Tracking results: monitoring basics for grants and program staff

Learn how to select indicators, set targets, and build a practical monitoring plan to track program results and improve implementation.

When It Matters

Monitoring is the day-to-day work of collecting and reviewing information that shows how an operation is proceeding and what needs correcting. Set it up when you plan an award, because a baseline has to exist before the program starts.

Done well, monitoring supports learning inside the team, shows what needs correcting, and shows transparency and accountability. It also complements impact evaluation by showing how program activities are actually taking place.

Collecting no data on what a program actually did can hide flaws, keep inefficient programs running, and leave funders unable to tell whether money is used as intended.

How It Works

Monitoring is a cycle. Here are the basic steps.

  1. Decide what you need to learn. Go back to the outcomes you expect and pick the few that matter most. For each candidate metric, ask what decision you could not make without it and whether a specific action will follow from the finding.
  2. Choose indicators, then set a baseline and a target. An indicator is something observable and measurable that shows progress. The baseline is where the measure stands before the program starts. The target is the level you want to reach by a stated time.
  3. Write the monitoring plan. It says what data you need, where it comes from, how it is collected and analyzed, when, and who is responsible. It is recommended to write it before implementation starts, so that time, responsibility and cost are clear.
  4. Collect on a schedule. Frequency varies by project, from routine monthly tracking and quarterly reflection to annual reviews. Mix quantitative and qualitative methods and primary and secondary sources, so you can cross-check whether the numbers reflect reality.
  5. Review together and act. Look at the results with your team and use them to learn and improve. Progress reports every quarter and every six months should be results-oriented and action focused.

At every level of the results chain, the questions are the same: are activities leading to the expected outputs, and are those outputs leading to the intended outcomes?

Key Components

  • Activities, outputs and outcomes. Outputs are the direct results of activities and are within project control. Outcomes are the changes that happen because of the work, expected or unexpected, welcome or unwelcome. Tracking only physical delivery does not show how a program is performing, so you need information on outcomes too.
  • Indicator. An observable and measurable behavior or finding that shows whether progress is being made. A common test is SMART: specific, measurable, accurate, realistic and timely, and objectively verifiable so that different people get the same measurement.
  • Baseline, target and benchmark. The baseline is the starting level, the target is the level you want by a stated time, and a benchmark is a standard, such as results from a similar group, that you compare against. A weak baseline harms the validity of all later monitoring, because every later result is compared with it.
  • Sources, methods and responsibility. For each indicator, the plan names the source, how and when the data is collected, and who collects it.
  • Review rhythm. Fixed points, such as quarterly learning and reflection, where the team looks at the results.
  • Budget line. Data collection, processing, analysis, reporting, capacity building and field support must be costed in time and resources. A common allocation is 5 to 10 percent of the project budget for monitoring, evaluation and learning.

Best Practices

Track the vital few. Too many indicators add work and cost for collecting, recording and analyzing data, and they bury you in information. Keep to outcomes that are core to the theory of change, and hold a dashboard to one or two metrics per outcome.

Test each indicator against a decision. Ask whether a specific action will follow from the finding and whether your organization has the resources and commitment to take it. Also ask how much burden collection places on other people.

Disaggregate where you can. Build indicators so data can be broken down by sex, age and other relevant variables.

Mix methods and sources. Using quantitative and qualitative methods and primary and secondary sources lets you cross-check whether the information reflects reality.

Involve local partners. They know about holidays, transport limits and social divisions that can distort data collection and results. Schedule regular checks with them.

Get consent. People must be told about the procedures and risks and agree to take part before you collect data from them.

Plan and budget before implementation. Put monitoring time into staff workplans, and fund it from the start. Name the person or team accountable for each outcome.

Common Mistakes

Collecting too much. Gathering more data than you can analyze wastes time and effort. Ask of each metric whether a specific action will follow from it, and keep to the vital few.

Collecting too little. A focus on proving impact can push out the use of data to learn and improve how the program is run. Track what the program actually did as well as what changed.

Stopping at outputs. Counting workshops held or items delivered does not show whether behavior, knowledge, skills or practices changed. Information about outcomes is also needed.

Starting from a weak baseline. If the starting point is shaky, every later comparison is shaky too. Spend the time to get an accurate baseline before activities begin.

Forgetting the learning. The learning part of monitoring, evaluation and learning is the part most likely to be overlooked. Hold regular learning and reflection sessions, such as every quarter. The Core Humanitarian Standard expects organizations to learn, innovate and make changes based on monitoring, evaluation, feedback and complaints.

Example

This is a made-up illustration, not real data. Picture a small NGO running a school attendance program in a rural district. The indicator is the percentage of enrolled children attending regularly.

Prior-year school records give a baseline of 75 percent attendance. The team then looks for a benchmark and finds a nearby high-performing area at 80 percent. Weighing the two together, they set a target of 80 percent attendance by the end of the school year, a 5 percentage point increase from the baseline.

The monitoring plan records the rest. The source is the attendance records, the principal is responsible for collection, and the team reviews the data every quarter. To cross-check the records, a staff member also holds short interviews with parents, who are told about the interviews and any risks and agree to take part.

At the first quarterly review, attendance has moved up from the baseline but is well short of the target. The progress report does not just list the parent meetings held. It asks why the gain is small. The parent interviews point to a road made impassable by heavy rain, which keeps some children at home.

That finding leads to action. The team talks with the community and local partners about repairing the road and adjusts its plan. At the next quarterly review, they check whether access, and then attendance, has improved. The indicator showed the gap, and the interviews explained it.

Further Reading