.

English

Your saved sections ( )

Close

Add title here

Download

Mega Nav Image

The Social Way Toolkit

Find out more

Add title here

Download

Mega Nav Image

1.5 Monitoring and evaluation

Setting indicators

Contents in this section:

1.5 Monitoring and evaluation

What is meant by monitoring versus evaluation – how do they differ?

Aligning monitoring and evaluation with operational risk management language

Considerations in monitoring and evaluation approach

Setting indicators

Considering vulnerable groups in monitoring and evaluation

Participatory monitoring and evaluation

Indicators assist us to objectively measure our progress and performance towards achieving the stated objective. Indicators are used to measure the resources we have used (inputs), how we have used them (activities), what we have done (outputs) and what changes have occurred (outcomes) as result of our intervention (impact of the intervention).

The socio-economic baseline allows for the identification of indicators for the pre-intervention status. For example: if an outcome indicator for an impact control is a reduced average vehicle speed passing through relevant areas in a community, the baseline ‘pre-control’ average speed will need to be known in order to measure against this indicator. In this way indicators in the monitoring framework should inform the external context review and vice versa.

Sites should consider establishing both quantitative and qualitative performance indicators. For many social performance-related interventions, qualitative indicators can provide a depth of understanding that helps us understand the effects of our interventions. For example, a quantitative indicator could be used to track the number of participants attending a community-awareness-raising workshop. A qualitative indicator would provide us with data on how useful people found the workshop, and why. As discussed below, sites should work to ensure that indicators are SMART.

BOX 1.4 SMART indicators

Specific – linked directly with what it is measuring;
Measurable – simple to understand/measure and indicator collection is precisely defined (what, who, how, where, when) and can be replicated; i.e. the same data will be collected independently of who is collecting it;
Attainable – collection of data for the indicator must be feasible within available time, skills and financial resources;
Relevant – indicator is relevant to the inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes associated with the intervention objective; and
Time-bound – dates/time frames for when indicator is collected should be defined.

Indicators should have a means of verification, which tells you where the data or information for your indicator comes from e.g. feedback received in a survey or through discussions with affected stakeholders; data records from an environmental monitoring tool; internal records; third party study.

Indicators should have an ‘owner’, i.e. the position accountable for the delivery of the agreed outputs. The owner should monitor the indicator for progress against target and to identify if further corrective action is required or not.

Progress against indicators should be reported to the Social Performance team and a consolidated feedback included within the agenda of relevant SPMC meetings (as defined in advance as part of the monitoring and evaluation framework).

Compliance with regulatory, contractual and permitting requirements may require specific monitoring indicators to be adopted that are not relevant for defining inputs, outputs, outcomes or impact of interventions. These indicators will need to be monitored to reflect such compliance requirements.