaluation draws heavily on data generated through
monitoring during the programme and project cycle, including, for example, baseline
data, information on the programme or project implementation process and measurements
of results.
Monitoring and evaluation have been defined as:
Monitoring
“A continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on specified indicators to
provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing development intervention
with indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives and progress in the
use of allocated funds”1.
Evaluation
“The systematic and objective assessment of an on-going or completed project, programme
or policy, its design, implementation and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and
fulfillment of objectives, development efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. An
evaluation should provide information that is credible and useful, enabling the incorporation
of lessons learned into the decision-making process of both recipients and donors.
Evaluation also refers to the process of determining the worth or significance of an activity,
policy or programme. An assessment, as systematic and objective as possible, of a planned,
on-going, or completed development intervention.
Note: Evaluation in some instances involves the definition of appropriate standards, the
examination of performance against those standards, an assessment of actual and expected
results and the identification of relevant lessons”2.
The above definitions are widely used by the development assistance community. The
definitions proposed by the Policy Framework for the Government-wide Monitoring and
Evaluation
System3 also broadly accord with the above definitions.
Evaluation is the determination of merit or shortcoming. To make the judgement one needs
a standard of what is regarded as meritorious to compare with. Evaluation is thus a process
of comparison to a standard. For instance, the statement “a high quality service has been
delivered that met the needs of clients and improved their circumstances” is an evaluation.
The evaluation will be better if “quality”, “needs” and “improvement in circumstances” have
been quantified.
The emphasis in monitoring is on checking progress towards the achievement of an objective.
A good monitoring system will thus give warning, early on in the implementation of a course
of action, that the end goal will be reached as planned. Monitoring also involves a process of
comparison because actual performance is compared with what was planned or expected.
A simple example is the monitoring of the completion of the planned activities of a project

Monitoring
•The routine processof data collection(monthly, quarterly, annually) intendedto
measurewhetherthe programisdoingwhatisset out to do.

Evaluation
•The systematicinvestigationof whethera programiseffective: whetherthe
activitiesimplementedare havingthe desiredeffect.

•Evaluations are carried out periodically (mid project/end of project).

What is Monitoring?

..

Monitoring is the regular observation and recording To monitor is to check on how

of activities taking place in a project or programme. project activities are progressing.
.
It is a process of routinely gathering information on It is observation; –– systematic
all aspects of the project. and purposeful observation.

..

Monitoring also involves giving feedback Reporting enables the gathered

about the progress of the project to the information to be used in making
.
donors, implementors and beneficiaries of decisions for improving project
the project. performance.

..

Purpose of Monitoring:

..

Monitoring is very important It is like watching where you are going while riding a
in project planning and . bicycle; you can adjust as you go along and ensure that
implementation. you are on the right track.

..

Monitoring provides information that will be useful in:

 Analysing the situation in the community and its project;

 Determining whether the inputs in the project are well utilized;
 Identifying problems facing the community or project and finding solutions;
 Ensuring all activities are carried out properly by the right people and in time;
 Using lessons from one project experience on to another; and
 Determining whether the way the project was planned is the most appropriate
way of solving the problem at hand.

The Meaning of Evaluation:

Evaluation is a process of judging value on . It involves value judgement and hence

 what a project or programme has achieved it is different from monitoring (which
particularly in relation to activities planned is observation and reporting of
and overall objectives. observations)., Text 

..

Purpose of Evaluation:

Evaluation is important to Assessing the benefits and costs that accrue to the
identify the constraints or intended direct and indirect beneficiaries of the project.
bottlenecks that hinder the If the project implemented is for example, the
project in achieving its . protection of a spring, evaluation highlights the people
objectives. Solutions to the who fetch and use water and the people whose land is
constraints can then be wasted and whose crops are destroyed during the
identified and implemented. process of water collection.

..

Drawing lessons from the project Providing a clear picture of the extent
implementation experience and using the to which the intended objectives of the
.
lessons in re-planning of projects in that activities and project have been
community and elsewhere; and realized.

Differences between Monitoring and Evaluation

The common ground for monitoring and evaluation is that they are both management tools. For
monitoring, data and information collection for tracking progress according to the terms of
reference is gathered periodically which is not the case in evaluations for which the data and
information collection is happening during or in view of the evaluation. The monitoring is a short
term assessment and does not take into consideration the outcomes and impact unlike the
evaluation process which also assesses the outcomes and sometime longer term impact. This
impact assessment occurs sometimes after the end of a project, even though it is rare because of
its cost and of the difficulty to determine whether the project is responsible of the observed
results.[2]

Box 2. The distinction between monitoring and evaluation from other oversight activities
Like monitoring and evaluation, inspection, audit, review and research functions are oversight
activities, but they each have a distinct focus and role and should not be confused with
monitoring and evaluation.
Inspection is a general examination of an organizational unit, issue or practice to ascertain the
extent it adheres to normative standards, good practices or other criteria and to make
recommendations for improvement or corrective action. It is often performed when there is a
perceived risk of non-compliance.
Audit is an assessment of the adequacy of management controls to ensure the economical and
efficient use of resources; the safeguarding of assets; the reliability of financial and other
information; the compliance with regulations, rules and established policies; the effectiveness of
risk management; and the adequacy of organizational structures, systems and processes.
Evaluation is more closely linked to MfDR and learning, while audit focuses on compliance.
Reviews, such as rapid assessments and peer reviews, are distinct from evaluation and more
closely associated with monitoring. They are periodic or ad hoc, often light assessments, of the
performance of an initiative and do not apply the due process of evaluation or rigor in
methodology. Reviews tend to emphasize operational issues. Unlike evaluations conducted by
independent evaluators, reviews are often conducted by those internal to the subject or the
commissioning organization.
Research is a systematic examination completed to develop or contribute to knowledge of a
particular topic. Research can often feed information into evaluations and other assessments but
does not normally inform decision-making on its own.