MEAL (Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning)
We design a measurement system sized for your team, so you track fewer things and use them more.
At a glance
The problem
You collect data because funders ask for it, but it doesn't help you decide anything. Indicators pile up, spreadsheets multiply, and you still can't say what changed for the people you serve.
- Timeline
- Flexible. It depends on your team's availability.
- Format
- Workshops with program staff.
- Delivery
- Remote or in person.
- Investment
- On request.
Who it's for
- Organizations that report to funders or investors and want to learn from their own data.
Who it's not for
- Organizations that want numbers to support a conclusion they've already written.
What's included
Deliverables, depending on what you need
- A theory of change
- An indicator framework
- Data collection tools
- A simple routine for reviewing results
How it starts
- We clarify the change you expect and for whom.
- We choose indicators and build the tools.
- We test them with your team.
- We review the first results together and adjust.
Methodologies we can use
We choose the approach that fits your program, your funders and your team's capacity. Examples:
Theory of Change
Maps how your activities lead to outcomes, and the assumptions in between. It makes the logic of your work explicit and shows what to measure, so it is a good start for a new program or a review, and funders and program teams often ask for it.
Logical framework (logframe)
Sets out goals, outputs, indicators and risks in one table that funders recognize. It is easy to monitor and useful when a funder or institution asks for a standard results framework, as public funders, development agencies and NGOs applying for grants often do.
Results-Based Management (RBM)
A management approach that sets expected results from the start and uses monitoring data to steer decisions and report progress. It helps when you want evidence to guide the work as it happens, not only at the end, and public funders, development agencies and large NGOs often expect it.
Outcome Harvesting
Identifies outcomes after the fact, including unexpected ones, rather than only checking planned targets. It works well when change is complex or hard to predict, or when a program has already run, and foundations, networks and advocacy organizations often choose it.
Most Significant Change
Collects and discusses stories from participants to find what mattered most to them, which numbers alone miss. Use it to complement data or to learn from a program's participants; community organizations and funders who want participants' voices ask for it.
Social Return on Investment (SROI)
Puts a value on social outcomes in relation to the resources invested, which helps explain value for money. It is useful when you need to compare costs and benefits or defend a budget, and investors, public bodies and funders focused on return ask for it.
Contribution analysis
Tests how far your work, rather than other factors, contributed to a change you can observe. It is useful when many actors work on the same issue and you need to be honest about your part, and evaluators, policy teams and funders asking about attribution request it.
OECD DAC evaluation criteria
A shared set of questions (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability) that most evaluators and funders recognize. It fits formal evaluations and funders who expect a recognized framework, such as development agencies, public funders and international organizations.
IRIS+ and the Five Dimensions of Impact
Shared standards for describing and comparing impact with investors. They let you report in the same terms investors use, so they help when you report to impact investors or want comparable data, and impact investors, funds and the enterprises they back ask for them.
Workshops we've given on this topic
Theory of Change Lab
Map the change you want to create, for whom, and the assumptions behind it. It turns a vague idea of impact into a clear chain from activities to results, so everyone works toward the same change. It suits new programs, funding proposals and teams that describe their impact in different ways, and founders, program leads and funders often ask for it.
Frequently asked questions
We're a small team. Is MEAL too much for us?
No. We size the system to your team, and a few good indicators beat fifty that nobody uses.
Do we need special software?
No. Most teams start with forms and spreadsheets they already have.
Our funders already gave us indicators. Do we start over?
No. We start from what you report now, remove duplicates, and add only what helps you decide.
Can you evaluate one specific project?
Yes. We scope evaluations separately.
Don't know which one to go for? Read more about each one in this article: MEAL methodologies compared: how each one works and when to choose it Coming soon